İsmet DİNDAR, Noyan Temuçin OĞUŞ, Murat BAŞARAN, Ruken Bengi BAKAL, Eylül KAFALI, Özer SELİMOĞLU, Hamiyet ÖZCAN

Short-term clinical and hemodynamic results of the sorin soprano and sorin more bioprosthesis valves

Background: In the current surgical era, the use of bio-prosthetic valves may be limited because of their subop-timal hemodynamic performance and limited durabil¬ity. Thrombo-embolic events and anticoagulation-related bleeding associated with the use of mechanical valves may lead to irreversible complications. Recently, the use of the bioprosthetic valves has been increased especially in elderly patients having co-morbid risk factors. Methods: Between February 2005-April 2006,47 bioprosthetic valves were implanted in 44 patients (30 males, 14 females; mean age 71+6.5). The age limits for aortic and mitral bioprosthetic valve replacement were 55 and 60 years, respectively. All operations were performed electively under standard cardio-pulmonary bypass at moderate hypothermia (28 °C). Thirty bioprosthetic valves were used in the mitral position while 17 bioprosthetic valves were used in the aortic position. Three patients underwent a double-valve replacement and nine patients underwent concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting procedure. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in 12 patients. Results: Overall mortality was 2.27% (n=l). The patient who underwent double-valve replacement and four vessel coronary artery bypass grafting died on the postoperative day 12 because of heparin-induced trombocytopenia fol lowing hemodialysis. Prolonged mechanical ventilation was observed in three patients and all these patients were extubated within 72 hours. The hemodynamic performance of the valves were evaluated by echocardiography before discharge. Mean transvalvular gradient was 5.5+1.5 mmHg at mitral position and peak transvalvular gradient was 23±9 mmHg at aortic position.Conclusion: As a result, second generation pericardial valves have an acceptable hemodynamic performance in the early postoperative period and should be considered as safe substitutes in elderly patients having multiple preoperative co-morbid factors.

PDF

___

1. ACC/AHA 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 (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:1486-588.
2. Carpentier A, Dubost C, Lane E, Nashef A, Carpentier S, Relland J, et al. Continuing improvements in valvular bio prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1982;83:27-42.
3. Pelletier LC, Carrier M, Leclerc Y, Lepage G, deGuise P, Dyrda I. Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: a comparison of late results in 1,593 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 1989; 47:352-61.
4. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Lytle BW, Smedira NG, Sabik JF, Saunders CR. Long-term results of the Carpentier Edwards pericardial aortic valve: a 12-year follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66(6 Suppl):S73-6.
5. Marchand MA, Aupart MR, Norton R, Goldsmith IR, Pelletier LC, Pellerin M, et al. Fifteen-year experience with the mitral Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71(5 Suppl):S236-9.
6. Folliguet TA, Le Bret E, Bachet J, Laborde F. Pericarbon pericardial bioprosthesis: an experience based on the lessons of the past. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71(5 Suppl):S289-92.
7. Cen YY, Glower DD, Landolfo K, Lowe JE, Davis RD, Wolfe WG, et al. Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;122:569-77.
8. Peterseim DS, Cen YY, Cheruvu S, Landolfo K, Bashore TM, Lowe JE, et al. Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;117:890-7.
9. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM 3rd, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RW, 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.
10. Totaro P, Degno N, Zaidi A, Youhana A, Argano V. Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna bioprosthe- sis: a stented valve with stentless performance? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;130:1668-74.
11. Firstenberg MS, Morehead AJ, Thomas JD, Smedira NG, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Marchand MA. Short-term hemodynamic performance of the mitral Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial valve. Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Investigators. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71(5 Suppl):S285-8.
12. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1131-41.
13. Badano LP, Pavoni D, Musumeci S, Frassani R, Gianfagna P, Baldassi M, et al. Stented bioprosthetic valve hemodynamics: is the supra-annular implant better than the intra-annular? J Heart Valve Dis 2006;15:238-46.
14. Thiene G, Laborde F, Valente M, Gallix P, Talenti E, Calabrese F, et al. Morphological survey of a new pericardial valve prosthesis (Pericarbon): long-term animal experimental model. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1989;3:65-74.
15. Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Wagner I, Bleiziffer S, Ruzicka DJ, Guenzinger R, et al. Hemodynamic evaluation of the Sorin Soprano bioprosthesis in the completely supra annular aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis 2005;14:822-7.