» Articles » PMID: 15632830

Operative Risk of Reoperative Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Objective: The contemporary risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement is ill-defined. We therefore compared the recent early results of reoperative and primary aortic valve replacement in our institution.

Methods: Between January 1993 and January 2001, a total of 162 patients underwent reoperative aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting, and 2290 underwent primary aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting. The reoperative and primary groups were similar with regard to gender (37% female in both), preoperative New York Heart Association functional class (2.8 +/- 1 vs 2.8 +/- 1), and ejection fraction (58% +/- 15% vs 57% +/- 15%). Patients undergoing reoperative aortic valve replacement were younger than those undergoing primary aortic valve replacement (64 +/- 15 years vs 70 +/- 13 years, P < .001). Previous prostheses were xenografts in 77 patients (48%), homografts and autografts in 25 (15%), and mechanical prostheses in 60 (37%). Mean time to reoperation was 9.7 +/- 6.8 years.

Results: Early mortality for reoperative aortic valve replacement (8/162, 5%) was not statistically different from that for primary aortic valve replacement (71/2290, 3%, P = .20). Endocarditis was more common in the reoperative group (22% vs 3%, P < .001); when endocarditis was excluded from the analysis, early mortality was 3% in both groups. Multivariate predictors for early mortality were prosthetic valve endocarditis ( P < .001, odds ratio 9.8), advanced preoperative functional class ( P < .001, odds ratio 2.0), peripheral vascular disease ( P = .008, odds ratio 2.0), preserved left ventricular ejection fraction ( P = .004, odds ratio 0.98), and male gender ( P = .009, odds ratio 0.49). After adjustment for these factors, there was no difference in early mortality between the groups ( P = .095).

Conclusion: The risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement is similar to that for primary aortic valve replacement. These data support the expanded use of bioprosthetic valves in younger patients.

Citing Articles

Treatment options for isolated aortic valve insufficiency: a review.

Argaw S, Azizgolshani N, Blitzer D, Takayama H, George I, Pirelli L Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 11:1381102.

PMID: 38665234 PMC: 11043486. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1381102.


Original Article--Mid-term Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes in Middle Age Patients Post Trifecta™ (Abbott) Aortic Valve Replacement: A Single-center Study.

Khaliel F, Al Aboud M, Althibait S, Yezli S, Al Muaythir E, Alamro B J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2024; 36(1):1-7.

PMID: 38566901 PMC: 10984674. DOI: 10.37616/2212-5043.1366.


Impact of explanted valve type on aortic valve reoperations: nationwide UK experience.

Narayan P, Dong T, Dimagli A, Fudulu D, Chan J, Sinha S Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024; 65(2).

PMID: 38305431 PMC: 10902681. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezae031.


Survival and Recurrence of Endocarditis following Mechanical vs. Biological Aortic Valve Replacement for Endocarditis in Patients Aged 40 to 65 Years: Data from the INFECT-Registry.

Salsano A, Di Mauro M, Labate L, Della Corte A, Lo Presti F, De Bonis M J Clin Med. 2024; 13(1).

PMID: 38202159 PMC: 10779833. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13010153.


Considerations for Reoperative Heart Valve Surgery.

Marin-Cuartas M, de Waha S, Saeed D, Misfeld M, Kiefer P, Borger M Struct Heart. 2023; 7(1):100098.

PMID: 37275309 PMC: 10236806. DOI: 10.1016/j.shj.2022.100098.