Long-term outcomes in patients younger than 60 years

Ivanov V.A.; Semenova E.V.; Evseev E.P.; Ivanova L.N.; Nikityuk T.G.; Boltenkova V.I.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio20191201145

Ivanov V.A.

Chuvashskiĭ gosudarstvennyĭ universitet im. I.N. Ul'ianova, Vtoraia gorodskaia bol'nitsa, Cheboksary

Semenova E.V.

B.V. Petrovsky Russian Research Center of Surgery ,Department of Acquired Heart Valvular Diseases, Moscow, Russia

Evseev E.P.

FGBU Rossiĭskiĭ nauchnyĭ tsentr khirurgii RAMN im. akad. B.V. Petrovskogo, Moskva

Ivanova L.N.

B.V. Petrovsky Russian Research Center of Surgery ,Department of Acquired Heart Valvular Diseases, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0001-6277-0375

Nikityuk T.G.

Acad. B.V. Petrovsky Russian Scientific Surgery Center, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0003-4192-7366

Boltenkova V.I.

Department of Acquired Heart Valve Disease, Petrovsky Russian Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia

Long-term outcomes in patients younger than 60 years

Authors:

Ivanov V.A., Semenova E.V., Evseev E.P., Ivanova L.N., Nikityuk T.G., Boltenkova V.I.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019;12(1): 45‑52

DOI: 10.17116/kardio20191201145

Read: 2302 times

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Ivanov VA, Semenova EV, Evseev EP, Ivanova LN, Nikityuk TG, Boltenkova VI. Long-term outcomes in patients younger than 60 years. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019;12(1):45‑52. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio20191201145

Подписка 2026 Кардиология и сердечно-сосудистая хирургия (Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

Abstract:

Aim — to analyze the outcomes of aortic valve replacement with small prostheses (≤ 21 mm) in young patients. Material and methods. Isolated aortic valve replacement has been performed in 89 patients aged younger than 60 years for the period 2007—2017. Mean age and body surface area were 48.1±11.3 years (from 6 to 59 years) and 1.8 m2 (1.3 to 2.2 m2), respectively. The following prostheses were implanted: Carbonics-20 (n=8), MICS-21 (n=1), Tricardics-21 (n=1), St. Jude Medical-21 (n=1), Medtronic Hall-21 (n=1), ATS-18 AP (n=12), ATS-20 AP (n=26), Carbomedics-19 (n=4), Carbomedics-21 (n=24), On-X Valves-19 (n=2), On-X Valves-21 (n=9). Four patients underwent aortic root enlargement by Nicks. Results. There was no in-hospital mortality. In long-term follow-up (mean 5.9 years, 9 months — 11 years) 3 (4%) patients died. Peak and mean pressure gradients on standard prostheses (Carbonics, MICS, Carbomedics, Medtronic Hall, Tricardics) were 27.6±8.3 (14—51) and 14.9±4.3 mm Hg (8.8—25), respectively. In case of modern models with increased effective orifice area (ATS 18 AP, ATS 20 AP, On-X Valves) the same values were 24.1±9 (11—35) and 12.4±5.1 mm Hg (7.1—20) (p<0.05). Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was observed in 11 (15%) patients and 2 of them had severe mismatch (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.65 cm2/m2) after Carbonics-20 and Carbomedics-21 valves deployment. Modern models (ATS-18 AP, ATS-20 AP, On-X Valves) were not associated with severe PPM. Conclusion. Modern artificial valves with increased effective orifice area provide good results of aortic valve replacement in patients younger 60 years.

Keywords:

small prostheses

prosthesis-patient mismatch

increased effective orifice area

Authors:

Ivanov V.A.

Chuvashskiĭ gosudarstvennyĭ universitet im. I.N. Ul'ianova, Vtoraia gorodskaia bol'nitsa, Cheboksary

Semenova E.V.

B.V. Petrovsky Russian Research Center of Surgery ,Department of Acquired Heart Valvular Diseases, Moscow, Russia

Evseev E.P.

FGBU Rossiĭskiĭ nauchnyĭ tsentr khirurgii RAMN im. akad. B.V. Petrovskogo, Moskva

Ivanova L.N.

B.V. Petrovsky Russian Research Center of Surgery ,Department of Acquired Heart Valvular Diseases, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0001-6277-0375

Nikityuk T.G.

Acad. B.V. Petrovsky Russian Scientific Surgery Center, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0003-4192-7366

Boltenkova V.I.

Department of Acquired Heart Valve Disease, Petrovsky Russian Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia

Close metadata

References:

Tarichko YuV, Dolotov VK. Clinical and experimental evaluation of aortoannuloplasty methods for prosthetic aortic valve replacemtnt. Grudnaya khirurgiya. 1989;1:7-12. (In Russ)
Skopin II, Makushin AA, Davydova GB, mashina TV, Perepelitsa AA. Aortic valve failure with «narrow» root-choice of surgical treatment. Grudnaya i serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya. 2002;2:15-20. (In Russ.)
Sommers KE, David TE. Aortic valve replacement with patch enlargementof the aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63:1608-1612.
LaPar DJ, Ailawadi G, Bhamidipati C, Stukenborg G, et al. Small Prosthesis Size in Aortic Valve Replacement Does Not Affect Mortality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:880-888.
Correia PM, Coutinho GF, Branco C, Antunes MJ. Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing aortic root enlargement for insertion of a larger prosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;1-7.
Hernandez-Vaquero D, Llosa JC, Diaz R, Zain Khalpey Carlos Morales, Alvarez R, Lypez J, Boye F. Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on 30-day outcomes in young and middle-aged patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2012; 7:46.
Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, Mathieu P, Dagenais F, Voisine P, Pibarot P. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Jan 6;53(1):39-47.
Moon MR, Pasque MK, Munfakh NA, Melby SJ, Lawton JS, Moazami N et al. Prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement: impact of age and body size on late survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:481-488.
Hernandez-Vaquero D, Garcia JM, Diaz R, Calvo D, Khalpey Z, et al. Moderate Patient — Prosthesis Mismatch Predicts Cardiac Events and Advanced Functional Class in Young and Middle-Aged Patients Undergoing Surgery Due to Severe Aortic Stenosis. J Card Surg. 2014;29:127-133.
Alfonso Penta de Peppo, Zeitani J, Nardi P, Iaci G, Polisca P, et al. Small Functional Size after Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: No Risk in Young to Middle-Age Patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:1915-1920.
Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers JB, Edvardsen T, Delgado V, Dulgheru R, et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imag. 2016;17:589-590.
Ivanov VA, Evseev EP. Prosthesis of the aortal valve in adult patients with «narrow» aortic root. hirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova. 2005;10:12-18. (In Russ.)
Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation. 2009;119:1034-1048.
Hong S, Yi G, Youn YN, Lee S, Yoo KJ, Chang BC. Effect of the prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term clinical outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a prospective observational study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;146:1098-1040.
Pibarot P, Clavel MA, Dahou A. Patient and procedure selection for the prevention of prosthesis-patient mismatch following aortic valve replacement. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl W):W106-W109.
Kindo M, Minh TH, Perrier S, Petit-Eisenmann H, Bentz J, Cristinar M, et al. Impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on early haemodynamic status after aortic valve replacement. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg. 2016.
Howell NJ, Keogh BE, Barnet V, Bonser RS, Graham TR, Rooney SJ, Wilson IC, Pagano D. Patient-prosthesis mismatch does not affect survival following aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30(1):10-14.