Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Feb;157(2):714-725. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.06.102. Epub 2018 Nov 14.
Long-term outcomes of prosthetic aortic valve/root replacement in patients aged 30 years or younger are not well understood. We report our single institutional experience in this young cohort.
From 1998 to 2016, 99 patients (age range, 16-30 years) underwent aortic valve replacement (n = 57), aortic valve replacement and supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (n = 6), or aortic root replacement (n = 36). A prospectively maintained aortic valve database was retrospectively reviewed to complete longitudinal functional and clinical data. Total follow-up was 493 patient years.
Surgical indications included primary stenosis/insufficiency (52% [n = 51]), Marfan syndrome (10% [n = 10]), and endocarditis (33.3% [n = 33]). Fifty-eight patients (59%) underwent mechanical valve replacement, with 41 patients (41%) receiving a biologic/bioprosthetic valve. Twenty-five patients underwent aortic valve reoperation after index procedure with following indications: prosthesis-patient mismatch 1.0% (n = 1), prosthetic valve degeneration/dysfunction 10% (n = 10), connective tissue 2% (n = 2), and endocarditis 12% (n = 12). Mortality (30-day/in-hospital) and stroke rate were 3.0% (n = 3) and 1% (n = 1), respectively. One-, 5-, and 10-year actuarial freedom from aortic valve reoperation by valve type was 89.1%, 84.6%, and 69.4% for the Mechanical Valve group and 89.6%, 70.9%, and 57.6% for the Biologic/Bioprosthetic Valve group, respectively (log rank P = .279). Replacement valve size ≤21 mm was a significant risk factor for reoperation, and was associated with progression of mean aortic valve transvalvular gradients over follow-up. Valve type had no effect.
The choice of mechanical versus biologic/bioprosthetic valve does not affect freedom from reoperation or survival rates in this young cohort during mid- to long-term follow-up. Smaller aortic valve replacement size (≤21 mm) is a significant risk factor for reoperation and progression of mean aortic valve gradients.
30 岁或以下患者行人工主动脉瓣/根部置换的长期预后尚不清楚。我们报告了我们在这一年轻队列中的单中心经验。
1998 年至 2016 年,99 例患者(年龄 16-30 岁)接受主动脉瓣置换术(n=57)、主动脉瓣置换术和冠状动脉上方升主动脉置换术(n=6)或主动脉根部置换术(n=36)。前瞻性维护的主动脉瓣数据库进行回顾性分析,以完成纵向功能和临床数据。总随访时间为 493 患者年。
手术指征包括原发性狭窄/关闭不全(52%[n=51])、马凡综合征(10%[n=10])和心内膜炎(33.3%[n=33])。58 例(59%)患者接受机械瓣置换,其中 41 例(41%)接受生物/生物瓣置换。25 例患者在指数手术后再次行主动脉瓣手术,指征如下:假体-患者不匹配 1.0%(n=1)、人工瓣膜退行性变/功能障碍 10%(n=10)、结缔组织 2%(n=2)和心内膜炎 12%(n=12)。死亡率(30 天/住院)和卒中率分别为 3.0%(n=3)和 1.0%(n=1)。根据瓣膜类型,1、5 和 10 年主动脉瓣再手术的累积无事件生存率分别为机械瓣组 89.1%、84.6%和 69.4%,生物/生物瓣组 89.6%、70.9%和 57.6%(对数秩 P=0.279)。置换瓣口尺寸≤21mm 是再手术的显著危险因素,与随访期间平均主动脉瓣跨瓣压差的进展相关。瓣膜类型对再手术率和生存率无影响。
在这个年轻队列的中期至长期随访中,机械瓣与生物/生物瓣的选择并不影响再手术率或生存率。较小的主动脉瓣置换尺寸(≤21mm)是再手术和平均主动脉瓣梯度进展的显著危险因素。