Aortic homografts versus mechanical valves in aortic valve replacement in young patients: a retrospective study

Background. Whether aortic homografts (AH) or mechanical devices (MD) are the valves of choice for aortic valve replacement in young patients (age 20 to 50 years) is unclear. Hence, we examined all aortic valve replacements performed with AH and MD in a retrospective study. Methods. Between 1988 and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Annals of thoracic surgery 1998-12, Vol.66 (6), p.S194-S197
Hauptverfasser: Gross, Christoph, Klima, Uwe, Mair, Rudolf, Brücke, Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page S197
container_issue 6
container_start_page S194
container_title The Annals of thoracic surgery
container_volume 66
creator Gross, Christoph
Klima, Uwe
Mair, Rudolf
Brücke, Peter
description Background. Whether aortic homografts (AH) or mechanical devices (MD) are the valves of choice for aortic valve replacement in young patients (age 20 to 50 years) is unclear. Hence, we examined all aortic valve replacements performed with AH and MD in a retrospective study. Methods. Between 1988 and 1995, 45 patients (mean age, 38.6 ± 8.5 years) underwent aortic valve replacement with an AH and 40 patients (mean age, 42.0 ± 7.2 years) with an MD. Patients’ demographic data were comparable in all respects, except acute endocarditis, which was an absolute indication for the use of an AH. Results. The mean follow-up time was 51.7 ± 22.6 months for AH versus 44.6 ± 26.9 months for MD (not significant). There were significant differences in postoperative outcome among the two groups ( p ≤ 0.05): perioperative death (4 versus 0 for AH and MD, respectively); reoperation (8 for AH versus 0 for MD); and endocarditis (5 versus 0 for AH and MD). There were higher incidences of embolism (2 versus 0) and hemorrhage (2 versus 0) in MD compared with AH. Only late death was comparable among the two groups with 5 patients in each group. Conclusions. The mechanical valves in our midterm follow-up are superior to homografts. However, embolic and hemorrhagic complications in MD are continuously impending and cumulative during a long-term follow-up. The surprisingly high rate of endocarditis in the AH group is only partly caused by the indication: 2 cases were recurrent, but there were also 2 new onsets of endocarditis. In 4 cases structural deterioration was responsible for reoperation. Aortic valve replacement with aortic homografts showed a rather unfavorable midterm outcome in this selected group of young patients. A surprisingly high rate of graft endocarditis and structural deterioration led to subsequent reoperations. Although our results with mechanical valves are satisfying, embolism and hemorrhage are impending risk factors for many years to come in these young patients.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0003-4975(98)01189-8
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69158766</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0003497598011898</els_id><sourcerecordid>69158766</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-5c6ba1bfacc09a437d7d4582ba9ee5055a68ffbf0ec9a3efb231643ebb3f910b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1u1TAQRi0EKpfCI1TKAiFYhNpJ7NhsqqoCWqlSF8DaGjvj1iiJg-1c6b49vj8qS1aW5zszHh9CLhj9zCgTlz8opW3dqZ5_VPITZUyqWr4gG8Z5U4uGq5dk84y8Jm9S-l2uTYnPyJlSLe26fkPCdYjZ2-opTOExgsup2mJMa6omtE8wewtjtYVxi6nycwVH-lCoIi4jWJxwzvtsF9b5sVog-1JIXyooQI4hLWizL3jK67B7S145GBO-O53n5Ne3rz9vbuv7h-93N9f3te04zzW3wgAzDqylCrq2H_qh47IxoBA55RyEdM44ilZBi840LRNdi8a0TjFq2nPy4Th3ieHPiinrySeL4wgzhjVpoRiXvRAF5EfQllVTRKeX6CeIO82o3ovWB9F6b1ErqQ-itSx9F6cHVjPh8Nx1Mlvy96ccUnHoIszWp3_DhSzfUQW7OmJYZGw9Rp1s8Wdx8LF400Pw_1nkL0bsnZ0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69158766</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Aortic homografts versus mechanical valves in aortic valve replacement in young patients: a retrospective study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Gross, Christoph ; Klima, Uwe ; Mair, Rudolf ; Brücke, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Gross, Christoph ; Klima, Uwe ; Mair, Rudolf ; Brücke, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Whether aortic homografts (AH) or mechanical devices (MD) are the valves of choice for aortic valve replacement in young patients (age 20 to 50 years) is unclear. Hence, we examined all aortic valve replacements performed with AH and MD in a