The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Lysenko A.V.

Petrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery

Salagaev G.I.

Petrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery

Lednev P.V.

Petrovsky Russian Scientific Center of Surgery

Belov Yu.V.

Petrovsky National Research Center of Surgery;
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Redo heart valve replacement in patients with dysfunction of biological prostheses

Authors:

Lysenko A.V., Salagaev G.I., Lednev P.V., Belov Yu.V.

More about the authors

Read: 2046 times


To cite this article:

Lysenko AV, Salagaev GI, Lednev PV, Belov YuV. Redo heart valve replacement in patients with dysfunction of biological prostheses. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2023;16(2):156‑160. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio202316021156

Recommended articles:
What we have to change in the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infa­rction?. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2025;(2):183-190
Redo mitral valve replacement for dysfunction of mitral bioprosthesis. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2025;(4):490-492
Cere­bral protection in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Piro­gov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2024;(12-2):150-158

References:

  1. Beyersdorf F, Vahanian A, Milojevic M, Praz F, Baldus S, Bauersachs J et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;60:727-800. 
  2. Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, et al. 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. 2009;137:82-90. 
  3. Furukawa H, Tanemoto K. Current status and future perspectives of prosthetic valve selection for aortic valve replacement. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62:19-2. 
  4. Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, Moat N, Murphy G, Pagano D, Ray S, Roxburgh J, Bridgewater B. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use—an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:776-782.e3. 
  5. Amano J, Kuwano H, Yokomise H. Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery in Japan during 2011: annual report by The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;61:578-607. 
  6. Ghoreishi M, Dawood M, Hobbs G, et al. Repeat sternotomy: no longer a risk factor in mitral valve surgical procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:1358-1365.
  7. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, Fleisher LA, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused update of the 2015 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:252-289. 
  8. Chiang YP, Chikwe J, Moskowitz AJ, Itagaki S, Adams DH, Egorova NN. Survival and long term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA. 2014;312:1323-1329.
  9. Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, Lingala B, Patrick WL, Fischbein MP, et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1847-1857.
  10. Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD, Mullany CJ, Sundt TM, Dearany JA, et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:878-884. 
  11. Diaz R., Hernandez-Vaquero D., Alvarez-Cabo R. et al. Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019;158:706-714. 
  12. Zhao DF, Seco M, Wu JJ, Edelman JB, Wilson MK, Vallely MP, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in middle-aged adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:315-327. 
  13. Mansournia MA, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, Hernan MA. Biases in randomized trials: a conversation between trialists and epidemiologists. Epidemiology. 2017;28:54-59. 
  14. Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs biological prostheses in patients aged 50—69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2658-2667.
  15. Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M, Stein J, Detschades C, Siniawski H. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:688-696. 
  16. Dıaz R, Hernandez-Vaquero D, Silva J, Pascual I, de la Hera JM, Leon V, et al. Real structural valve deterioration of the Mitroflow aortic prosthesis: competing risk analysis. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2017;70:1074-1081.
  17. Pahn K, Zhao DF, Wang N, Huo YR, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus reoperative conventional aortic valve replacement: a systematic review. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8:83-93. 
  18. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia202107198 
  19. https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio202013051443 

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.