Predicted patient outcome after bioprosthetic AVR and the Ross operation

  • J. J. M. Takkenberg
  • M. W. A. van Geldorp


Multiple interrelated factors (patient-, physician-, and prosthesis-related) affect patient survival after aortic valve replacement. Every aortic valve replacement is associated with a risk of death due to the surgical procedure. This risk may vary with the type of prosthesis that is implanted, and obviously increases with patient age and with each reoperation. In addition, the etiology of the valve lesion, concomitant procedures, and other wellknown risk factors may also affect operative mortality. Late survival of patients after aortic valve replacement differs considerably from survival of age-matched individuals in the general population. Fig. 1 shows that life expectancy of male patients after aortic valve replacement is significantly reduced compared to the age-matched population life expectancy. This difference in life expectancy is particularly evident in young adult patients. Operative mortality and the occurrence of valve-related events [1] (valverelated mortality) can only in part explain this difference, as is illustrated in Fig. 1 by the life expectancy of a patient who receives the — thus far hypothetical — perfect valve substitute, i.e., a valve substitute that has no associated valve-related complications. The remaining loss in life expectancy compared to the general population is depicted by the term excess mortality.
Fig. 1.

Absolute life expectancy (years) after aortic valve replacement with stented bioprostheses, mechanical prostheses and allografts compared to the age-matched Dutch population. Hypothetical immunity from valve-related events is depicted by the uninterrupted solid line just above the life expectancy estimates of the different prosthetic valve types


Aortic Valve Aortic Valve Replacement Young Adult Patient Predicted Patient Outcome Mechanical Prosthesis 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI, Kouchoukos NT, Blackstone EH, Grunkemeier GL, Takkenberg JJ, David TE, Butchart EG, Adams DH, Shahian DM, Hagl S, Mayer JE, Lytle BW (2008) Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33:523–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aklog L, Carr-White GS, Birks EJ, Yacoub MH (2000) Pulmonary autograft versus aortic homograft for aortic valve replacement: interim results from a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis 9(2):176–188, discussion 188–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach DS, Cimino N and Deeb GM (2007) Unoperated patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 50(20):2018–2019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC, Jr., Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O’Gara PT, O’Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC, Jr., Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B (2006) ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 114(5):e84–e231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouma BJ, van Den Brink RB, van Der Meulen JH, Verheul HA, Cheriex EC, Hamer HP, Dekker E, Lie KI, Tijssen JG (1999) To operate or not on elderly patients with aortic stenosis: the decision and its consequences. Heart 82(2):143–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan V, Jamieson WR, Germann E, Chan F, Miyagishima RT, Burr LH, Janusz MT, Ling H, Fradet GJ (2006) Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131(6):1267–1273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iung B, Cachier A, Baron G, Messika-Zeitoun D, Delahaye F, Tornos P, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Boersma E, Ravaud P, Vahanian A (2005) Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery? Eur Heart J 26(24) 2714–2720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kappetein AP, Puvimanasinghe JP, Takkenberg JJ, Steyerberg EW, Bogers AJ (2007) Predicted patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with Medtronic Stentless Freestyle bioprostheses. J Heart Valve Dis 16(4) 423–428, discussion 429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kappetein AP, Takkenberg JJ, Puvimanasinghe JP, Jamieson WR, Eijkemans M, Bogers AJ (2006) Does the type of biological valve affect patient outcome? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 5(4) 398–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klieverik LM, Bekkers JA, Roos JW, Eijkemans MJ, Raap GB, Bogers AJ, Takkenberg JJ (2008) Autograft or allograft aortic valve replacement in young adult patients with congenital aortic valve disease. Eur Heart J 29(11) 1446–1453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klieverik LM, Noorlander M, Takkenberg JJ, Kappetein AP, Bekkers JA, van Herwerden LA, Bogers AJ (2006) Outcome after aortic valve replacement in young adults: is patient profile more important than prosthesis type? J Heart Valve Dis 15(4) 479–487, discussion 487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kvidal P, Bergstrom R, Horte LG, Stahle E (2000) Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 35(3) 747–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehmann S, Walther T, Kempfert J, Leontjev S, Rastan A, Falk V, Mohr FW (2007) Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: midterm results of a prospectively randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 84(2) 467–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Puvimanasinghe JP, Steyerberg EW, Takkenberg JJ, Eijkemans MJ, van Herwerden LA, Bogers AJ, Habbema JD (2001) Prognosis after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis: predictions based on meta-analysis and microsimulation. Circulation 103(11) 1535–1541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takkenberg JJ, Eijkemans MJ, van Herwerden LA, Steyerberg EW, Lane MM, Elkins RC, Habbema JD, Bogers AJ (2003) Prognosis after aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allografts in adults. Ann Thorac Surg 75(5) 1482–1489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takkenberg JJ, Klieverik LM, Schoof PH, van Suylen RJ, van Herwerden LA, Zondervan PE, Roos-Hesselink JW, Eijkemans MJC, Yacoub MH, Bogers AJ (2009) The Ross procedure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 119:222–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takkenberg JJ, Puvimanasinghe JP, Grunkemeier GL (2003) Simulation models to predict outcome after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 75(5) 1372–1376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J, Butchart E, Dion R, Filippatos G, Flachskampf F, Hall R, Iung B, Kasprzak J, Nataf P, Tornos P, Torracca L, Wenink A (2007) Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 28(2) 230–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Geldorp MW, Jamieson WR, Kappetein AP, Puvimanasinghe JP, Eijkemans MJ; Grunkemeier GL, Takkenberg JJ, Bogers AJ (2007) Usefulness of microsimulation to translate valve performance into patient outcome: patient prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 134(3) 702–709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Geldorp MW, Jamieson WR, Kappetein AP, Ye J, Fradet GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Grunkemeier GL, Bogers AJ, Takkenberg JJ (2009) Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: Weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137(4):881–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. J. M. Takkenberg
    • 1
  • M. W. A. van Geldorp
  1. 1.Dept of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Bd563Erasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations