These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Risk of reoperation for mitral bioprosthesis dysfunction.
    Author: Jaussaud N, Gariboldi V, Grisoli D, Berbis J, Kerbaul F, Riberi A, Collart F.
    Journal: J Heart Valve Dis; 2012 Jan; 21(1):56-60. PubMed ID: 22474743.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Today, when a mitral valve replacement is required, more patients and surgeons choose a bioprosthesis. Yet, the rationale of this choice is unclear in patients in whom age represents a predicting factor for reoperation. The study aim was to define the risk factors for reoperation after mitral bioprosthesis failure. METHODS: A total of 282 consecutive patients (202 women, 80 men; mean age at surgery 61 years; range: 28-88 years) who underwent reoperation for mitral bioprosthesis failure between 1990 and 2006 was reviewed. Surgery was undertaken because of bioprosthesis degeneration (91%), prosthetic valve infective endocarditis (6%), paravalvular leak (2%), or other causes (1%). Emergency procedures were performed in 7% of cases. Associated procedures included tricuspid valve surgery in 16% of patients (tricuspid valve repair in 11%, tricuspid valve replacement in 5%) and coronary artery bypass graft in 5%. Almost one-fifth of patients (18%) had undergone more than one previous mitral valve replacement. RESULTS: The overall operative mortality was 7.4% (n = 21). Factors identified (by multivariate analysis) as predictors of operative death included: presence of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio (OR) = 8.69, 95% CI 2.55-29.61; p = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 9.01, 95% CI 1.72-47.18; p = 0.009), NYHA class III/IV (OR 5.46, 95% CI 1.41-21.16; p = 0.01), and pulmonary artery pressure > 60 mmHg (OR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.10-8.94; p = 0.03). Associated procedures were not significant risk factors for mortality. New prostheses were mechanical in 68% of cases, and bioprostheses in 32%. CONCLUSION: One reoperation for mitral bioprosthesis dysfunction is acceptable if the patient can be expected to survive to reoperation while free from comorbidities and the severe effects of mitral disease. The application of strict selective criteria to recipients at the first valve replacement, combined with a close follow up, may allow this goal to be achieved.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]