Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Heart Valve Surgery pp 81–101Cite as

Choice of the Optimal Valve for Replacement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1896 Accesses

Abstract

There is a plenitude of mechanical and biological valve prostheses available for surgeons’ use. Choice of the optimal valve replacement device may not always be easy, because there does not exist a single valve considered to be the best and most suitable for all patients and situations; however, there always exists a valve that is optimal for a given patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. El Oakley R, Kleine P, Bach DS (2008) Choice of prosthetic heart valve in today's practice. Circulation 117:253–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J et al. (2007) Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 28:230–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dagenais F, Cartier P, Voisine P et al. (2005) Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:1041–1049

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Herijgers P, Verhamme P (2007) Improving the quality of anticoagulant therapy in patients with mechanical heart valves: What are we waiting for? Eur Heart J 28:2424–2426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Colli A, Verhoye JP, Heijmen R et al. (2008). Antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: ACTION Registry survey results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33:531–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Colli A, Verhoye JP, Leguerrier A et al. (2007) Anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy of bioprosthetic heart valves recipients: an unresolved issue. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31:573–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marco F di, Meneghetti G, Gerosa G (2005) Early anticoagulation after aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses: Time to abandon it? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130:1482–1483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunning J, Versteegh M, Fabbri A et al. (2008) Guideline on antiplatelet and anticoagulation management in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 34:73–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. El-Husseiny M, Salhiyyah K, Raja SG et al. (2006) Should warfarin be routinely prescribed for the first three months after a bioprosthetic valve replacement? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 5:616–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gherli T, Colli A, Fragnito C et al. (2004) Comparing warfarin with aspirin after biological aortic valve replacement: a prospective study. Circulation 110:496–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldsmith I, Turpie AG, Lip GY (2002) Valvar heart disease and prosthetic heart valves. Br Med J 325:1228–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nowell J, Wilton E, Markus H et al. (2007) Antithrombotic therapy following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31:578–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sundt TM, Zehr KJ, Dearani JA et al. (2005) Is early anticoagulation with warfarin necessary after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:1024–1031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vaughan P, Waterworth PD (2005) An audit of anticoagulation practice among UK cardiothoracic consultant surgeons following valve replacement/repair. J Heart Valve Dis 14:576–582

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schoen FJ, Levy RJ (2005) Calcification of tissue heart valve substitutes: progress toward understanding and prevention. Ann Thorac Surg 79:1072–1080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eichinger WB, Hettich IM, Ruzicka DJ et al. (2008) Twenty-year experience with the St. Jude medical Biocor bioprosthesis in the aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 86:1204–1210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aazami M, Schafers HJ (2003) Advances in heart valve surgery. J Interv Cardiol 16:535–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jamieson WR, Gudas VM, Burr LH et al. (2009) Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 35:104–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jamieson WR, Koerfer R, Yankah CA et al. (2009) Mitroflow aortic pericardial bioprosthesis: clinical performance. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 36:818–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rahimtoola SH (2003) Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 41:893–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Takkenberg JJ, Klieverik LM, Bekkers JA et al. (2007) Allografts for aortic valve or root replacement: insights from an 18-year single-center prospective follow-up study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31:851–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Joudinaud TM, Baron F, Raffoul R et al. (2008) Redo aortic root surgery for failure of an aortic homograft is a major technical challenge. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33:989–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sadowski J, Kapelak B, Bartus K et al. (2003) Reoperation after fresh homograft replacement: 23 years' experience with 655 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 23:996–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Harringer W, Loose R, Guha M et al. (1998) Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with allografts: thirteen years followup. Cor Europaneum 7:29–32

    Google Scholar 

  25. O'Brien MF, Harrocks S, Stafford EG et al. (2001) The homograft aortic valve: a 29-year, 99.3% follow up of 1,022 valve replacements. J Heart Valve Dis 10:334–444

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown JM, O'Brien SM, Wu C et al. (2009) Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137:82–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Halees Z, Pieters F, Qadoura F et al. (2002) The Ross procedure is the procedure of choice for congenital aortic valve disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 123:437–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brown JW, Ruzmetov M, Shahriari A et al. (2009) Midterm results of Ross aortic valve replacement: a single-institution experience. Ann Thorac Surg 88:601–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kouchoukos NT, Masetti P, Nickerson NJ et al. (2004) The Ross procedure: long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg 78:773–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar AS, Talwar S, Mohapatra R et al. (2005) Aortic valve replacement with the pulmonary autograft: mid-term results. Ann Thorac Surg 80:488–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pasquali SK, Shera D, Wernovsky G et al. (2007) Midterm outcomes and predictors of reintervention after the Ross procedure in infants, children, and young adults. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 133:893–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Blauth C (2003) The Ross procedure in 2003. Cardiac Surgery Today 1:60–67

    Google Scholar 

  33. de Kerchove L, Rubay J, Pasquet A et al. (2009) Ross operation in the adult: long-term outcomes after root replacement and inclusion techniques. Ann Thorac Surg 87:95–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Elkins RC, Thompson DM, Lane MM et al. (2008) Ross operation: 16-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136:623–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Luciani GB, Favaro A, Casali G et al. (2005) Ross operation in the young: a ten-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 80:2271–2277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jonas RA (2005) The Ross procedure is not the procedure of choice for the teenager requiring aortic valve replacement. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu:176–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sampath Kumar A, Talwar S, Saxena A et al. (2006) Ross procedure in rheumatic aortic valve disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 29:156–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C et al. (2006) ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease); developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 114:e84–e231