retrospective study. Methods. Between 1988 and 1995, 45 patients (mean age, 38.6 ± 8.5 years) underwent aortic valve replacement with an AH and 40 patients (mean age, 42.0 ± 7.2 years) with an MD. Patients’ demographic data were comparable in all respects, except acute endocarditis, which was an absolute indication for the use of an AH. Results. The mean follow-up time was 51.7 ± 22.6 months for AH versus 44.6 ± 26.9 months for MD (not significant). There were significant differences in postoperative outcome among the two groups ( p ≤ 0.05): perioperative death (4 versus 0 for AH and MD, respectively); reoperation (8 for AH versus 0 for MD); and endocarditis (5 versus 0 for AH and MD). There were higher incidences of embolism (2 versus 0) and hemorrhage (2 versus 0) in MD compared with AH. Only late death was comparable among the two groups with 5 patients in each group. Conclusions. The mechanical valves in our midterm follow-up are superior to homografts. However, embolic and hemorrhagic complications in MD are continuously impending and cumulative during a long-term follow-up. The surprisingly high rate of endocarditis in the AH group is only partly caused by the indication: 2 cases were recurrent, but there were also 2 new onsets of endocarditis. In 4 cases structural deterioration was responsible for reoperation. Aortic valve replacement with aortic homografts showed a rather unfavorable midterm outcome in this selected group of young patients. A surprisingly high rate of graft endocarditis and structural deterioration led to subsequent reoperations. Although our results with mechanical valves are satisfying, embolism and hemorrhage are impending risk factors for many years to come in these young patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4975</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-6259</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(98)01189-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9930447</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ATHSAK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anticoagulants - adverse effects ; Aortic Valve - surgery ; Aortic Valve - transplantation ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cardiology. Vascular system ; Embolism - etiology ; Endocardial and cardiac valvular diseases ; Endocarditis, Bacterial - etiology ; Endocarditis, Bacterial - surgery ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Heart ; Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects ; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects ; Humans ; Incidence ; Longitudinal Studies ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Hemorrhage - etiology ; Recurrence ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Survival Rate ; Transplantation, Homologous ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The Annals of thoracic surgery, 1998-12, Vol.66 (6), p.S194-S197</ispartof><rights>1998 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-5c6ba1bfacc09a437d7d4582ba9ee5055a68ffbf0ec9a3efb231643ebb3f910b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-5c6ba1bfacc09a437d7d4582ba9ee5055a68ffbf0ec9a3efb231643ebb3f910b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003497598011898$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,3537,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1685829$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9930447$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gross, Christoph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klima, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mair, Rudolf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brücke, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Aortic homografts versus mechanical valves in aortic valve replacement in young patients: a retrospective study</title><title>The Annals of thoracic surgery</title><addtitle>Ann Thorac Surg</addtitle><description>Background. Whether aortic homografts (AH) or mechanical devices (MD) are the valves of choice for aortic valve replacement in young patients (age 20 to 50 years) is unclear. Hence, we examined all aortic valve replacements performed with AH and MD in a retrospective study. Methods. Between 1988 and 1995, 45 patients (mean age, 38.6 ± 8.5 years) underwent aortic valve replacement with an AH and 40 patients (mean age, 42.0 ± 7.2 years) with an MD. Patients’ demographic data were comparable in all respects, except