Advertisement

Stented Bioprosthetic Valves

  • John R. PepperEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Ideally, patients with aortic valve disease should be operated upon before irreversible myocardial damage occurs, and the operation itself should cause no more than minimal further impairment. Postoperatively, valve performance should be durable and physiological, halting or even reversing the pathophysiological processes in the ventricle due to previous pre-existing valve disease. These criteria have yet to be fully realised in current practice.

Keywords

Bioprostheses Valve replacement Glutaraldehyde TAVI 

References

  1. 1.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Haemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation. 2000;101:1940–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:963–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    He GW, Grunkemeier GL, Gately HL, Furnary AP, Starr A. up to thirty-year survival after aortic valve replacement in the small aortic root. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;59:1056–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Natsuaki M, Itoh T, Tomita S, Naitoh K. Hemodynamics after aortic valve replacement by St. Jude Medical valve for patients with small aortic annulus and severe left ventricular hypertrophy. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:86–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hachida M, Koyangi H, Nonoyama M, Bonkohara Y, Saitu S, Nakamura K. Serial haemodynamic study of aortic valve replacement in patients with narrow aortic roots. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:81–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Metras J, Durand L-G. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on haemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:211–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khuri SF, Folland ED, Sethi GK. Six month postoperative haemodynamics of the Hancock heterograft and the Bjork-Shiley prosthesis: results of the Veterans Administration Cooperative Prospective Randomised trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Hancock ll bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability? Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:775–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1490–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;138:688–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RWM, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:753–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smedira NG, Blackstone EH, Roselli EE, Daffey CC, Cosgrove DM. Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in non-elderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:558–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aupart MR, Mirza A, Meurisse YA, Sirinelli AL, Neville PH, Marchand MA. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1,333 patients. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15:768–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McClure RS, Naryanasamy N, Wiegnerinck E. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17 year follow-up in 1000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1410–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Myken PS. Seventeen-year experience with the St. Jude Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005;14:486–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myken PSU, Bech-Hansen O. A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamieson WRE, David TE, Feindel CMS, Miyagishima RT, Germann E. Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards SAV and Hancock ll porcine bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002;11:424–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valfre C, Ius P, Minniti G, Salvador L. The fate of Hancock ll porcine valve recipients 25 years after implant. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38:141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rizzoli G, Mirone S, Ius P. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock ll valve: a multicenter experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:602–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reiss FC, Cramer E, Hansen L, Schiffeters S, Wahl G, Wallrath J. Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;37:145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jamieson WRE, Riess F-C, Raudkivi PJ, Metras J, Busse EFG, Goldstein J, Fradet GJ. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: assessment of 12-year performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:302–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cosgrove DM, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:596–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, Bichel DP, Rosborough DM, Sears SP, Aranki SF. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg. 1997;226:421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F, Jeanmart H, De Geest R, Degrieck I, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tabata M, Umakanthan CLH, Bolman RM, Shekar PS, Chen FY, Couper GS, Aranki SF. Early and late outcomes of 1000 minimally invasive aortic valve operations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;33:537–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Magovern GJ, Cromie HW. Sutureless prosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1963;46:726–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Schmidt J, Concistre G, Fischlein T. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: first-year single-centre experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94:504–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aymard T, Kadner A, Walpoth N, Gober V, Englberger L, Stalder M, Eckstein F, Zobrist C, Carrel T. Clinical experience with the second-generation 3f Enable sutureless aortic valve prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:313–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Folliguet TA, Laborde F, Zannis K, Ghorayeb G, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centres. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1483–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sepehripour AH, Harling L, Athanasiou T. What are the current results of sutureless valves in high-risk aortic valve disease patients? Interact Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;10:1–7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith C, Leon M, Mack M, Miller C, Moses J, Svensson L. PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in high risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;364:2187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardiac Surgery Royal Brompton HospitalImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations