Aortic and Mitral Prosthetic Valve Replacement in Age Groups 61–65 & 66–70 Years

Prosthesis choice for aortic and mitral valve replacements in patients aged 61–70 years is difficult. We evaluated prostheses in age groups 61–65 and 66–70 years. Freedom from major thromboembolism and hemorrhage was greater for bioprostheses than mechanical prostheses in both age groups after aortic valve replacement, but only in the younger age group after mitral valve replacement. Freedom from valve-related re-operation was greater after mitral valve replacement with mechanical prostheses in both age groups, but no difference after aortic valve replacement. Valve type was predictive of major thromboembolism and hemorrhage, except in older patients undergoing mitral valve replacement. Bioprostheses are favored for aortic valve replacement in both age groups, but the risk of re-operation with a bioprosthesis in the mitral position in patients aged 61–65 years favors a mechanical prosthesis. Prosthesis choice is less definite in those aged 66–70 years.

Structural valve deterioration in mitral replacement surgery: comparison of Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine and perimount pericardial bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

Bioprostheses preserved with glutaraldehyde, both porcine and pericardial, have been available as second-generation prostheses for valve replacement surgery. The performance with regard to structural valve deterioration with the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular (CE-SAV) porcine bioprosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CE-P) pericardial bioprosthesis (Baxter Healthcare Corp, Edwards Division, Santa Ana, Calif) was evaluated to determine whether there was a difference in mitral valve replacement.

METHODS

The CE-SAV bioprosthesis was implanted in 1266 overall mitral valve replacements (isolated mitral, 1066; mitral in multiple, 200) and the CE-P bioprosthesis in 429 overall mitral valve replacements (isolated mitral, 328; mitral in multiple, 101). The mean age of the CE-SAV population was 64.2 +/- 12.2 years and that of the CE-P population, 60.7 +/- 11.7 years (P =.0001). For the study, structural valve deterioration was diagnosed at reoperation for explantation.

RESULTS

The freedom from structural valve deterioration was evaluated to 10 years, and the freedom rates reported are at 10 years. For the overall mitral valve replacement groups, the actuarial freedom from deterioration was significant (P =.0001): CE-P > CE-SAV for 40 years or younger, 80% versus 60%; 41 to 50 years, 91% versus 61%; 51 to 60 years, 84% versus 69%; 61 to 70 years, 95% versus 75%. The older than 70-year group was 100% versus 92% (no significant difference). The actual freedom from structural valve deterioration also demonstrated the same pattern at 10 years: 40 years or younger, CE-P 82% versus CE-SAV 68%; 41 to 50 years, 92% versus 70%; 51 to 60 years, 90% versus 80%; 61 to 70 years, 97% versus 88%; and older than 70 years, 100% versus 97%. The independent risk factors of structural valve deterioration for the overall mitral valve replacement group were age and age groups and prosthesis type (CE-SAV > CE-P). The prosthesis type either in isolated replacement or in multiple replacement was not predictive of structural valve deterioration. The pathology of structural valve deterioration was different: 70% of CE-P failures were due to calcification and 57% of CE-SAV failures were due to combined calcification and leaflet tear.

CONCLUSION

The actuarial and actual freedom from structural valve deterioration, diagnosed at reoperation, is greater at 10 years for CE-P than for CE-SAV bioprostheses. The mode of failure is different, and the cause remains obscure. Long-term evaluation is recommended, because the different modes of failure may alter the clinical performance by 15 and 20 years.

Carpentier-Edwards standard and supraannular porcine bioprostheses: comparison of technology

BACKGROUND

Performance with regard to structural valve deterioration (SVD) with the Carpentier-Edwards standard (CE-S) and supraannular (CE-SAV) (Baxter Healthcare Corp, Irvine, CA) porcine bioprostheses was evaluated to determine whether progress in reduction of structural failure has been achieved with technological changes.

METHODS

The CE-S was implanted during 567 aortic valve replacement (AVR) and 486 mitral valve replacement (MVR) procedures, and the CE-SAV was implanted during 1,670 AVR and 1,096 MVR procedures. The failure mode of early stent dehiscence with the CE-SAV prosthesis, thought to be controlled by manufacturing changes in 1986 and 1987, supported comparison of the CE-SAV with censored cases of stent dehiscence. Stent dehiscence accounted for only 1.2% (1 of 81) and 14.1% (29 of 205) of AVR and MVR CE-SAV failures, respectively.

RESULTS

The only difference for AVR for freedom from SVD occurred in the 21- to 40-year age group at 15 years and was 68% for the CE-SAV and 31% for the CE-S (p<0.05). In the 61- to 70-year age group, freedom from SVD at 15 years was 76% for the CE-S and 84% for the CE-SAV; for the 71-year or higher age group, freedom from SVD was 89% and 95%, respectively (p = NS). For MVR freedom from SVD was different only in the 71-year or higher age group and was 90% for the CE-S and 59% for the CE-SAV (p<0.05). Freedom from SVD was reduced but was similar (p = NS) for the other age groups. For AVR the actual freedom from SVD at 15 years for the CE-S and CE-SAV was, respectively, 79% and 72% for the 51- to 60-year age group, 86% and 91% for the 61- to 70-year age group, and 98% and 98% for the 71-year or higher age group. For MVR, these rates were, respectively, 69% and 75% for the 61- to 70-year age group and 96% and 89% for the 71-year and higher age group.

CONCLUSIONS

The technologic advancements made in the second-generation CE-SAV bioprosthesis to reduce the incidence of structural failure have not uniformly been successful. The actual freedom from SVD provides evidence for implantation of porcine bioprostheses for AVR in age groups 61 to 70 years and 71 years or higher and for MVR in the age group 71 years or higher.