Advertisement

20 years’ durability of Carpentier-Edwards Perimount stented pericardial aortic valve

  • Eric Bergoënd
  • M. R. Aupart
  • A. Mirza
  • Y. A. Meurisse
  • A. L. Sirinelli
  • P. H. Neville
  • M. A. Marchand

Abstract

Aortic valve disease is the most common cardiac valve condition in developed countries, and its prevalence increases with patient age, especially due to calcified aortic stenosis [24]. Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains the most effective treatment in the majority of cases for significant aortic stenosis as well as aortic regurgitation, few data are available for long-term surgical outcome. Perimount pericardial valves offer excellent hemodynamic function, and the present authors’ 10 year experience proved to be satisfactory when these valves were implanted in both the aortic and mitral positions [2, 3]. However, the long-term durability and performance of the valve remained questionable. The study aim was to evaluate long-term results of valve replacement for significant aortic valve disease, and long-term behavior of the aortic Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis, which the present authors have been implanting since 1984.

Keywords

Aortic Valve Aortic Valve Replacement Aortic Valve Disease Effective Orifice Area Biological Valve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Antonini Canterin F, Zuppiroli A, Bogdan A et al (2003) Effect of statins on the progression of bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration. Am J Cardiol 92:1479–1482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aupart MR, Sirinelli AL, Diemont FF, Meurisse YA, Dreyfus XB, Marchand MA (1996) The last generation of pericardial valves in the aortic position: ten-year follow-up in 589 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 61:615–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aupart MR, Neville PH, Hammami S, Sirinelli AL, Meurisse YA, Marchand MA (1997) Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves in the mitral position: ten-year follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 113:492–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RW, Okies JE (2001) Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 72:753–757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergoend E, Aupart M, Kendja F, Sirinelli A, Neville P, Marchand M (2004) Twelve years’ experience with Carbomedics bileaflet valves. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 97: 214–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonow RO, Carabello B, Chattergee K et al (1998) Guidelines for the management of patient with valvular heart disease. Circulation 98:1949–1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bortolotti U, Milano A, Thiene G et al (1987) Early mechanical failures of the Hancock pericardial xenograft. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 94:200–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaput M, Bouchard D, Demers P et al (2005) Conversion to sinus rhythm do not improve long term survival after valve surgery: insight from a 20 year follow up study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 28:206–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dalrymple-Hay MJ, Crook T, Bannon PG et al (2002) Risk of reoperation for structural failure of aortic and mitral tissue valves. J Heart Valve Dis 11:419–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edmunds LH Jr., Clark RE, Cohn LH, Grunkemeier GL, Miller DC, Weisel RD (1996) Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Standardizing Definitions of Prosthetic Heart Valve Morbidity of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 112:708–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao G, Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Starr A (2004) Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:384–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH (2000) Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1152–1158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanania G, Michel PL, Montely JM et al (2004) The long term (15 years) evolution after valvular replacement with mechanical prosthesis or bioprosthesis between the age of 60 and 70 years. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 97:7–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ikonomidis JS, Kratz JM, Crumbley AJ et al (2003) Twenty year experience with the St. Jude Medical mechanical prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 126:2022–2031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iung B, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Tornos P et al (2002) Recommendations on the management of the asymptomatic patients with valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 23:1253–1266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT (1998) Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 66(6 Suppl):S40–S43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jamieson WR, Marchand MA, Pelletier CL et al (1999) Structural valve deterioration in mitral replacement surgery: comparison of Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine and Perimount pericardial bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 118:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT et al (2003) Reoperation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure: risk assessment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 24:873–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karni A, Holtzman R, Bass T et al (2001) Traumatic head injury in the anticoagulated patient: a lethal combination. Am Surg 67:1098–1100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan SS, Trento A, DeRobertis M et al (2001) Twenty year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122:257–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirsh M, Nakashima K, Kubota S, Houel R, Hillion ML, Loisance D (2004) The risk of reoperative heart valve procedures in octogenarian patients. J Heart Valve Dis 13:991–996Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lund O, Nielsen SL, Arildsen H, Ilkjaer LB, Pilegaaard HK (2000) Standard aortic St. Jude at 18 years: performance profile and determinants of outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 69:1459–1465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Brien KD (2005) Converting enzyme inhibitor and aortic calcification. Arch Intern Med 165:858–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Otto CM (1998) Aortic stenosis. Clinical evaluation and optimal timing of surgery. Cardiol Clin 16:353–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Potter DD, Sundt TM, Zehr KJ et al (2005) Operative risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:94–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rizzoli G, Bottio T, Thiene G, Toscano G, Casarotto D (2003) Long-term durability of the Hancock II porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 126:66–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosand J, Eckman MH, Knudsen KA, Singer DE, Greesberg SM (2004) The effect of warfarin and intensity of anticoagulation on outcome of intracerebral haemorrhage. Arch Intern Med 164:880–884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sidhu P, O’Kane H, Ali N et al (2001) Mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in the elderly: a 20-year comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 71(5 Suppl.):S257–S260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sjalander A, Engstrom G, Berntrop E, Svensson P (2003) Risk of hemorrhagic stroke in patient with oral anticoagulation compared with the general population. J Intern Med 254:434–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Bergoënd
    • 1
  • M. R. Aupart
  • A. Mirza
  • Y. A. Meurisse
  • A. L. Sirinelli
  • P. H. Neville
  • M. A. Marchand
  1. 1.Service de chirurgie cardiaqueHôpital Trousseau C.H.R.U. de ToursTours cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations