ObjectiveTo summarize the clinical result of a combined technical system for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair. MethodsPatients who diagnosed as BAV and sever aortic regurgitation (AR) underwent a strategy of combined repair technics including annuloplasty, sinus plasty, leaflet plasty, sinus-tubular junction (STJ) plasty depending on anatomy pathological characteristics between October 2019 and January 2021 were enrolled. The clinical data of the patients were analyzed.ResultsA total of 17 patients were enrolled. There were 11 males and 6 females with an average age of 18-49 (32.4±13.6) years. Fifteen patients had typeⅠand 2 patients had typeⅡBAV according to Sievers classification. Annuloplasty was applicated in 13 patients, sinus plasty in 8 patients, leaflet plasty in 17 patients, and STJ plasty in 11 patients, respectively. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was 95 (84, 135) min, aortic cross-clamping time was 68 (57, 112) min, and the ICU stay time was 17 (12, 25) h. After the operation, mild AR was presented in 14 patients, moderate AR in 1 patient and severe AR in 2 patients. The latter 3 patients underwent second operation under CPB, after then, 1 patient had mild AR and 2 patients had moderate AR. The follow-up time was 13.1±4.6 months. At the latest follow-up, 12 patients had mild AR and 5 patients had moderate AR, and no patient had reoperation. ConclusionA combined technical system for BAV repair can be used effectively and safely with an acceptable short and middle-term result.
Objective To compare long-term outcomes following mitral valvuloplasty (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) for native valve endocarditis (NVE). Methods Between November 1993 and August 2016, consecutive 101 patients with NVE underwent mitral surgery in our department, MVP for 52 patients and MVR for 49 patients. There were 69 males and 32 females at age of 38.1±14.9 years. The mean follow-up was 99.4±75.8 months. Results There was no statistical difference in cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, in-hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay or hospital stay after surgery between the two groups. Survival rate at 1, 5, 10, 20 years after surgery was 100.0%, 97.6%, 97.6%, 97.6% for MVP, and 93.5%, 84.3%, 84.3%, 66.2% for MVR with a statistical difference between the two groups (P=0.018). There was no stroke in the patients with MVP during follow-up periods. However, stroke-free survival rate at 1, 5, 10, 20 years after surgery was 100.0%, 93.9%, 89.4%, 70.2% for MVR patients with a statistical difference between the two groups (P=0.023). There was no statistical difference in recurrence of infection, perivalvular leakage and reoperation between the two groups. Composite endpoint-free survival rate at 1, 5, 10, 20 years after surgery was 100.0%, 97.6%, 92.9%, 92.9% for MVP, and 91.3%, 79.6%, 75.8%, 51.0% for MVR with a statistical difference (P=0.006). Conclusion MVP is associated with better outcomes than MVR in the patients with NVE; generalizing MVP technique in the patients with NVE is needed.