Abstract
Background
Choice of heart valve in the developing countries is an unsettled issue due to illiteracy and noncompliance related increase in incidences of stuck valve and anticoagulant related bleeding and as such international guidelines may not be wholly applicable. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes after mitral, aortic or double valve replacements with mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves.
Methods
Data of 503 patients who underwent cardiac valve replacement [300 mitral, 125 aortic, and 78 double valve] with either mechanical [bileaflet valve, n = 257] or biological [Hancock II, n = 246] valve from January 2003 to December 2008, were retrospectively analyzed. Specific outcomes assessed included incidences of valve thrombosis, systemic thromboembolism, anticoagulant related bleeding, structural valve dysfunction, prosthetic valve endocarditis, reoperation and death.
Results
Both the groups were comparable preoperatively except that patients receiving biological valve were more likely to be female and belonging to a rural setup. 30 day mortality was comparable in both groups. Incidences of valve related complications were significantly commoner in mechanical valve group. Two patients with mechanical valve required reoperation for stuck prosthetic valve at about 3 years after primary operation. There were two deaths in mechanical valve group, both related to stuck prosthetic valve. Prosthetic valve endocarditis was not reported in either group. At 5 years there was no incidence of structural valve dysfunction.
Conclusions
Mechanical valves are associated with a significantly higher complication rate compared with biological valves in Indian patients. Biological valves thus maybe specifically suited to the Indian scenario. However, in choosing a prosthetic valve, patients’ involvement and informed consent should take the utmost importance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Chaikof EL. The development of prosthetic heart valves —lessons in form and function. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1368–71.
Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al. Focused update incorporated into the 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: Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2008;118:e523–661.
Kabbani SS. Is it time to look for an alternative? Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2001;9:79–81.
Bharat V. Mechanical heart valves: an insight into thrombotic complications. Indian Heart J. 1999;51:59–63.
Al Halees Z. The choice of valve prosthesis: are the guidelines for everyone? Asian Cardiovasc Thoracic Ann. 2007;15:457–58.
Edmunds Jr LH, Clark RE, Cohn LH, Grunkemeier GL, Miller DC, Weisel RD. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg. 1996;10:812–16.
Hufnagel CA, Harvey WP, Rabil PJ, Mc-Dermott TF. Surgical correction of aortic insufficiency. Surgery. 1954;35:673–83.
Starr A, Edwards ML. Mitral replacement: clinical experience with a ball-valve prosthesis. Ann Surg. 1961;154:726–40.
Harken DE, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA, et al. Aortic valve replacement with a caged ball valve. Am J Cardiol. 1962;9:292–99.
Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briet E. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation. 1994;89:635–41.
North RA, Sadler L, Stewart AW, McCowan LM, Kerr AR, White HD. Long-term survival and valve-related complications in young women with cardiac valve replacements. Circulation. 1999;99:2669–76.
Chan WS, Anand S, Ginsberg JS. Anticoagulation of pregnant women with mechanical heart valves: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:191–96.
Carrel TP, Klingenmann W, Mohacsi PJ, Berdat P, Althaus U. Perioperative bleeding and thromboembolic risk during non-cardiac surgery in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves: an institutional review. J Heart Valve Dis. 1999;8:392–98.
Teply JF, Grunkemeier GL, Sutherland HD, Lambert LE, Johnson VA, Starr A. The ultimate prognosis after valve replacement: an assessment at twenty years. Ann Thorac Surg. 1981;32:111–19.
Agarwal S, Gupta S, Minhas HS, Geelani MA, Mandiye SS, Banerjee A. Comparision of outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve in patients between forty and sixty years of age. Ind J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;25:12–7.
Demirag M, Kirali K, Omergolu SN, et al. Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis in the mitral position: a 10 year follow up of St. Jude Medical and Biocor valves. J Heart Valve Dis. 2001;10:78–83.
Dagenais F, Cartier P, Voisine P, et al. Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:1041–49.
David TE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Cohen G. Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;121:268–77.
Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, Prescott RJ, et al. Twelve year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:573–79.
Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1152–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Note: Reprints of the article will not be available from the authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mandiye, S.S., Agarwal, S., Pratap, H. et al. Comparison over short term of mortality and morbidity of mechanical and bioprosthetic heart valves in the Indian population. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 26, 139–143 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-010-0022-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-010-0022-z