Abstract： Objective To summarize our operative experiences of cardiac reoperation after mechanical valve prosthesis replacement and investigate the causes of reoperation and the perioperative techniques and operation methods. Methods From January 2001 to December 2008, we performed reoperation on 105 patients (59 males and 46 females, aged 50.2±10.6 years old) who had undergone mechanical valve prosthesis replacement. Among the patients, there were 31 cases of mitral valvular replacement (+ tricuspid valvular plasticity), 38 cases of aortic valvular replacement (+ tricuspid valvular plasticity), 11 cases of Bentall procedure, 7 cases of mitral and aortic bivalvular replacement (+tricuspid valvular plasticity), 8 cases of tricuspid valvular replacement, 6 cases of repairing of prosthetic leakage, and 4 others cases. The time interval between two operations was 3 months to 18 years (46.3 ±31.9 months). Before reoperation, the cardiac function (NYHA) of the patients was class Ⅱ in 27 patients, class Ⅲ in 53 patients, and class Ⅳ in 25 patients. Results There were 6 hospital deaths with a mortality of 5.71%(6/105). All others recovered to NYHA class ⅠⅡ. The causes of mortality included 1 case of multiple organ failure, 1 case of low cardiac output after operation, 1 case of aortic pseudoaneurysm rupture, 1 case of severe infection due to brain complication and 2 cases of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). The causes for cardiac reoperation after mechanical valve prosthesis replacement were 67 cases of prosthetic leakage (63.80%), 16 cases of PVE (15.23%), 14 cases of prosthetic thrombosis (13.33%) and 8 cases of other valvular anomalies. Followup was done for 11 to 107 months, which showed two cases late deaths of cardiac arrest and cerebral hemorrhage. Conclusion Patients who have received mechanical valve prosthesis replacement may undergo cardiac reoperation due to paravalvular prosthetic leakage, paravalvular endocarditis, and prosthetic thrombosis. The keys to a successful cardiac reoperation include appropriate preoperative preparations, operational timing, and suitable choosing of cardiopulmonary bypass and operational skills.
Objective To summarize the experiences of surgical treatment for periprosthetic leakage(PPL). Methods A total of 63 patients with PPL (mitral PPL in 34, aortic PPL in 29), age 41±12 years, underwent reoperation with prosthetic valve replacement from Dec. 1980 to Dec. 2005 in this department. Patient characteristics, operative profiles and follow-up data were described and analyzed in detail. Results The perioperative complications occurred in 11 patients (17.5%), five of whom died (the overall hospital mortality: 7.9%). Fifty-five patients were in close follow-up and three of them lost in that period, five patients died in late. Fifty patients long-term survivals were in New York Heart Association class Ⅰ-Ⅱ and follow-up evaluation by echocardiography showed no evidence of recurrence or residual PPL and PPL-related complications. Conclusion More attention should be paid to the study on etiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic methods, and clinical classification of PPL. For patients with PPL, reoperation with prosthetic valve replacement is considerably effective and can obtain an acceptable longterm results.
This paper reported a 75-year-old female patient. She was admitted to our hospital for “repeated chest pain, shortness of breath for more than 5 years, and syncope 3 times”. The CT scan of the patient showed severe aortic valve stenosis, bicuspid valve, and severe calcification; then she underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in our hospital. After the prosthesis was implanted, there was a significant paravalvular leak. Considering the triangular area formed between the calcified clumps, the valve was not fully dilated. Paravalvular leak closure was performed during the operation, attempted through the valve stent mesh to closuring. A rare incarceration of the transmitter occurred. An attempt was made to pull out the incarcerated transmitter through a pull-up technique, which resulted in the prosthesis prolapse. The patient was eventually transferred to surgery aortic valve replacement.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficiency and safety of intraprocedural valve-in-valve deployment for treatment of aortic regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsConsecutive patients (n=333) who diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis and underwent TAVR in Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University from October 3rd, 2010 to April 21st, 2021 were included. There were 208 males and 125 females aged 76.0±7.0 years. There were 316 patients underwent simple TAVR (simple TAVR group) and 17 patients underwent intraprocedural valve-in-valve deployment following TAVR (valve-in-valve group). Their clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated and compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups of patients at postoperative 30 d and 1 year in all-cause mortality (4.4% vs. 0, P=1.000; 6.3% vs. 0, P=1.000), incidence of pacemaker implantation (10.4% vs. 17.6%, P=1.000; 11.8% vs. 17.6%, P=1.000), incidence of ischemic stroke (1.3% vs. 0, P=1.000; 1.3% vs. 0, P=1.000), mean trans-aortic pressure gradient (11.4±6.4 mm Hg vs. 8.9±4.9 mm Hg, P=0.099; 10.5±7.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2±5.2 mm Hg, P=0.432), left ventricular ejection fraction (62.0%±9.0% vs. 57.0%±12.0%, P=0.189; 63.0%±7.0% vs. 60.0%±8.0%, P=0.170), and incidence of mitral valve dysfunction (0.6% vs. 5.9%, P=1.000; 0.6% vs. 5.9%, P=1.000).ConclusionIt is feasible to treat perivalvular leakage with valve-in-valve technology in the procedure of TAVR, and the short and medium-term effects are satisfied.