Kirali K, Mansuroglu D, Yaymaci B, Omeroglu S N, Basaran Y, Ipek G, Yakut C
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kosuyolu Heart and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Heart Valve Dis. 2001 Jul;10(4):418-25.
Prostheses used to treat heart valve disease improve patient survival, but have certain disadvantages. Paravalvular leakage (PVL) is a rare complication after mitral valve replacement (MVR), and can impair cardiac function and reduce the patient's functional capacity, depending on the degree of periprosthetic regurgitation.
Between 1985 and July 1999, 2,502 patients underwent MVR with or without concomitant cardiac procedures. Of these patients, 33 (18 males, 15 females; mean age 39.8+/-15.3 years; range: 12-62 years) had PVL of differing degree. The interval between MVR and observation of PVL was 30.5+/-31.5 months (range: 1-126 months), and the period after diagnosis was 22.6+/-31.5 months (range: 2-114 months). Fourteen patients (42.4%) underwent reoperation (RO group), and 19 (57.6%) were followed medically (ME group). Indications for reoperation were reduction of functional capacity, echocardiographically proven serious mitral regurgitation, and hemolysis.
Reoperative mortality was 3.0% (1/33), and late mortality 3.1% (1/32) for all patients. Cumulative survival after PVL was 90.2+/-6.7% at both five and ten years. Annular calcification (33.0%) and infective endocarditis (18.2%) were important predictive factors for development of PVL. Only one patient required second re-do surgery. Univariate and forward stepwise logistic regression analyses showed that there was no predictor for the development of severe PVL requiring a second reoperation. No difference was observed between left ventricular dimensions before and after periprosthetic regurgitation. The only significant finding between groups was an increase in left atrial diameter in RO patients after the development of PVL (p <0.05).
Among patients undergoing MVR there are no clinical features to distinguish who will develop severe PVL during follow up. If PVL reduces the patient's functional capacity or causes serious hemolysis, or if severe PVL is evaluated echocardiographically, then reoperation must be performed. Mild or moderate mitral regurgitation without impairment of functional capacity may be followed medically. In asymptomatic patients, enlargement (>5%) of the left atrial diameter following development of moderate PVL may be a valuable criterion for deciding when to reoperate.
用于治疗心脏瓣膜疾病的人工瓣膜可提高患者生存率,但存在一定缺点。瓣周漏(PVL)是二尖瓣置换术(MVR)后一种罕见的并发症,根据人工瓣膜周围反流程度,可损害心脏功能并降低患者的功能能力。
1985年至1999年7月期间,2502例患者接受了MVR,部分患者还接受了同期心脏手术。其中,33例(18例男性,15例女性;平均年龄39.8±15.3岁;范围:12 - 62岁)出现不同程度的PVL。MVR与发现PVL的间隔时间为30.5±31.5个月(范围:1 - 126个月),诊断后的时间为22.6±31.5个月(范围:2 - 114个月)。14例患者(42.4%)接受了再次手术(RO组),19例(57.6%)接受药物随访(ME组)。再次手术的指征为功能能力下降、经超声心动图证实的严重二尖瓣反流和溶血。
所有患者的手术死亡率为3.0%(1/33),晚期死亡率为3.1%(1/32)。PVL发生后5年和10年的累积生存率均为90.2±6.7%。瓣环钙化(33.0%)和感染性心内膜炎(18.2%)是PVL发生的重要预测因素。仅1例患者需要进行二次再次手术。单因素和向前逐步逻辑回归分析表明,没有预测严重PVL需要二次再次手术发生的指标。人工瓣膜周围反流前后左心室大小无差异。两组之间唯一显著的发现是RO组患者在PVL发生后左心房直径增加(p <0.05)。
在接受MVR的患者中,没有临床特征可区分哪些患者在随访期间会发生严重PVL。如果PVL降低了患者的功能能力或导致严重溶血,或者经超声心动图评估为严重PVL,则必须进行再次手术。对于功能能力未受损害的轻度或中度二尖瓣反流,可进行药物随访。在无症状患者中,中度PVL发生后左心房直径增大(>5%)可能是决定何时进行再次手术的一个有价值的标准。