    Google Scholar 

  39. Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD et al. (2008) Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 135:878–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Doss M, Martens S, Wood JP et al. (2003) Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the elderly patient: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 23:299–304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chan V, Jamieson WR, Germann E et al. (2006) Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:1267–1273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kulik A, Bedard P, Lam BK et al. (2006) Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 30:485–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Logeais Y, Langanay T, Corbineau H et al. (1998) Aortic valve replacement in the elderly: Bioprosthesis or mechanical valve? Ann Thorac Surg 66:S77–S81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Peterseim DS, Cen YY, Cheruvu S et al. (1999) Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 117:890–897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Unger F, Rainer WG, Horstkotte D et al. (2000) Standards and concepts in valve surgery. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 41:585–593

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Prasongsukarn K, Jamieson WR, Lichtenstein SV (2005) Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses in age group 61–70 years. J Heart Valve Dis 14:501–511

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ninet J, Tronc F, Robin J et al. (1998) Mechanical versus biological isolated aortic valvular replacement after the age of 70: equivalent long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 13:84–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bauernschmitt R, Vahl CF, Lange R et al. (1996) Surgical treatment of acute endocarditis of the aortic valve with paravalvular abscess: considerations justifying the use of mechanical replacement devices. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 10:741–747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Baumgartner FJ, Omari BO, Robertson JM et al. (2000) Annular abscesses in surgical endocarditis: anatomic, clinical, and operative features. Ann Thorac Surg 70:442–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gaudino M, Filippo C de, Pennestri F et al. (1997) The use of mechanical prostheses in native aortic valve endocarditis. J Heart Valve Dis 6:79–83

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Klieverik LM, Yacoub MH, Edwards S et al. (2009) Surgical treatment of active native aortic valve endocarditis with allografts and mechanical prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 88:1814–1821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Moon MR, Miller DC, Moore KA et al. (2001) Treatment of endocarditis with valve replacement: the question of tissue versus mechanical prosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 71:1164–1171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Renzulli A, Carozza A, Romano G et al. (2001) Recurrent infective endocarditis: a multivariate analysis of 21 years of experience. Ann Thorac Surg 72:39–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. David TE, Regesta T, Gavra G et al. (2007) Surgical treatment of paravalvular abscess: long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31:43–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Siniawski H, Lehmkuhl H, Weng Y et al. (2003) Stentless aortic valves as an alternative to homografts for valve replacement in active infective endocarditis complicated by ring abscess. Ann Thorac Surg 75:803–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R et al. (2003) Impact of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 108:983–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Fuster RG, Montero Argudo JA, Albarova OG et al. (2005) Patient–prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: Really tolerable? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:441–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ruel M, Al-Faleh H, Kulik A et al. (2006) Prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement predominantly affects patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction: effect on survival, freedom from heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:1036–1044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M et al. (2005) Impact of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression following aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 79:505–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Urso S, Sadaba R, Aldamiz-Echevarria G (2009) Is patient–prosthesis mismatch an independent risk factor for early and mid-term overall mortality in adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 9:510–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. David TE (2005) Is prosthesis–patient mismatch a clinically relevant entity? Circulation 111:3186–3187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Dumesnil JG, Pibarot P (2006) Prosthesis–patient mismatch and clinical outcomes: the evidence continues to accumulate. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:952–955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2000) Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1131–1141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. de Vincentiis C, Kunkl AB, Trimarchi S et al. (2008) Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: Is biologic valve the unique solution? Ann Thorac Surg 85:1296–1301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Vicchio M, Della Corte A, Santo LS de et al. (2008) Tissue versus mechanical prostheses: quality of life in octogenarians. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1290–1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Al-Lawati AA, Venkitraman M, Al-DelaimeTet al.(2002) Pregnancy and mechanical heart valves replacement: dilemma of anticoagulation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 22:223–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Santo LS de, Romano G, Della Corte A et al. (2005) Mitral mechanical replacement in young rheumatic women: analysis of long-term survival, valve-related complications, and pregnancy outcomes over a 3707-patient-year follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130:13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Chan V, Jamieson WR, Fleisher AG et al. (2006) Valve replacement surgery in end-stage renal failure: mechanical prostheses versus bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 81:857–862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. David TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z (1998) The Hancock II bioprosthesis at 12 years. Ann Thorac Surg 66:S95–S98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Guenther T, Noebauer C, Mazzitelli D et al. (2008) Tricuspid valve surgery: a thirty-year assessment of early and late outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 34:402–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kawano H, Oda T, Fukunaga S et al. (2000) Tricuspid valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical valve: 19 years of experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 18:565–569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kunadian B, Vijayalakshmi K, Balasubramanian S et al. (2007) Should the tricuspid valve be replaced with a mechanical or biological valve? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 6:551–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Peterffy A, Szentkiralyi I (2001) Mechanical valves in tricuspid position: cause of thrombosis and prevention. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 19:735–736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rizzoli G, Vendramin I, Nesseris G et al. (2004) Biological or mechanical prostheses in tricuspid position? A meta-analysis of intra-institutional results. Ann Thorac Surg 77:1607–1614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Birkmeyer NJ, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN et al. (2000) Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1946–1952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Charles University in Prague, 500 05, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic

    Dr. Jan Dominik & Dr. Pavel Zacek

Authors
  1. Dr. Jan Dominik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Pavel Zacek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavel Zacek .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dominik, J., Zacek, P. (2010). Choice of the Optimal Valve for Replacement. In: Heart Valve Surgery. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12206-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12206-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12205-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12206-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation