ObjectiveTo evaluate the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of patients receiving mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological prosthesis.MethodsThe clinical data of patients undergoing mitral valve replacement in our center between January 2005 and August 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with emergency, reoperation, bleeding or embolic events or incomplete clinical data were ruled out.ResultsTotally 569 patients were enrolled, including 325 with mechanical prosthesis (a mechanical prosthesis group, 111 males and 214 females with a mean age of 55.54±4.09 years) and 244 bioprosthesis (a bioprosthesis group, 90 males and 154 females with a mean age of 60.02±4.28 years). There was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality between the two groups (P=0.250). The survival rate at postoperative 15 years of the bioprosthesis group was higher than that of mechanical prosthesis group (78.69% vs. 66.25%, χ2=8.844, P=0.003). No remarkable differences were found in prosthesis failure (P=0.183) and thromboembolism events (P=0.505) between the two groups. Bleeding occurred more frequently in the mechanical prosthesis group (P=0.040). After the propensity-score matched analysis based on the age, the survival rate was still higher in the bioprosthesis group than in the mechanical prosthesis group (P=0.032).ConclusionBiological prosthesis can be considered as the preferable choice in mitral valve replacement procedure in order to improve the long-term survival and decrease the frequent of bleeding events.
Along with the coming of aged society, the prevalence of heart valvular disease is significantly increasing, and the use of bioprosthetic valves for treating patients with severe valve disease has increased over the last two decades. As a consequence, a growing number of patients with surgical bioprosthesis degeneration is predicted in the near future. In this setting, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic/mitral valve replacement (TAVR/TMVR) has emerged as an alternative to redo surgery. A deep knowledge of the mechanism and features of the failed bioprosthetic heart valve is pivotal to plan an adequate procedure. Multimodal imaging is fundamental in the diagnostic and pre-procedural phases. The immediate and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of ViV techniques, but the development of these techniques faces several specific challenges, such as coronary obstruction, potential post-procedural mismatch and leaflet thrombosis. This article reviews the current status and prospects of ViV-TAVR technology in the treatment for biological valve degeneration, and suggests that ViV-TAVR should be promoted and implemented in existing medical centers with good surgical aortic valve replacement experience, so as to provide better treatment for patients.
Objective To summarize the early results and clinical experience of using the J-Valve for transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in patients with degenerated bioprosthesis at different anatomic positions. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate the short-term outcomes of 39 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using the J-Valve System in the Department of Cardiac Surgery of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital from April 2020 to August 2021 due to bioprosthetic degeneration at different anatomic positions. Among them, 35 patients underwent transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (TMViV) implantation, 1 transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (TAViV) implantation, 1 transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve (TTViV) implantation, 1 TMViV implantation with simultaneous TAViV implantation, and another one TMViV implantation with simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and perivalvular leakage (PVL) closure. Results Among the 35 patients who underwent isolated TMViV implantation, 17 were male and 18 were female with a mean age of 72.6±10.8 years. Mean duration between two operations was 10.5±2.7 years. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons and EuroSCORE Ⅱ scores were 12.95%±9.61% and 13.91%±8.94%, respectively. The device success rate was 97.1% and no death occured during the operation. One patient was transferred to thoracotomy due to device displacement, 1 was re-opened for uncontrolled bleeding, and 1 presented left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. One patient underwent craniotomy due to intracranial hemorrhage within 30 days after surgery, and no other complications occurred including death, stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, cardiac tamponade, or re-hospitalization. The mean follow-up time was 6.0±4.4 months, the mean mitral valve gradient was significantly improved (10.4±2.0 mm Hg vs. 5.5±1.2 mm Hg, P<0.05), and the New York Heart Association class≤Ⅱ in all the patients at the last follow-up. Among the other 4 patients who did not undergo isolated TMViV implantation, the transapical TAViV implantation and the trans-right atrium TTViV implantation were successful without intra- or post-operative complications. The patient who underwent TMViV and TAViV implantation simultaneously via transapical approach died of severe pulmonary hemorrhage and multiple organ failure 16 days after surgery. The other patient who underwent transapical TMViV combined with TAVR and PVL closure died of septic shock 10 days after the surgery. Conclusion Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using the J-Valve system is shown to be a safe and effective procedure to treat mitral, aortic and tricuspid bioprosthetic valve dysfunction in high-risk patients, providing a new alternative to surgical surgery for degenerated bioprosthesis at different anatomic positions. However, simultaneous different valves intervention should be very cautious.
ObjectiveTo analyze the reason and prevention of late bioprosthetic heart valve thrombosis (LBVT). MethodsBioprosthetic heart valves were implanted in 580 patients between January 2001 and July 2013 in Changhai Hospital, and only found one case of LBVT (0.2%). Reoperation was performed for a 67-year-old male patient 3 years after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic valve stenosis. Retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and reviewed the literature between January 1989 and December 2013 in Pubmed. ResultsNo risk factor for thrombosis was revealed in this patient. Pathology revealed valve thrombosis and collagen and elastic fibers fragmentation and disruption in valve leaflets. In literature review, 20 articles and 47 cases were brought in. The morbidity of LBVT was 0.2%-1.0%. At least 18 patients had high risk factors, and 15 of the 18 patients discontinued anticoagulation after 3 months. However, at least 10 patients had no high risk factors. Forty-four of the 47 patients received stented porcine valve replacement, only one patient received stented bovine pericardial valve replacement. ConclusionsLBVT is a rare but serious complication after bioprosthetic valve replacement, the causes of which include the feature of the patients and the bioprosthetic valves. Bovine pericardial valves could be superior to porcine valves in preventing LBVT. Postoperative long-time aspirin therapy is recommended for patients without high risk factors. Patients with any high risk factors should prolong anticoagulation.
