Ruel Marc, Kulik Alexander, Lam Buu K, Rubens Fraser D, Hendry Paul J, Masters Roy G, Bédard Pierre, Mesana Thierry G
Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Suite 3403, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4W7.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005 Mar;27(3):425-33; discussion 433. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.12.002. Epub 2004 Dec 30.
To examine the multiple impacts of valve replacement on the lives of young adults.
Patients (N=500) between age 18 and 50 who had aortic valve replacement (AVR) and/or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with contemporary prostheses were followed annually. Events, functional status, and quality of life were examined with regression models.
Median follow-up was 7.1+/-5.3 years (maximum 26.7 years). Five, 10, and 15-year survival was 92.7+/-1.7, 88.3+/-2.4 and 80.1+/-4.7% after AVR, and 93.1+/-2.3, 79.5+/-4.3 and 71.5+/-5.4% after MVR, respectively. Survival decreased with concomitant coronary disease (hazard ratio (HR): 4.5) and preoperative LV grade (HR: 2.0/grade increase) in AVR patients, and with atrial fibrillation (HR: 5.5), coronary disease (HR: 5.7), preoperative left atrial diameter (HR: 3.0/cm increase) and NYHA class (HR: 2.1/class increase) in MVR patients. Despite reoperation, late survival was equivalent between bioprostheses and mechanical valves in both implant positions. The ten-year cumulative incidence of embolic stroke was 6.3+/-2.4% for mechanical AVR patients, 6.4+/-2.9% for bioprosthetic AVR patients, 12.7+/-3.9% for mechanical MVR patients, and 3.1+/-3.1% for bioprosthetic MVR patients. Atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.8) and smoking (HR: 4.0) were risk factors for stroke in MVR patients. In AVR patients, SF-12 physical scores, freedom from recurrent heart failure, and freedom from disability were significantly higher in bioprosthetic than mechanical valve patients. Career or income limitations were more often subjectively linked to a mechanical prosthesis in both implant positions.
Late outcomes of modern prosthetic valves in young adults remain suboptimal. Bioprostheses deserve consideration in the aortic position, as mechanical valves are associated with lower physical capacity, a higher prevalence of disability, and poorer disease perception. Early surgical referral and atrial fibrillation surgery may improve survival after MVR.
研究瓣膜置换术对年轻成年人生活的多重影响。
对500例年龄在18至50岁之间、使用当代假体进行主动脉瓣置换(AVR)和/或二尖瓣置换(MVR)的患者进行年度随访。通过回归模型检查事件、功能状态和生活质量。
中位随访时间为7.1±5.3年(最长26.7年)。AVR术后5年、10年和15年生存率分别为92.7±1.7%、88.3±2.4%和80.1±4.7%,MVR术后分别为93.1±2.3%、79.5±4.3%和71.5±5.4%。AVR患者中,伴有冠心病(风险比(HR):4.5)和术前左室分级(HR:2.0/分级增加)时生存率降低;MVR患者中,伴有心房颤动(HR:5.5)、冠心病(HR:5.7)、术前左房直径(HR:3.0/cm增加)和纽约心脏协会(NYHA)分级(HR:2.1/分级增加)时生存率降低。尽管进行了再次手术,但在两个植入位置,生物瓣膜和机械瓣膜的晚期生存率相当。机械AVR患者栓塞性中风的10年累积发生率为6.3±2.4%,生物瓣AVR患者为6.4±2.9%,机械MVR患者为12.7±3.9%,生物瓣MVR患者为3.1±3.1%。心房颤动(HR:2.8)和吸烟(HR:4.0)是MVR患者中风的危险因素。在AVR患者中,生物瓣膜患者的SF-12身体评分、无复发性心力衰竭和无残疾情况显著高于机械瓣膜患者。在两个植入位置,职业或收入限制主观上更常与机械假体相关。
年轻成年人现代人工瓣膜的晚期结局仍不理想。在主动脉位置应考虑使用生物瓣膜,因为机械瓣膜与较低的身体能力、较高的残疾患病率和较差的疾病认知相关。早期手术转诊和心房颤动手术可能会提高MVR后的生存率。