Prosthetic valve selection for middle-aged patients with aortic stenosis

Nature Reviews Cardiology

Volumn 7, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 711-719

  Chikwe, Joanna ^a   Filsoufi, Farzan ^a   Carpentier, Alain F ^b  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b HÔPITAL EUROPÉEN GEORGES POMPIDOU   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AORTA GRAFT; AORTA STENOSIS; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; ROSS PROCEDURE;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS; BIOPROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78649447516     PISSN: 17595002     EISSN: 17595010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrcardio.2010.164     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Brown, J. M. et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108, 687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137, 82-90 (2009).
2. Grunkemeier, G. L, Li, H. H., Naftel, D. C., Starr, A. & Rahimtoola, S. H. Long-term performance of heart valve prostheses. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 25, 73-154 (2000).
3. Passik, C. S., Ackermann, D. M., Pluth, J. R. & Edwards, W. D. Temporal changes in the causes of aortic stenosis: a surgical pathologic study of 646 cases. Mayo Clin. Proc. 62, 119-123 (1987).
4. Roberts, W. C. et al. Valve structure and survival in quinquagenarians having aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis (± aortic regurgitation) with versus without coronary artery bypass grafting at a single US medical center (1993 to 2005). Am. J. Cardiol. 100, 1584-1591 (2007).
5. Bridgewater, B., Keogh, B., Kinsman, R. & Walton, P. in Sixth national adult cardiac surgical database report (Dendrite Clinical Systems, Henley-on-Thames, 2008).
6. Bonow, R. O. et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 114, e84-e231 (2006).
7. Vahanian, A. et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur. Heart J. 28, 230-268 (2007).
8. Cannegieter, S. C. et al. Optimal oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with mechanical heart valves. N. Engl. J. Med. 333, 11-17 (1995).
9. Stassano, P et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 54, 1862-1868 (2009).
10. Hammermeister, K. et al. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 36, 1152-1158 (2000).
11. Oxenham, H. et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 89, 715-721 (2003).
12. Potter, D. D. et al. Operative risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 129, 94-103 (2005).
13. Carpentier, A., Lemaigre, G., Robert, L., Carpentier, S. & Dubost, C. Biological factors affecting long-term results of valvular heterografts. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 58, 467-483 (1969).
14. Cohn, L. H. et al. Fifteen-year experience with 1678 Hancock porcine bioprosthetic heart valve replacements. Ann. Surg. 210, 435-442 (1989).
15. Jones, E. L. et al. Ten-year experience with the porcine bioprosthetic valve: interrelationship of valve survival and patient survival in 1, 050 valve replacements. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 49, 370-383 (1990).
16. Burdon, T. A. et al. Durability of porcine valves at fifteen years in a representative North American patient population. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 103, 238-251 (1992).
17. Carpentier, A., Nashef, A., Carpentier, S., Ahmed, A. & Goussef, N. Techniques for prevention of calcification of valvular bioprostheses. Circulation 70, 1165-1168 (1984).
18. Carpentier, S. M. et al. Heat treatment mitigates calcification of valvular bioprostheses. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 66, S264-S266 (1998).
19. Pelletier, L. C., Carrier, M., Leclerc, Y., Dyrda, I. & Gosselin, G. Influence of age on late results of valve replacement with porcine bioprostheses. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. (Torino) 33, 526-533 (1992).
20. Jamieson, W. R. et al. Medtronic intact porcine bioprosthesis experience to twelve years. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 71, S278-S281 (2001).
21. Rizzoli, G. et al. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: a multicenter experience. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 132, 602-609 (2006).
22. Brown, M. L. et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 135, 878-884 (2008).
23. Smedira, N. G., Blackstone, E. H., Roselli, E. E., Laffey, C. C. & Cosgrove, D. M. Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in nonelderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 131, 558-564 (2006).
24. Birkmeyer, N. J. et al. Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 70, 1946-1952 (2000).
25. Lund, O. & Bland, M. Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on longterm mortality after aortic valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 132, 20-26 (2006).
26. Kvidal, P, Bergstrom, R., Horte, L. G. & Stahle, E. Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 35, 747-756 (2000).
27. Cohn, L. H. et al. Decrease in operative risk of reoperative valve surgery. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 56, 15-20 (1993).
28. Davierwala, P. M. et al. Reoperation is not an independent predictor of mortality during aortic valve surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 131, 329-335 (2006).
