Advertisement

Autologous pericardial aortic valve reconstruction: early results and comparison with mechanical valve replacement

  • Jeeva Vijayan
  • Rakesh Naik LachmaEmail author
  • Prasanna Simha Mohan Rao
  • Anand Subraya Bhat
Original Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Autologous pericardial aortic valve reconstruction is an attractive option compared with prosthetic valve replacement due to the absence of anticoagulation, lower pressure gradient across the valve and excellent valve haemodynamics.

Objective

We wanted to share the early results of autologous pericardial aortic valve reconstruction from our centre. The outcomes were compared with that of mechanical valve replacement.

Materials and methods

Between August 2016 to July 2018, 20 patients underwent autologous aortic valve reconstruction as per the techniques described by Ozaki et al. The surgery was done for aortic stenosis or regurgitation or a combination of both. All the surgeries were done by a single experienced surgeon. The results were compared to that of mechanical valve replacement. A comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation was done pre-discharge and at 6 months after surgery. The postoperative echocardiographic parameters that were evaluated include aortic valve pressure gradient, aortic valve orifice area, ejection fraction, left ventricular diameters etc. All the parameters were measured by a single expert. Other perioperative parameters were also evaluated like cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, need for anticoagulation etc. Statistical analysis was done using chi-square test/Mann-Whitney U test/independent sample t test.

Results

Autologous pericardial aortic valve reconstruction had several favourable results including lower aortic valve pressure gradient, bigger aortic valve orifice area etc. None of the patients required anticoagulation. There were no conversions to prosthetic valve replacement or reinterventions in the follow-up period.

Conclusion

Autologous pericardial aortic valve reconstruction is a feasible alternative to prosthetic valve replacement with several advantages.

Keywords

Autologous pericardium Aortic valve reconstruction Left ventricular mass 

Notes

Funding

None

Compliance with ethical standards

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agreed with submission to Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ozaki S, Kawase I, Yamashita H, et al. A total of 404 cases of aortic valve reconstruction with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2014;147:301–306.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ozaki S, Kawase I, Yamashita H, et al. Aortic valve reconstruction using autologous pericardium for aortic stenosis. Circ J. 2015;79:1504–10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ozaki S, Kawase I, Yamashita H, et al. Aortic valve reconstruction using autologous pericardium for patients aged less than 60 years; J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:934-8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al Halees Z, Al Shahid M, Al Sanei A, Sallehuddin A, Duran C. Up to 16 year follow-up of aortic valve reconstruction with pericardium: a stentless readily available cheap valve? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;28:200-5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    René P, Tornike S. The place of the Ozaki procedure in the treatment of aortic valve disease: Swiss Med Wkly. 2018;148:w14612Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Head SJ, Celik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J.2017;38:2183–2191.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daneshvar SA, Rahimtoola SH. Valve prosthesis–patient mismatch (VP–PM): A long-term perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1123–35Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuspidi C, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Sala C, Grassi G, Mancia G. Differential value of left ventricular mass index and wall thickness in predicting cardiovascular prognosis: Data from the PAMELA population. Am J Hypertens. 2014;27:1079–1086Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duran CM, Gometza B, Kumar N, Gallo R, Martin-Duran R. Aortic valve replacement with freehand autologous pericardium. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.1995;110:511-6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan KM, Rahman-Haley S, Mittal TK, Gavino JA, Dreyfus GD. Truly stentless autologous pericardial aortic valve replacement: an alternative to standard aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:276-83Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Regeer MV, Versteegh MI, Klautz RJ, et al. Aortic valve repair versus replacement for aortic regurgitation: effects on left ventricular remodeling. J Card Surg. 2015;30:13–19Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bach DS. Echo/doppler evaluation of hemodynamics after aortic valve replacement: Principles of interrogation and evaluation of high gradients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:296–304.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duran CMG, Gometza B, Kumar N, Gallo R, Bjornstad K. From aortic cusp extension to valve replacement with stentless pericardium. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:S428-32.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duran CM, Gallo R, Kumar N. Aortic valve replacement with autologous pericardium: Surgical technique. J Card Surg. 1995;10:1-9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeeva Vijayan
    • 1
  • Rakesh Naik Lachma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Prasanna Simha Mohan Rao
    • 1
  • Anand Subraya Bhat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular SurgerySri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations