Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Management of Prosthetic Heart Valve Complications

  • Valvular Heart Disease (AS Desai and PT O’Gara, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

With greater awareness and treatment of valvular heart disease, there are now an increasing number of patients with prosthetic heart valves. However, replacement of a diseased valve with a prosthetic valve creates the opportunity for new and unique complications that once diagnosed require specific treatments. Complications which may occur depend not only on the type of prosthesis but also are influenced by clinical factors that are important to understand and may affect treatment strategies. Tissue prostheses tend to deteriorate over time while mechanical prostheses require anticoagulation with its attendant risks. The rate of serious prosthetic heart valve complications is approximately 3 % per year. They include bleeding, systemic embolization, obstruction due to thrombus or pannus formation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, infective endocarditis, structural deterioration, prosthetic and peri-prosthetic regurgitation, and hemolysis. Importantly, the risk of prosthetic heart valve complications can be reduced by appropriate choices made at the time of surgery such as utilization of the correct prosthesis size and type. In addition, adherence to current guidelines for anticoagulation, endocarditis prophylaxis, and the timing of clinical and echocardiographic surveillance is also important to prevent complications. Should complications occur, rapid diagnosis, usually with echocardiography, is pivotal and can provide important hemodynamic as well as anatomic information critical to determining appropriate treatment and timing of surgical re-intervention if necessary. Optimal treatment of prosthetic heart valve complications remains a challenge and new treatment strategies continue to evolve.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Harken DE, Soroff HS, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA, Gupta SK, Lunzer S. Partial and complete prostheses in aortic insufficiency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1960;40:744–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Suri RM, Schaff HV, Dearani JA, et al. Survival advantage and improved durability of mitral repair for leaflet prolapse subsets in the current era. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:819–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yacoub MH, Takkenberg JJ. Will heart valve tissue engineering change the world? Nature clinical practice. Cardiovasc Med. 2005;2:60–1.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vongpatanasin W, Hillis LD, Lange RA. Prosthetic heart valves. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:407–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Oprian C, Kim T, Rahimtoola S. A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1289–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical vs a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1152–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan S, Chaux A, Matloff J, Blanche C, DeRobertis M, Kass R, et al. The St. Jude Medical valve. Experience with 1000 cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;108:1010–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Otto CM. Prosthetic heart valves. In: Otto CM, editor. Valvular heart disease. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2004. p. 437–81.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Panidis IP, Ross J, Mintz GS. Normal and abnormal prosthetic valve function as assessed by Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;8:317–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr: official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2009;22:975–1014. quiz 1082–1014. This is a recent comprehensive review of the echocardiographic assessment of prosthetic heart valves. Although more of a reference to be intermittently reviewed, it is one of the recent guideline documents from the American Society of Echocardiography and helps in our understanding of what is normal and what is abnormal prosthetic valve function. The early diagnosis of prosthetic heart valve dysfunction is pivotal to optimal treatment decisions.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Baumgartner H, Khan S, DeRobertis M, Czer L, Maurer G. Discrepancies between Doppler and catheter gradients in aortic prosthetic valves in vitro. A manifestation of localized gradients and pressure recovery. Circulation. 1990;82:1467–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Khandheria BK. Transesophageal echocardiography in the evaluation of prosthetic valves. Cardiol Clin. 1993;11:427–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sorajja P, Cabalka AK, Hagler DJ, Rihal CS. Percutaneous repair of paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation: acute and 30-day outcomes in 115 patients. Circ Cardiovasc Intervent. 2011;4:314–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sorajja P, Cabalka AK, Hagler DJ, Rihal CS. Long-term follow-up of percutaneous repair of paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2218–24. This is a single center, retrospective study which sought to determine the long-term clinical efficacy of percutaneous repair of paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation. This is by far the largest number of patients studied who underwent the procedure (n = 126), although it was observational. Patients were contacted for symptoms, clinical events, and vital status. The 3-year estimate for survival was 64.3% (95% CI: 52.1%–76.8%). Mortality occurred due to cardiac, noncardiac, and unknown causes in 9.5%, 7.1%, and 5.6% of patients, respectively. Among survivors, 72% of patients who had presented with heart failure were free of severe symptoms and need for cardiac surgery. Severity of residual regurgitation was not related to overall survival but was an important determinant of other clinical events. For those with no, mild, or moderate or severe residual regurgitation, 3-year estimate of survival free of death or need for surgery was 63.3%, 58.3%, and 30.3% (P = 0.01), respectively. This study helps establish percutaneous repair of paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation in selected patients as a potential treatment option. Nonetheless, mortality remains significant in symptomatic patients with paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation. Long-term clinical efficacy was highly dependent on residual regurgitation.