29. Wenaweser, P., Buellesfeld, L., Gerckens, U. & Grube, E. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement for severe aortic regurgitation in degenerated bioprosthesis: the first valve in valve procedure using the Corevalve Revalving system. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 70, 760-764 (2007).
30. Walther, T. et al. Prospectively randomized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biological aortic valves: impact on early regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Circulation 100, 116-1110 (1999).
31. O'Brien, M. F., Stafford, E. G., Gardner, M. A., Pohlner, P. G. & McGiffin, D. C. A comparison of aortic valve replacement with viable cryopreserved and fresh allograft valves, with a note on chromosomal studies. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 94, 812-823 (1987).
32. El-Hamamsy, I. et al. Late outcomes following freestyle versus homograft aortic root replacement: results from a prospective randomized trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 368-376 (2010).
33. Rankin, J. S. et al. Determinants of operative mortality in valvular heart surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 131, 547-557 (2006).
34. Westaby, S. et al. Does the use of a stentless bioprosthesis increase surgical risk? Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 13, 143-147 (2001).
35. Ali, A. et al. Propensity analysis of survival after subcoronary or root replacement techniques for homograft aortic valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137, 334-341 (2009).
36. Fedoruk, L. M. et al. Predictors of recurrence and reoperation for prosthetic valve endocarditis after valve replacement surgery for native valve endocarditis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137, 326-333 (2009).
37. Moon, M. R. et al. Treatment of endocarditis with valve replacement: the question of tissue versus mechanical prosthesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 71, 1164-1171 (2001).
38. Blackstone, E. H. et al. Prosthesis size and longterm survival after aortic valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 126, 783-796 (2003).
39. Williams, R. J., Muir, D. F., Pathi, V., MacArthur, K. & Berg, G. A. Randomized controlled trial of stented and stentless aortic bioprotheses: hemodynamic performance at 3 years. Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 11, 93-97 (1999).
40. Santini, F et al. Hancock versus stentless bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients older than 75 years. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 66, S99-S103 (1998).
41. Lehmann, S. et al. Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: midterm results of a prospectively randomized trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 84, 467-472 (2007).
42. Ross, D. N. Homograft replacement of the aortic valve. Lancet 2, 487 (1962).
43. Ross, D. Homotransplantation of the aortic valve in the subcoronary position. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 47, 713-719 (1964).
44. Takkenberg, J. J. et al. The Ross procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 119, 222-228 (2009).
45. Charitos, E. I. et al. Autograft reinforcement to preserve autograft function after the Ross procedure: a report from the German-Dutch Ross registry. Circulation 120, S146-S154 (2009).
46. Elkins, R. C., Thompson, D. M., Lane, M. M., Elkins, C. C. & Peyton, M. D. Ross operation: 16-year experience. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 136, 623-630 (2008).
47. Rahimtoola, S. H. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults. An update. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 2413-2426 (2010).
48. Melo, J. et al. Surgery for atrial fibrillation in patients with mitral valve disease: results at five years from the International Registry of Atrial Fibrillation Surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 135, 863-869 (2008).
49. Hering, D. et al. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications following St. Jude Medical valve replacement: results of the German Experience With Low-Intensity Anticoagulation Study. Chest 127, 53-59 (2005). (Pubitemid 41724555)
50. Acar, J. et al. AREVA: multicenter randomized comparison of low-dose versus standard-dose anticoagulation in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves. Circulation 94, 2107-2112 (1996).
51. Koertke, H. et al. Low-dose oral anticoagulation in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses: final report from the early selfmanagement anticoagulation trial II. Eur. Heart J. 28, 2479-2484 (2007).
52. Notzold, A. et al. Quality of life in aortic valve replacement: pulmonary autografts versus mechanical prostheses. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 37, 1963-1966 (2001).
53. Ruel, M. et al. Long-term outcomes of valve replacement with modern prostheses in young adults. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 27, 425-433 (2005).
54. Jamieson, W. R. et al. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: primary tissue failure (structural valve deterioration) by age groups. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 46, 155-162 (1988).
55. Burr, L. H. et al. Structural valve deterioration in elderly patient populations with the Carpentier-Edwards standard and supra-annular porcine bioprostheses: a comparative study. J. Heart Valve Dis. 1, 87-91 (1992).