Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure - risk assessment.

OBJECTIVE The predominant complication of bioprostheses is structural valve deterioration and the consequences of re-operation. Prosthesis choice for aortic valve replacement surgery (bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses), is influenced by valve-related complications (mortality and morbidity) of the prosthesis type chosen. The purpose of the study is to determine the mortality and risk assessment of that mortality for aortic bioprosthetic failure. METHODS From 1975 to 1999, 3356 patients received a heterograft bioprosthesis in 3530 operations. The procedures were performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass (CAB) in 1388 procedures and without in 2142 procedures. Three hundred twenty-two re-operations for structural valve deterioration were performed in 312 patients with 22 fatalities (6.8%). Of the 322 re-replacements, 36 had CAB and 286 had isolated replacement; the mortality was 8.3% (3) and 6.6% (19), respectively. Eleven predictive factors inclusive of age, concomitant CAB, urgency status, New York Heart Association (NYHA) at Re-op and year of Re-op (year periods) were considered. RESULTS The mortality for 1979-1986 was 6.1% (2/33); 1987-1992, 7.7% (8/104); and 1993-2000, 6.5% (12/185) (pNS). The mortality by urgency status for elective/urgent was 6.4% (19/299); and emergent, 13.0% (3/23) (pNS). The mortality for NYHA I/II was 2.0% (1/50), III 4.2% (8/191) and IV 16.0% (13/81) (P=0.00063), for gender was male 4.6% and female 13.3% (P=0.011), for age at implant 'No' (no re-operation) 51.6+/-12.2 years and 'Yes' (yes re-operation) 59.9+/-7.3 years (P=0.00004), for age at explant 'No' 62.6+/-12.7 years and 'Yes' 70.6+/-6.5 years (P=0.00001), and for age at explant <60 years 0.0% (0/110), 60-70 years 8.5% (10/117) and >70 years 12.6% (12/95) (P=0.0011). The predictive risk factor assessment by multivariate regression analysis revealed only NYHA III Odds Ratio 1.7 and IV 7.8 P=0.0082. For the period 1993-2000 of re-operations only gender was significant; age at implant, age at explant, CAB pre-Re-op, CAB concomitant with Re-op, urgency at Re-op, ejection fraction, valve lesion and NYHA at Re-op were not significant. CONCLUSIONS Bioprosthetic aortic re-operative mortality can be lowered by re-operation in low rather than medium to severe NYHA functional class. The routine evaluation of patients can achieve earlier low risk re-operative surgery.

[1]  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.

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

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

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

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

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

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

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

[10]  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.

[11]  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.

[12]  R T Miyagishima,et al.  Reoperation for Bioprosthetic Mitral Structural Failure: Risk Assessment , 2003, Circulation.

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

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