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ruiz CE, Jelnin V, Kronzon I, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous closure of periprosthetic paravalvular leaks. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Webb JG, Wood DA, Ye J, et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2010;121:1848–57. This is one of the initial and largest series of patients (n = 24) of patients with deteriorated bioprosthetic heart valves at muliple locations who underwent transcatheter heart valve implantation within the failed bioprosthesis, a “valve-in-valve” procedure. This approach may offer an alternative approach in high rsik redo-surgical patients. Failed valves were aortic (n = 10), mitral (n = 7), pulmonary (n = 6), or tricuspid (n = 1) bioprostheses. Implantation was successful with immediate restoration of satisfactory valve function in all but 1 patient. No patient had more than mild regurgitation after implantation. No patients died during the procedure. Thirty-day mortality was 4.2%. Mortality was related primarily to learning-curve issues early in this high-risk experience. At baseline, 88% of patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV; at the last follow-up, 88% of patients were in class I or II. At a median follow-up of 135 days and a maximum follow-up of 1045 days, 91.7% of patients remained alive with satisfactory valve function. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation shows promise as a reproducible option for the management of bioprosthetic valve failure. Aortic, pulmonary, mitral, and tricuspid tissue valves were amenable to this approach. This finding may have important implications with regard to valve replacement in high-risk patients.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, et al. 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. 2006;114:e84–e231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carpentier A, Dubost C, Lane E, Nashef A, Carpentier S, Relland J, et al. Continuing improvements in valvular bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1982;83:27–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blair KL, Hatton AC, White WD, Smith LR, Lowe JE, Wolfe WG, et al. Comparison of anticoagulation regimens after Carpentier-Edwards aortic or mitral valve replacement. Circulation. 1994;90(5 Pt 2):II214–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee YP, Schommer JC. Effect of a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic on warfarin-related hospital readmissions. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1996;53:1580–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hung L. Prosthetic heart valves and pregnancy. Circulation. 2003;107:1240–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McLintock C. Anticoagulant therapy in pregnant women with mechanical prosthetic heart valves: no easy option. Thromb Res. 2011;127:S56–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Salazar E, Izaguirre R, Verdejo J, Mutchinick O. Failure of adjusted doses of subcutaneous heparin to prevent thromboembolic phenomena in pregnant patients with mechanical cardiac valve prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:1698–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Castellano JM, Narayan RL, Vaishnava P, Fuster V. Anticoagulation during pregnancy in patients with a prosthetic heart valve. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2012;9:415–24. This is state of the art, contemporary, and comprehensive review of anticoagulation options for women with mechanical heart valves. It is highly evidence-based and the senior author is a recognized leader in the field. The references, tables, algorithms, and charts are clear and help simplify a very complex diagnostic dilemma. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches are reviewed in detail.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chan WS, Anand S, Ginsberg JS. Anticoagulation of pregnant women with mechanical heart valves: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:191–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briët E. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation. 1994;89:635–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hammermeister KE, Henderson WG, Burchfiel CM, Sethi GK, Souchek J, Oprian C, et al. Comparison of outcome after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis vs a mechanical prosthesis: initial 5 year results of a randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10:719–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Orszulak TA, Schaff HV, Puga FJ, Danielson GK, Mullany CJ, Anderson BJ, et al. Event status of the Starr-Edwards aortic valve to 20 years: a benchmark for comparison. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63:620–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Turpie AG, Gent M, Laupacis A, Latour Y, Gunstensen J, Basile F, et al. A comparison of aspirin with placebo in patients treated with warfarin after heart-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:524–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gödje OL, Fischlein T, Adelhard K, Nollert G, Klinner W, Reichart B. Thirty-year results of Starr-Edwards prostheses in the aortic and mitral position. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63:613–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Debétaz LF, Ruchat P, Hurni M, Fischer A, Stumpe F, Sadeghi H, et al. St. Jude Medical valve prosthesis: an analysis of long-term outcome and prognostic factors. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;113:134–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cannegieter SC, van der Meer FJ, Briët E, Rosendaal FR. Warfarin and aspirin after heart-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:507–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ibrahim M, O'Kane H, Cleland J, Gladstone D, Sarsam M, Patterson C. The St. Jude Medical prosthesis. A thirteen-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;108:221–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Becker RC, Eisenberg P, Turpie AG. Pathobiologic features and prevention of thrombotic complications associated with prosthetic heart valves: fundamental principles and the contribution of platelets and thrombin. Am Heart J. 2001;141:1025–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Deviri E, Sareli P, Wisenbaugh T, Cronje SL. Obstruction of mechanical heart valve prosotheses: clinical aspects and surgical management. