Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Division of Cardiac Surgery, Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Northwestern Medicine and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Nov;168(5):1448-1458.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.10.012. Epub 2023 Oct 13.
Guideline recommendations for mechanical or bioprosthetic valve for mitral valve replacement by age remains controversial. We sought to determine bovine pericardial valve durability by age and risk of reintervention.
This retrospective study between 2 large university-based cardiac surgery programs examined patients who underwent bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement from 2004 to 2020. Follow-up was obtained through June 2022. Durability outcomes involving structural valve deterioration were compared by age decile.
Of 1544 available patients, mean age was 66 ± 13 years and 652 (42%) were aged less than 65 years. Indications for mitral valve replacement were as follows: mitral regurgitation greater than 2+ in 53% (n = 813), mitral stenosis in 44% (n = 650), endocarditis in 18% (n = 277), and reoperation in 39% (n = 602). Concomitant procedures were aortic valve replacement in 28% (n = 426), tricuspid valve in 36% (n = 550), and coronary artery bypass in 19% (n = 290). Thirty-day mortality was 5.4%. In follow-up (clinical: median [interquartile range] 75 [25-129] months), reoperation for endocarditis and new stroke were low (0.30 and 1.06 per 100 patient/years, respectively). The cumulative incidence of mitral valve reintervention for structural valve deterioration among all patients was 6.2% at 10 years and 9.0% at 12 years with no statistical difference in structural valve deterioration in patients aged 40 to 70 years (P = .1). In 90 patients with mitral valve reintervention, 30-day mortality after reintervention was 4.7% (n = 2) for 43 with mitral valve-in-valve and 6.4% (n = 3) for 47 with reoperation.
Bovine pericardial mitral valve replacement is a durable option for younger patients. The opportunity to avoid anticoagulation and the associated risks with mechanical mitral valve replacement may be of benefit to patients. These insights may provide data needed to revise the current guidelines.
根据年龄推荐二尖瓣置换术使用机械瓣或生物瓣仍存在争议。我们旨在确定牛心包瓣的耐久性及其与年龄和再次介入的风险的关系。
本研究为两所大型大学心脏外科项目之间的回顾性研究,对 2004 年至 2020 年间接受生物瓣二尖瓣置换术的患者进行了研究。通过 2022 年 6 月获得随访。通过年龄十分位数比较涉及结构性瓣膜恶化的耐久性结果。
在 1544 名可评估患者中,平均年龄为 66±13 岁,652 名(42%)年龄小于 65 岁。二尖瓣置换术的适应证如下:二尖瓣反流大于 2+占 53%(n=813),二尖瓣狭窄占 44%(n=650),心内膜炎占 18%(n=277),再次手术占 39%(n=602)。同时进行的手术包括主动脉瓣置换占 28%(n=426),三尖瓣修复占 36%(n=550),冠状动脉旁路移植术占 19%(n=290)。30 天死亡率为 5.4%。在随访期间(临床:中位数[四分位距]75[25-129]个月),心内膜炎和新发卒中的再次手术率较低(分别为每 100 名患者/年 0.30 和 1.06)。所有患者结构性瓣膜恶化的二尖瓣再次介入累积发生率为 10 年时 6.2%,12 年时 9.0%,40 至 70 岁患者的结构性瓣膜恶化无统计学差异(P=0.1)。在 90 例二尖瓣再次介入的患者中,二尖瓣瓣中瓣的 30 天死亡率为 4.7%(n=2),二尖瓣再次手术的 30 天死亡率为 6.4%(n=3)。
牛心包二尖瓣置换术是年轻患者的一种耐用选择。避免机械二尖瓣置换术的抗凝和相关风险可能对患者有益。这些见解可能为修订当前指南提供所需的数据。