The necessity of reoperation for patients with Bjork-Shiley, St Jude Medical, Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards prostheses

Reoperation in biological and mechanical valve populations: fate of the reoperative patient

From 1975 through 1992 inclusive, reoperative valve replacement (REOP) was required by 12.9% of patients (708/5,499). Of 1,355 patients with mechanical prostheses (MP), 46 (3.4%) came to REOP versus 662 of 4,144 patients (16%) with biological prostheses (BP). Early REOP mortality rate was 17.4% (8/46) for MP and 10.6% (70/662) for BP (p = not significant). It was higher with age greater than 75 years (p < 0.05) and trended higher with concomitant procedures and with increasing number of REOPs (p = not significant). The percentage freedom from REOP at 5 and 10 years for all BP was 96.0% +/- 0.4% and 74.9% +/- 1.1% compared with 93.6% +/- 1.2% and 87.9% +/- 2.5% for MP. The most common cause of REOP in the BP patients was structural valve deterioration, which was uncommon in patients with MP (72% versus 2% of REOP but only 15% versus 0.1% of initial implants). Nonstructural dysfunction was the leading cause of REOP in the MP group (65% versus 11%). Prosthetic valve endocarditis (18% versus 10%) and thromboembolic complications (10% versus 1%) were also more frequent causes of REOP in MP patients. However, the increased relative role of these factors with MP is due to the minimal incidence of structural valve deterioration. When related to the original choice of MP versus BP, only thromboembolic complication (3.8 times) was more prevalent as a cause of REOP in patients receiving MP at their previous procedure (p = not significant). For patients who previously received BP, structural valve deterioration (69 times) was more likely to lead to REOP than with MP (p < 0.01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Mechanical heart valves are durable but thrombogenic, and their use requires that the patient receive anticoagulants. In contrast, bioprosthetic valves are less thrombogenic, but they have limited durability because of tissue deterioration.

METHODS

To compare the outcomes of patients who receive these two types of valves, we randomly assigned 575 men scheduled to undergo aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement to receive either a mechanical or a bioprosthetic valve. The primary end points were death from any cause and any valve-related complication.

RESULTS

During an average follow-up of 11 years, there was no difference between the two groups in the probability of death from any cause (11-year probability for mechanical valves, 0.57; for bioprostheses, 0.62; P = 0.57) or in the probability of any valve-related complication (0.65 and 0.69, respectively; P = 0.39). There was a much higher rate of structural valve failure among patients who received bioprosthetic valves (11-year probability, 0.15 for the aortic valves and 0.36 for the mitral valves) than among those who received mechanical valves (no valve failures; P < 0.001). However, this difference was offset by a higher rate of bleeding complications among patients with mechanical valves than among those with bioprosthetic valves (11-year probability, 0.42 and 0.26, respectively; P < 0.001) and by a greater frequency of peri-prosthetic valvular regurgitation among patients with mechanical mitral valves than among those with mitral bioprostheses (11-year probability, 0.17 and 0.09, respectively; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

After 11 years, the rates of survival and freedom from all valve-related complications were similar for patients who received mechanical heart valves and those who received bioprosthetic heart valves. However, structural failure was observed only with the bioprosthetic valves, whereas bleeding complications were more frequent among patients who received mechanical valves.