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:646.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lengyel M. Diagnosis and treatment of left-sided prosthetic valve thrombosis. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2008;6:85–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roudaut R, Lafitte S, Roudaut MF, Courtault C, Perron JM, Jaïs C, et al. Fibrinolysis of mechanical prosthetic valve thrombosis: a single-center study of 127 cases. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:653–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tong AT, Roudaut R, Ozkan M, Sagie A, Shahid MS, Pontes Júnior SC, et al. Transesophageal echocardiography improves risk assessment of thrombolysis of prosthetic valve thrombosis: results of the international PRO-TEE registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:77–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, Pibarot P, Mack MJ, Takkenberg JJ, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27,186 patients with 133,141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1518–29. This is a large contemporary review evaluating the long-term effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on cardiovascular outcomes. Numerous studies have linked PPM after aortic valve replacement (AVR) to adverse outcomes. Its correlation with long-term survival has been described but with contradicting results in the literature. This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies evaluated the long-term hazard of PPM after AVR. The Medline and EMBase databases were searched for English-language original publications. This analysis reviewed 34 studies comprising 27,186 patients and 133,141 patient-years. In 34.2% and 9.8% of patients moderate (0.65–0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) and severe (<0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) PPM was present, respectively. PPM was associated with a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.18–1.51), but only a trend to an increase in cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.88–2.60) was recognized. Analysis by severity of PPM demonstrated that both moderate and severe PPM increased all-cause mortality (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.07–1.33 and HR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.38–2.45), and cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.02–1.71 and HR = 6.46, 95% CI: 2.79–14.97). In summary, this study found that indeed PPM is associated with an increase in all-cause and cardiac-related mortality over long-term follow-up. The authors recommend that current efforts to prevent PPM should receive more emphasis and widespread acceptance to improve long-term survival after AVR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, et al. Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation. 2007;116:1736–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Nishimura RA, Carabello BA, Faxon DP, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 Guideline update on valvular heart disease: focused update on infective endocarditis: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography, and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:676–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Grover FL, Cohen DJ, Oprian C, Henderson WG, Sethi G, Hammermeister KE. Determinants of the occurrence of and survival from prosthetic valve endocarditis. Experience of the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;108:207–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Thevenet A, Albat B. Long term follow up of 292 patients after valve replacement with the Omnicarbon prosthetic valve. Heart Valve Dis. 1995;4:634–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Wolff M, Witchitz S, Chastang C, Régnier B, Vachon F. Prosthetic valve endocarditis in the ICU. Prognostic factors of overall survival in a series of 122 cases and consequences for treatment decision. Chest. 1995;108:688–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Horstkotte D, Piper C, Niehues R, Wiemer M, Schultheiss HP. Late prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 1995;16(Suppl B):39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fang G, Keys TF, Gentry LO, Harris AA, Rivera N, Getz K, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis resulting from nosocomial bacteremia. A prospective, multicenter study. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(7 Pt 1):560–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Daniel WG, Mügge A, Grote J, Hausmann D, Nikutta P, Laas J, et al. Comparison of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography for detection of abnormalities of prosthetic and bioprosthetic valves in the mitral and aortic positions. Am J Cardiol. 1993;71:210–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Karchmer AW, Bisno AL. Infections of prosthetic heart valves and vacular grafts. In: Bisno AL, Waldovogel FA, editors. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1989. p. 129–59.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yu VL, Fang GD, Keys TF, Harris AA, Gentry LO, Fuchs PC, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: superiority of surgical valve replacement vs medical therapy only. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58:1073–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kang DH, Kim YJ, Kim SH, Sun BJ, Kim DH, Yun SC, et al. Early surgery vs conventional treatment for infective endocarditis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2466–73. This is randomized single center study that randomly assigned patients with left-sided infective endocarditis, severe valve disease, and large vegetations to early surgery (37 patients) or conventional treatment (39). The primary end point was a composite of in-hospital death and embolic events that occurred within 6 weeks after randomization. All the patients assigned to the early-surgery group underwent valve surgery within 48 hours after randomization, whereas 30 patients (77%) in the conventional-treatment group underwent surgery during the initial hospitalization (27 patients) or during follow-up (3). The primary end point occurred in 1 patient (3%) in the early-surgery group compared with 9 (23%) in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01– 0.82; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 6 months in the early-surgery and conventional-treatment groups (3% and 5%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.05–5.66; P = 0.59). The rate of the composite end point of death from any cause, embolic events, or recurrence of infective endocarditis at 6 months was 3% in the early-surgery group and 28% in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.65; P = 0.02). This study found that compared with conventional treatment, early surgery in patients with infective endocarditis and large vegetations significantly reduced the composite end point of death from any cause and embolic events by effectively decreasing the risk of systemic embolism.