From the Departments of Cardiology (S.F.S., J.W.N., T.G., K.G., S.P.S.) and Cardiac Surgery (C.W.B., P.J.d.N., M.J.B., J.E.M.), Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA; Departments of Pediatrics (S.F.S., J.W.N., T.G., K.G., S.P.S.), Surgery (C.W.B., P.J.d.N., M.J.B., J.E.M.), and Pathology (R.F.P.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (R.F.P).
Circulation. 2014 Jul 1;130(1):51-60. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.009835. Epub 2014 Apr 22.
Experience with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with current-generation pericardial bioprostheses in young patients is limited. The death of a child with accelerated bioprosthetic aortic stenosis prompted enhanced surveillance of all such patients at our institution.
We reviewed records of 27 patients who had undergone AVR (median follow-up, 13.7 months) with a bovine pericardial bioprosthesis at ≤30 years of age. In the Mitroflow LXA valve group (n=15), freedom from valve failure was 100% at 1 year, 53% (95% confidence interval, 12-82) at 2 years, and 18% (95% confidence interval, 1-53) at 3 years. No Magna/Magna Ease valves (n=12) failed by 3 years. Among valve failure patients, median age at AVR was 12 years (range, 10-21 years). Life-threatening prosthetic aortic stenosis was detected at a median of 6 months after prior echocardiograms showing mild or less gradients. Patients with Mitroflow LXA compared with Magna/Magna Ease valves were smaller (median body surface area, 1.42 versus 1.93 m(2); P=0.002) and younger (median age, 13.0 versus 20.9 years; P=0.02) at AVR. Pathology demonstrated diffuse intrinsic leaflet calcification, not associated with inflammation or infection, and virtually immobile leaflets in closed position.
Young patients undergoing AVR with Mitroflow LXA pericardial valves are at high risk for rapid progression from mild or less to severe aortic stenosis over months, highlighting their need for heightened echocardiographic surveillance and suggesting that this aortic bioprosthesis should not be implanted in the young. Current data are insufficient to assess the safety of AVR with other pericardial bioprostheses in children and the youngest adults.
目前,关于在年轻患者中使用新一代心包生物瓣进行主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)的经验有限。一名儿童因生物瓣主动脉瓣狭窄加速而死亡,促使我们机构加强对所有此类患者的监测。
我们回顾了 27 名在≤30 岁时接受牛心包生物瓣 AVR(中位随访时间为 13.7 个月)的患者的记录。在 Mitroflow LXA 瓣膜组(n=15)中,1 年时瓣膜无故障率为 100%,2 年时为 53%(95%置信区间,12-82),3 年时为 18%(95%置信区间,1-53)。3 年内没有 Magna/Magna Ease 瓣膜失效。在瓣膜失效的患者中,AVR 的中位年龄为 12 岁(范围,10-21 岁)。在先前的超声心动图显示轻度或更低梯度后,中位 6 个月时发现危及生命的人工主动脉瓣狭窄。与 Magna/Magna Ease 瓣膜相比,Mitroflow LXA 瓣膜的患者更小(中位体表面积为 1.42m²与 1.93m²;P=0.002)和更年轻(中位年龄为 13.0 岁与 20.9 岁;P=0.02)。病理学表现为弥漫性固有瓣叶钙化,与炎症或感染无关,且在瓣叶关闭位几乎不能活动。
接受 Mitroflow LXA 心包瓣膜 AVR 的年轻患者在数月内从轻度或更低程度迅速进展为重度主动脉瓣狭窄的风险很高,这突出表明他们需要加强超声心动图监测,并表明不应在年轻人中植入这种主动脉生物瓣。目前的数据不足以评估其他心包生物瓣在儿童和最年轻的成年人中进行 AVR 的安全性。