acute endocarditis, which was an absolute indication for the use of an AH. Results. The mean follow-up time was 51.7 ± 22.6 months for AH versus 44.6 ± 26.9 months for MD (not significant). There were significant differences in postoperative outcome among the two groups ( p ≤ 0.05): perioperative death (4 versus 0 for AH and MD, respectively); reoperation (8 for AH versus 0 for MD); and endocarditis (5 versus 0 for AH and MD). There were higher incidences of embolism (2 versus 0) and hemorrhage (2 versus 0) in MD compared with AH. Only late death was comparable among the two groups with 5 patients in each group. Conclusions. The mechanical valves in our midterm follow-up are superior to homografts. However, embolic and hemorrhagic complications in MD are continuously impending and cumulative during a long-term follow-up. The surprisingly high rate of endocarditis in the AH group is only partly caused by the indication: 2 cases were recurrent, but there were also 2 new onsets of endocarditis. In 4 cases structural deterioration was responsible for reoperation. Aortic valve replacement with aortic homografts showed a rather unfavorable midterm outcome in this selected group of young patients. A surprisingly high rate of graft endocarditis and structural deterioration led to subsequent reoperations. Although our results with mechanical valves are satisfying, embolism and hemorrhage are impending risk factors for many years to come in these young patients.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anticoagulants - adverse effects</subject><subject>Aortic Valve - surgery</subject><subject>Aortic Valve - transplantation</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cardiology. Vascular system</subject><subject>Embolism - etiology</subject><subject>Endocardial and cardiac valvular diseases</subject><subject>Endocarditis, Bacterial - etiology</subject><subject>Endocarditis, Bacterial - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Longitudinal Studies</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Postoperative Hemorrhage - etiology</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Survival Rate</subject><subject>Transplantation, Homologous</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0003-4975</issn><issn>1552-6259</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1u1TAQRi0EKpfCI1TKAiFYhNpJ7NhsqqoCWqlSF8DaGjvj1iiJg-1c6b49vj8qS1aW5zszHh9CLhj9zCgTlz8opW3dqZ5_VPITZUyqWr4gG8Z5U4uGq5dk84y8Jm9S-l2uTYnPyJlSLe26fkPCdYjZ2-opTOExgsup2mJMa6omtE8wewtjtYVxi6nycwVH-lCoIi4jWJxwzvtsF9b5sVog-1JIXyooQI4hLWizL3jK67B7S145GBO-O53n5Ne3rz9vbuv7h-93N9f3te04zzW3wgAzDqylCrq2H_qh47IxoBA55RyEdM44ilZBi840LRNdi8a0TjFq2nPy4Th3ieHPiinrySeL4wgzhjVpoRiXvRAF5EfQllVTRKeX6CeIO82o3ovWB9F6b1ErqQ-itSx9F6cHVjPh8Nx1Mlvy96ccUnHoIszWp3_DhSzfUQW7OmJYZGw9Rp1s8Wdx8LF400Pw_1nkL0bsnZ0</recordid><startdate>19981201</startdate><enddate>19981201</enddate><creator>Gross, Christoph</creator><creator>Klima, Uwe</creator><creator>Mair, Rudolf</creator><creator>Brücke, Peter</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19981201</creationdate><title>Aortic homografts versus mechanical valves in aortic valve replacement in young patients: a retrospective study</title><author>Gross, Christoph ; Klima, Uwe ; Mair, Rudolf ; Brücke, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-5c6ba1bfacc09a437d7d4582ba9ee5055a68ffbf0ec9a3efb231643ebb3f910b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anticoagulants - adverse effects</topic><topic>Aortic Valve - surgery</topic><topic>Aortic Valve - transplantation</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cardiology. Vascular system</topic><topic>Embolism - etiology</topic><topic>Endocardial and cardiac valvular diseases</topic><topic>Endocarditis, Bacterial - etiology</topic><topic>Endocarditis, Bacterial - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Longitudinal Studies</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Postoperative Hemorrhage - etiology</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Survival Rate</topic><topic>Transplantation, Homologous</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gross, Christoph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klima, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mair, Rudolf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brücke, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Annals of