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim DH, Kang DH, Lee MZ, Yun SC, Kim YJ, Song JM, et al. Impact of early surgery on embolic events in patients with infective endocarditis. Circulation. 2010;122(11 Suppl):S17–22. From 1998 to 2006, these investigators prospectively enrolled 132 consecutive patients (86 men; age, 49 ± 17 years) with definite infective endocarditis (non-randomized, observational trial). Patients were included if they had a left-sided native valve endocarditis with vegetation. The choice of early surgery or conventional treatment was at the discretion of attending physician. Early surgery was performed on 64 patients (OP group) within 7 days of diagnosis, and conventional management was chosen for 68 patients (CONV group). The OP group had larger vegetations and a higher percentage of patients with severe valvular disease (88% vs 62%, P = 0.001). During initial hospitalization, there were no embolic events and 2 in-hospital deaths in the OP group and 14 embolic events and 2 in-hospital deaths in the CONV group. During a median follow-up of 1402 days, there were 2 cardiovascular deaths, 2 embolic events, and 1 recurrence of IE in the CONV group, and 1 cardiovascular death, and 2 embolic events in the OP group. The 5-year event-free survival rate was significantly higher in the OP group (93 ± 3%) than in the CONV group (73 ± 5%, P = 0.0016). Compared with conventional treatment, an early surgery strategy was associated with improved clinical outcomes by effectively decreasing systemic embolism in patients with infective endocarditis in this trial.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gutierrez-Martin MA, Galvez-Aceval J, Araji OA. Indications for surgery and operative techniques in infective endocarditis in the present day. Infect Disord Drug Targets. 2010;10:32–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Derex L, Bonnefoy E, Delahaye F. Impact of stroke on therapeutic decision making in infective endocarditis. J Neurol. 2010;257:315–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yau JW, Lee P, Wilson A, Jenkins AJ. Prosthetic valve endocarditis: what is the evidence for anticoagulant therapy? Int Med J. 2011;41:795–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E, Lipsitz S, Maloney A, Byrne JG, et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1410–6. This is a large contemporary review of the long-term natural history and complications of a commonly used biprosthetic valve in the aortic position.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Burdon TA, Oyer PE, Mitchell RS, Stinson EB, Starnes VA, Shumway NE. Durability of porcine valves fifteen years in a representative North American patient population. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;103:238–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bianchi G, Solinas M, Bevilacqua S, Glauber M. Are bioprostheses associated with better outcome than mechanical valves in patients with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis who undergo valve surgery? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Chan V, Jamieson WR, Fleisher AG, Denmark D, Chan F, Germann E. Valve replacement surgery in end-stage renal failure: mechanical prostheses vs bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:857–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Peterseim DS, Cen YY, Cheruvu S, Landolfo K, Bashore TM, Lowe JE, et al. Long-term outcome after biologic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;117:890–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Michelena HI, Alli O, Cabalka AK, Rihal CS. Successful percutaneous transvenous antegrade mitral valve-in-valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012:1–6.

  63. Dávila-Román VG, Waggoner AD, Kennard ED, Holubkov R, Jamieson WR, Englberger L, et al. Prevalence and severity perivalvular regurgitation in the artificial valve endocarditis reduction trial (AVERT) echocardiography study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1467–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mecozzi G, Milano AD, De Carlo M, Sorrentino F, Pratali S, Nardi C, et al. Intravascular hemolysis in patients with new-generation prosthetic heart valves: a prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123:550–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Garcia MJ, Vandervoort P, Stewart WJ, Lytle BW, Cosgrove 3rd DM, Thomas JD, et al. Mechanisms of hemolysis with mitral prosthetic regurgitation. Study using transesophageal echocardiography and fluid dynamic simulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:399–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Yeo TC, Freeman WK, Schaff HV, Orszulak TA. Mechanisms of hemolysis after mitral valve repair: assessment by serial echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:717–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Miller DL, Morris JJ, Schaff HV, Mullany CJ, Nishimura RA, Orszulak TA. Reoperation for aortic valve periprosthetic leakage: identification of patients at risk and results of operation. J Heart Valve Dis. 1995;4:160–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Akins CW, Bitondo JM, Hilgenberg AD, Vlahakes GJ, Madsen JC, MacGillivray TE. Early and late results of the surgical correction of cardiac prosthetic paravalvular leaks. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005;14:192–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Gonda 6-402, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Sunil Mankad MD, FACC, FCCP, FASE

Authors
  1. Sunil Mankad MD, FACC, FCCP, FASE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunil Mankad MD, FACC, FCCP, FASE.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mankad, S. Management of Prosthetic Heart Valve Complications. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med 14, 608–621 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-012-0212-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-012-0212-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation