Reoperation for Bioprosthetic Mitral Structural Failure: Risk Assessment

Background—The predominant complication of bioprostheses is structural valve deterioration and the consequences of reoperation. The purpose of the study was to determine the mortality and risk assessment of that mortality for mitral bioprosthetic failure. Methods and Results—From 1975 to 1999, 1 973 patients received a heterograft bioprosthesis in 2 152 operations. The procedures were performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass (CAB) in 694 operations and without in 1 458 operations. There were 481 reoperations for structural valve deterioration performed in 463 patients with 34 fatalities (7.1%). Of the 481 re-replacements, 67 had CAB and 414 had isolated replacement; the mortality was 11.9% (8) and 6.3% (26), respectively. Eleven predictive factors inclusive of age, concomitant CAB, urgency status, New York Heart Association (NYHA; reoperation), and year of reoperation (year periods) were considered. The mortality from 1975 to 1986 was 9.8% (6/61), from 1987 to 1992 it was 10.8% (20/185), and from 1993 to 2000 it was 3.4% (8/235) (I versus III P =0.0458, II versus III P =0.0047). The mortality by urgency status was elective/urgent 6.0% (26/436) and emergent 17.8% (8/45) (P =0.00879). The mortality was NYHA I/II 0.00% (0/37), III 5.1% (14/273), and IV 11.7% (20/171) (P =0.0069). The predictive risk factors by multivariate regression analysis were age at implant, odds ratio (OR) 0.84 (P =0.0113); age at explant, OR 1.2 (P =0.0089); urgency, OR 2.8 (P =0.0264); NYHA, OR 2.5 (P =0.015); 1975–1986 versus 1993–2000 of reoperations, OR 5.8 (P =0.0062); and 1987–19 92 versus 1993–2000, OR 4.0 (P =0.0023). For the period 1993 to 2000 of reoperations, only age at implant and age at explant were significant; NYHA class, urgency status, and concomitant CAB were not significant. Conclusion—Bioprosthetic mitral reoperative mortality can be lowered by reoperations on an elective/urgent basis in low to medium NYHA functional class. The routine evaluation of patients can achieve earlier low risk reoperative surgery.

[1]  A. Clarke,et al.  Experiences with Redo Aortic Valve Surgery , 2001, Journal of cardiac surgery.

[2]  W R Jamieson,et al.  Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses: clinical performance assessed by actual analysis. , 2000, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[3]  W. Jamieson,et al.  Reoperation in biological and mechanical valve populations: fate of the reoperative patient. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[4]  M. Lachat,et al.  Reoperative surgery for degenerated aortic bioprostheses: predictors for emergency surgery and reoperative mortality. , 2000, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[5]  T. Sundt,et al.  Reoperative aortic valve operation after homograft root replacement: surgical options and results. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  O. Taşdemír,et al.  Risk Factors of Reoperations For Prosthetic Heart Valve Dysfunction in the Ten Years 1984-1993 , 1995, The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon.

[7]  F. Loop,et al.  Reoperations for valve surgery: perioperative mortality and determinants of risk for 1,000 patients, 1958-1984. , 1986, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[8]  G. Thiene,et al.  Early and late outcome after reoperation for prosthetic valve dysfunction: analysis of 549 patients during a 26-year period. , 1994, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[9]  G. Laub,et al.  Perioperative events in patients with failed mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[10]  W. Anderson,et al.  Actuarial versus actual freedom from structural valve deterioration with the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses. , 1999, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[11]  J. Lowe,et al.  Determinants of 15-year outcome with 1,119 standard Carpentier-Edwards porcine valves. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  D. McGiffin,et al.  An analysis of valve re-replacement after aortic valve replacement with biologic devices. , 1997, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[13]  M. O'Brien,et al.  The homograft aortic valve: a 29-year, 99.3% follow up of 1,022 valve replacements. , 2001, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[14]  G. Vlahakes,et al.  Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[15]  L. Cohn,et al.  Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. , 1996, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[16]  R T Miyagishima,et al.  Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure - risk assessment. , 2003, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.