ObjectiveTo analyze clinical experience and outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)for bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (MVR). MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 32 patients who underwent VATS bioprosthetic MVR in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery of Guangdong General Hospital from March to December 2013. There were 14 males and 18 females with a mean age of 55.6±17.3 years (range, 19 to 80 years), mean body weight of 55.7±9.7 kg (range, 37 to 78 kg) and mean body surface area of 1.67±0.16 m2 (range, 1.30 to 1.95 m2). Five patients had atrial fibrillation. There were 20 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA)functional class Ⅱ, 11 patients in class Ⅲ, and 1 patient in class Ⅳ. There were 16 patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease, 11 patients with degenerative mitral valve disease, 4 patients with infective endocarditis and 1 patient with associated congenital heart disease. ResultsVATS bioprosthetic MVR was successfully performed for all the patients, including 27 patients with Medtronic Hancock Ⅱ Bioprosthesis and 5 patients with Medtronic Mosaic Bioprosthesis. Concomitantly, tricuspid valvuloplasty was performed for 13 patients and atrial septal defect repair was performed for 1 patient. There was no in-hospital death, low cardiac output syndrome or left ventricular rupture. Postoperative echocardiography showed good bioprosthetic function in all the patients without paravalvular leakage. Postoperative cardiac function significantly improved compared with preoperative cardiac function. There were 9 patients in NYHA functional class Ⅰ, 17 patients in class Ⅱ, and 6 patients in class Ⅲ. Left atrial diameter and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter examined postoperatively and 3 months after surgery were significantly smaller than preoperative values. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)examined postoperatively and 3 months after surgery was significantly lower than preoperative LVEF. ConclusionsVATS bioprosthetic MVR is a minimally invasive, safe and feasible procedure with a low postoperative morbidity. Incision size can be significantly reduced with a special type of bioprosthesis.
Heart valve replacement is the major surgical treatment of severe valvular diseases. Due to the durability and reoperation-free, mechanical valves are widely used. Bioprosthesis valves became popular recently because of long service life and no demand for lifelong anticoagulation. However, how to choose the appropriate prosthetic heart valves, especially the application of bioprosthesis valves for patients at 55 to 65 years is still a major problem. This review focuses on more effective and scientific basis for rational choice of mechanical and bioprosthesis valve.
ObjectiveTo explore the short-term follow-up clinical effect of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation treatment for mitral bioprosthesis deterioration.MethodsThe single center data of elderly patients with mitral valve bioprosthetic dysfunction who received transapical J-Valve intervention between January 2019 and May 2020 were reviewed and summarized. After the informed consent was signed, single lumen endotracheal intubation was performed under general anesthesia in hybrid operating room. The left intercostal small incision was used to explore the apical area. Fluoroscopy and three-dimensional esophageal ultrasound were used to guide the puncture needle. Then the guide wire entered the left atrium through the mitral valve biological valve. The catheter was exchanged, and the rigid support wire was exchanged. The reverse loaded J-Valve system was guided and implanted into the biological mitral valve with beating heart. The appropriate implantation depth was adjusted, and stent valve was released under rapid pacing. Post balloon dilation of the valve was performed if necessary.ResultsFrom January 2019 to May 2020, transcatheter J-Valve implantation was completed in 20 patients with mitral valve dysfunction and high-risk evaluation of routine thoracotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass (the Society of Thoracic Surgeon score above 6). In terms of the type of the the mitral bioprosthesis, there were 6 cases of Hancock valves, 7 cases of Perimount valves, 6 cases of Epic valves, and 1 case of Baxiter valve. In terms of the size of the the mitral bioprosthesis, there were 2 cases of size 29 valves, 11 cases of size 27 valves, and 7 cases of size 25 valves. One valve fell into the left ventricle at early stage. One patient had mild valve displacement during operation, and a second valve was implanted at the same time. The success rate of valve-in-valve implantation was 95%. The length of stay in intensive care unit was less than 6 h in 5 cases, 6-24 h in 13 cases, 24-48 h in 1 case, and more than 48 h in 1 case. No patient’s postoperative mitral regurgitation was moderate or above. The mean mitral valve pressure gradient was (5.2±2.3) mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa). Patients recovered well after the valve-in-valve implantation treatment, with no death within postoperative one month. One patient died of infection and multiple organ failure during follow-up after one month. Other patients recovered smoothly without serious complications.ConclusionsThe clinical effect of J-Valve intervention in the treatment of mitral valve bioprosthetic dysfunction through apical approach is good. The implantation can be completed under beating heart, avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass and routine thoracotomy cardiac arrest, which is worthy of further observation and follow-up.
For patients with aortic valve disease who require replacement of their native valve, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard of care. Due to the hemorrhage and thromboembolic risks of long-term anticoagulation therapy for mechanical prosthesis, bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) has a trend to be used in younger patients, which raising the concern for the durability of bioprosthetic valves. The newly published 5-year outcomes of PERIGON trial, with no structural valve deterioration, again demonstrated the favorable durability of the new generation bioprosthetic valves, further providing the evidence of using bioprosthetic AVR in younger patients. At the meantime, the rapid progress of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has brought a new treatment option. For younger patients with low risks, choosing SAVR or TAVI becomes a critical decision. This paper reviews the outcomes of PERIGON trial and its implications to the clinical practice and research of bioprosthetic AVR.