thoracic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gross, Christoph</au><au>Klima, Uwe</au><au>Mair, Rudolf</au><au>Brücke, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Aortic homografts versus mechanical valves in aortic valve replacement in young patients: a retrospective study</atitle><jtitle>The Annals of thoracic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Thorac Surg</addtitle><date>1998-12-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>S194</spage><epage>S197</epage><pages>S194-S197</pages><issn>0003-4975</issn><eissn>1552-6259</eissn><coden>ATHSAK</coden><abstract>Background. Whether aortic homografts (AH) or mechanical devices (MD) are the valves of choice for aortic valve replacement in young patients (age 20 to 50 years) is unclear. Hence, we examined all aortic valve replacements performed with AH and MD in a retrospective study. Methods. Between 1988 and 1995, 45 patients (mean age, 38.6 ± 8.5 years) underwent aortic valve replacement with an AH and 40 patients (mean age, 42.0 ± 7.2 years) with an MD. Patients’ demographic data were comparable in all respects, except acute endocarditis, which was an absolute indication for the use of an AH. Results. The mean follow-up time was 51.7 ± 22.6 months for AH versus 44.6 ± 26.9 months for MD (not significant). There were significant differences in postoperative outcome among the two groups ( p ≤ 0.05): perioperative death (4 versus 0 for AH and MD, respectively); reoperation (8 for AH versus 0 for MD); and endocarditis (5 versus 0 for AH and MD). There were higher incidences of embolism (2 versus 0) and hemorrhage (2 versus 0) in MD compared with AH. Only late death was comparable among the two groups with 5 patients in each group. Conclusions. The mechanical valves in our midterm follow-up are superior to homografts. However, embolic and hemorrhagic complications in MD are continuously impending and cumulative during a long-term follow-up. The surprisingly high rate of endocarditis in the AH group is only partly caused by the indication: 2 cases were recurrent, but there were also 2 new onsets of endocarditis. In 4 cases structural deterioration was responsible for reoperation. Aortic valve replacement with aortic homografts showed a rather unfavorable midterm outcome in this selected group of young patients. A surprisingly high rate of graft endocarditis and structural deterioration led to subsequent reoperations. Although our results with mechanical valves are satisfying, embolism and hemorrhage are impending risk factors for many years to come in these young patients.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>9930447</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0003-4975(98)01189-8</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-4975
ispartof The Annals of thoracic surgery, 1998-12, Vol.66 (6), p.S194-S197
issn 0003-4975
1552-6259
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69158766
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Anticoagulants - adverse effects
Aortic Valve - surgery
Aortic Valve - transplantation
Biological and medical sciences
Cardiology. Vascular system
Embolism - etiology
Endocardial and cardiac valvular diseases
Endocarditis, Bacterial - etiology
Endocarditis, Bacterial - surgery
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Heart
Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects
Humans
Incidence
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Postoperative Hemorrhage - etiology
Recurrence
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Survival Rate
Transplantation, Homologous
Treatment Outcome
title Aortic homografts versus mechanical valves in aortic valve replacement in young patients: a retrospective study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T05%3A53%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Aortic%20homografts%20versus%20mechanical%20valves%20in%20aortic%20valve%20replacement%20in%20young%20patients:%20a%20retrospective%20study&rft.jtitle=The%20Annals%20of%20thoracic%20surgery&rft.au=Gross,%20Christoph&rft.date=1998-12-01&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=S194&rft.epage=S197&rft.pages=S194-S197&rft.issn=0003-4975&rft.eissn=1552-6259&rft.coden=ATHSAK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)01189-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69158766%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69158766&rft_id=info:pmid/9930447&rft_els_id=S0003497598011898&rfr_iscdi=true