Surgical bioprosthetic valve in the mitral position typically degenerates in 10-15 years, when intervention is required again. In the past, redo surgical mitral valve replacement has been the only treatment choice for such patients suffering from bioprosthetic valve failure, despite the even higher risk associated with redo open-heart surgery. In recent years, transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation in the mitral position has evolved as an reasonable alternative to redo surgery for the treatment of surgical mitral bioprosthetic valve failure. Here we report an 81-year-old female patient with surgical mitral bioprosthetic valve failure, who successfully underwent valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement via the transfemoral-transseptal approach. The procedure was successful owing to comprehensive CT imaging work-up, despite the technical challenges associated with bilateral giant atria and small left ventricle.
Biological valves can lead to structural valve degeneration (SVD) over time and due to various factors, reducing their durability. SVD patients need to undergo valve replacement surgery again, while traditional open chest surgery can cause significant trauma and patients often give up treatment due to intolerance. Research has shown that as an alternative treatment option for reoperation of thoracic valve replacement surgery, redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement for SVD is safe and effective, but still faces many challenges, including prosthesis-patient mismatch, high cross valve pressure difference, and coronary obstruction. This article aims to review the strategies, clinical research status and progress of redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement in SVD patients.
Objective To evaluate the early and middlelongterm clinical results of tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) and compare the relative merit between bioprothesis and mechanical valve in tricuspid position，so as to elevate the operative effect. Methods The data of 128 TVR from April 1992 to February 2008 in An Zhen Hospital were retrospectively reviewed， and classified into mechanical prosthesis group（n=89）and bioprothesis group（n=39）according to the prosthesis used in the first procedure. Kaplan-Meier curve were estimated to evaluate the midlong term survival rate and events incidence related to prosthesis（including thrombosis, embolism and bleeding related to prosthesis and the prosthesis deterioration）. Multivariate binary logistic regressions were used to evaluate the independent risk factor for early and late death. Results There were 19 early deaths( 14.84%). With the followup of 4.93±2.92 years, there were 11 late deaths(10.7%). According to the Kaplan-Meier curve, the 10year actuarial survival rate for the bioprothesis group and mechanical prosthesis group were 65.6%±17.4% and 68.7%±10.8% respectively(Log-rank test,χ2=0.74，P=0.390). Freedom from prosthesis-related embolism at 5 years for the bioprothesis group and mechanical prosthesis group were 92.3%±7.4% and 87.1%±4.6% respectively(Log-rank test, χ2=0.962，P=0.327). Freedom from anticoagulationrelated bleeding at 10 years for the bioprothesis group and mechanical prosthesis group were 100% and 79.7%±9.7% respectively(Log-rank test, χ2=1.483，P= 0.223). There were 9 TVR reoperation, freedom from reoperation at 7 years for the bioprothesis group was 71.1%±18.0%, and freedom from reoperation at 10 years for the mechanical prosthesis group was 78.8%±10.2% (Log-rank test, χ2=2.76，P=0.096). Binary logistic regression revealed that the redo procedure and ascites were independent risk factors for early death, whereas ascites, heart function of New York Heart Association class Ⅲ/Ⅳ and multi valve replacement were independent risk factors for late death.Conclusion To lower the operative mortality and late mortality and morbidity, TVR should be adopted prior to the deterioration of right heart function, and bioprothesis valve has similar early and middlelong term clinical effect with mechanical valve in tricuspid position.
Valve replacement is one of the way to treat valvular heart disease. Valve replacement with bioprostheses, which occurs low rate of bleeding and thromboembolism events, needs no lifelong anticoagulation. However, the life of bioprostheses is limited. Leaflet tear, leaf calcification, and artificial valve infective endocarditis may occur with using a bioprostheses These adverse events appear early to some patients who fail to achieve the expected service life of bioprostheses. This review mainly summarizes factors influencing early valve degeneration(EVD) of bioprostheses to provide suggestion in clinic.
ObjectiveTo determine the clinical efficacy of transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve treatment for patients with deteriorated mitral bioprosthesis after aortic-mitral double valve replacement.MethodsThe clinical data of 9 patients who underwent transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation after aortic-mitral double valve replacement due to mitral bioprosthesis deterioration from May 2020 to January 2021 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed, including 4 males and 5 females with a mean age of 72.44±7.57 years.ResultsSurgeries were performed successfully in all patients with no conversion to median sternotomy. The mean procedural time was 101.33±48.49 min, the mechanical ventilation time was 23.11±26.54 h, the ICU stay was 1.89±1.05 d and the postoperative hospital stay was 6.11±2.02 d. Residual mild mitral regurgitation was only observed in 1 patient. Only 1 patient needed postoperative blood transfusion. No major complications were observed in all patients. There was no death in postoperative 90 days.ConclusionFor patients with deteriorated mitral bioprosthesis after aortic-mitral double valve replacement, transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation achieves good clinical results and effectively improves the hemodynamics without increasing the risk of postoperative left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. The surgery is feasible and effective.