ObjectiveTo investigate the influence of mechanical and biological valves on clinical benefits of elderly patients with valvular heart disease.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 280 elderly patients with valvular heart disease treated by valve replacement between 2008 and 2014 year. The patients were divided into two groups by tendency score matching including a group A with biological valves and a group B with mechanical valves. Finally, there were 96 patients in each group. There were 43 males and 53 females at age of 64.41±6.52 years in the group A, 44 males and 52 females at age of 64.07±6.20 years in the group B.ResultsThe bleeding rate of skin and mucosa of the group B was significantly higher than that of the group A (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in mortality within 30 days after operation, all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization rate, re-valve replacement rate, combined atrial flutter/atrial fibrillation ratio, drug use, incidence of cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, new peripheral vascular embolism and visceral hemorrhage, heart function (NYHA) classification, the cumulative survival rate of all the patients during follow-up (P=0.63), or the cumulative survival rate of the patients with no thrombus/hemorrhage (P=0.75) between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionMechanical valve replacement and bioprosthetic valve replacement in the treatment of valvular heart disease in the elderly can achieve similar clinical benefits and both have clinical application value.
ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of mechanical prosthetic versus bioprosthetic replacement of tricuspid valve. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 344 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) in Guangdong General Hospital between January 2000 and December 2010. There were 227 female and 117 male patients with their age of 8-74 (42.0±13.3) years. We allocated the patients into two groups: 168 patients (48.8%) at age of 37.0±11.6 years underwent mechanical tricuspid valve replacement (the MTVR group) and 176 (51.2%) patients at age of 46.0±13.4 years underwent biological tricuspid valve replacement (the BTVR group). Follow-up data were obtained via patients' visiting the outpatient clinic, telephone or mail contacts. ResultsThe mean follow-up time was 5.7 years (ranged from 2 months to 12.6 years). In the BTVR group, 149 patients survived to discharge from hospital, and 144 patients were followed-up successfully, giving a 96.6% follow-up rate. Early mortality (within 30 days post-operation) occurred in 29 patients (16.5%), and 14 patients (7.9%) died after 30 days post-operation. Eighteen bioprosthetic valve degeneration was found during follow-up, and infective endocarditis in 3 patients. In the MTVR group, 152 patients survived to discharge from hospital, 142 patients (93.4%) were followed-up. Early mortality in 13 patients (7.7%), and 14 patients (8.3%) died after 30 days post-operation. Nineteen patients suffered from mechanical prosthesis obstruction, no infective endocarditis patients was found in the MTVR group. There was no statistical difference between the BTVR group and the MTVR group in mortality rate (24.4% versus 16.1%, P=0.054) and in reoperation rate (4.2% versus 9.9%, P=0.051), respectively．There were statistical differences in long-term survival rates between the BTVR group and the MTVR group with 1 year survival rate(78% vs. 89%), 5 years survival rate(74% vs. 86%), and 10 years survival rate (66% versus 78%) with P value at 0.003. ConclusionsThis study suggests that the type of implanted prosthesis in tricuspid replacement does not affect long-term outcomes or the reoperation rate. The survival rate is higher in the MTVR group than that in the BTVR group, which may contribute to younger age in the MTVR group. There is a tendency in higher infective endocarditis incidence in the BTVR group than that in the MTVR group.
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 study the hemocompatibility of bioprosthetic heart valve materials respectively based on glutaraldehyde and non-glutaraldehyde treatment. MethodsFresh bovine pericardium was treated with glutaraldehyde or non-glutaraldehyde after adipose tissue was removed. To evaluate the hemocompatibility of the two bioprosthetic heart valve materials, hemolysis test, in vitro fibrinogen adsorption experiment, platelet adhesion experiment, thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT) test, complement activation assay and ex vivo circulation experiment were performed. ResultsThe hemolysis test results demonstrated that both of the materials showed hemolytic rates lower than 5%. The results of TAT test and complement activation assay showed no statistical differences among the two materials and the blank control group. Compared to the bioprosthetic heart valve materials with glutaraldehyde-based treatment, the materials with non-glutaraldehyde-based treatment showed significantly decreased fibrinogen adsorption, platelet adhesion and thrombosis. ConclusionCompared to the bioprosthetic heart valve materials with glutaraldehyde-based treatment, the materials with non-glutaraldehyde-based treatment show better hemocompatibility.
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.
Heart valve replacement is the major surgical treatment of severe valvular diseases. Due to the durability and reoperation-free, mechanical valves are widely used. Bioprosthesis valves became popular recently because of long service life and no demand for lifelong anticoagulation. However, how to choose the appropriate prosthetic heart valves, especially the application of bioprosthesis valves for patients at 55 to 65 years is still a major problem. This review focuses on more effective and scientific basis for rational choice of mechanical and bioprosthesis valve.
This article reports a case of a 70-year-old female patient who developed bioprosthetic mitral valve deterioration 4 months after her initial valve replacement surgery, manifesting as severe regurgitation and New York Heart Association Class Ⅲ. Due to the high risk of a redo open-heart surgery, she underwent a transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve procedure. Intraoperatively, a J-Valve prosthesis was successfully implanted under echocardiographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Immediate transesophageal echocardiography confirmed an optimal valve position, complete resolution of regurgitation, and no significant paravalvular leak or left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful. She was extubated 16 hours post-procedure with significant improvement in cardiac function. Follow-up echocardiography showed normal prosthetic valve function.
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.