Key points

  • The need for heart valve replacement surgery marks a major milestone in the natural history of valve disease and mandates establishment of a schedule for clinical and echocardiographic surveillance. Surgical repair, especially for primary mitral regurgitation, is preferred whenever anatomically feasible and when supported by the experience of the surgeon.

  • Valve replacement surgery substitutes a nonimmunogenic foreign body for the native valve. Hemodynamic performance characteristics vary as a function of valve type and size, and of cardiac output or transvalvular flow. There is some degree of stenosis across any mechanical or stented bioprosthetic valve. A small amount of regurgitation is a normal feature of mechanical valves and of some bioprosthetic valves.

  • Mechanical heart valve substitutes are durable but obligate the patient to lifelong anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), exposing patients to the dual hazards of thromboembolism and bleeding. Bioprosthetic or tissue valves are relatively nonthrombogenic but are susceptible to a predictable rate of structural deterioration over time and the potential need for reoperation. Rates of structural valve deterioration vary as a function of valve type, valve position, and several patient characteristics, such as age at implantation, pregnancy, and altered calcium homeostasis. The durability of an aortic homograft does not exceed that of a bovine pericardial valve.

  • Direct oral anticoagulants (i.e., non-VKA) are not approved for use in patients with mechanical heart valves. Management of anticoagulation in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves is very challenging. The choice between warfarin (provided the daily dose does not exceed 5 mg) and low-molecular-weight heparin must be individualized with weekly follow-up during pregnancy.

  • The choice of prosthetic heart valve must account for the values and preferences of the informed patient and for the trade-offs regarding durability, anticoagulation, and the aggregate risks of thromboembolism and bleeding. Many patients younger than 60 years of age opt to avoid anticoagulation and accept a bioprosthetic valve with an increased likelihood of reoperation. The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in patients across the entire surgical risk spectrum has changed the dynamic considerably. Shared decision making regarding the type of prosthesis and the manner of implantation (surgical vs. transcatheter) is emphasized. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for aortic or mitral bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration is available for severely symptomatic patients who are considered to be at high or prohibitive risk for reoperation.

  • Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with color-flow Doppler imaging is an integral feature of patient follow-up after valve replacement surgery. There is good correlation between Doppler and catheterization estimates of mean pressure gradients across prosthetic valves, although in certain instances agreement is less robust. The phenomenon of pressure recovery, which may lead to an overestimate of valve gradient, is particularly problematic for bileaflet mechanical valves in the aortic position. Published tables of normal Doppler echocardiographic parameters for prosthetic valves of various makes and sizes should be consulted to help guide management.

  • A baseline postoperative TTE study is obtained during the first 6 to 12 weeks after operation and serves as a reference against which future comparisons can be made as clinically dictated. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is required for the interrogation of prosthetic valves whenever valve dysfunction, paravalvular leak, or endocarditis is suspected. The frequency with which surveillance TTE is performed depends on the valve type. Routine imaging is not required for mechanical prostheses if there are no symptoms or signs of valve dysfunction. Annual TTE examinations may be considered after 5 years and are reasonable after 10 years for bioprosthetic valves. Other imaging modalities (e.g., cardiac computed tomography) may provide corroborative functional information in selected circumstances.

  • All patients with prosthetic heart valves should receive antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures that involve manipulation of gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or the oral mucosa. Management of prosthetic valve endocarditis requires a multidisciplinary team approach with input from cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, imaging specialists, and infectious disease experts.

  • When available, emergency surgery is preferred over fibrinolytic therapy for the management of patients with left-sided prosthetic valve thrombosis (PVT) and shock or New York Heart Association functional class III to IV heart failure. Fibrinolytic therapy is reasonable for patients with small thrombus burden and recent-onset functional class I or II symptoms and for patients with right-sided PVT. There is increasing experience with low-dose, slow-infusion fibrinolytic therapy for mechanical PVT.

  • Severe prosthesis–patient mismatch is an important complication for some patients after valve replacement surgery (aortic or mitral). Attempts to implant the largest allowable prosthesis are limited by the anatomic constraints posed by the individual patient. Lesser degrees of mismatch are usually well tolerated.

The past several decades have witnessed extraordinary advancements in patient survival and functional outcomes after heart valve replacement surgery. Continued refinements in prosthetic valve design and performance, operative techniques, myocardial preservation, systemic perfusion, cerebral protection, and anesthetic management have enabled the application of surgical therapy to an increasingly wider spectrum of patients. Minimally invasive surgical approaches and aggressive use of primary valve repair when anatomically appropriate are now routine in most high-volume centers. Heart valve teams have been formed to provide multidisciplinary assessment and treatment in complex cases, including the use of transcatheter aortic and mitral valve interventions when appropriate.

More than 58,000 aortic or mitral valve replacement (MVR) operations (with or without coronary artery bypass) were reported to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Adult Cardiac Database in 2017. Familiarity with the specific hemodynamic attributes, durability, thrombogenicity, and inherent limitations of available heart valve substitutes and their potential for long-term complications is critical for appropriate decision making for patients in whom repair is not appropriate or feasible.

The choice of valve prosthesis is a trade-off between valve durability and the risk of thromboembolism on the one hand and the associated hazards and lifestyle limitations of anticoagulation on the other. The ideal heart valve substitute remains an elusive goal.

Types of prosthetic heart valves

Mechanical valves

There are three basic types of mechanical prosthetic valves: bileaflet, tilting disk, and ball-cage. The bileaflet SJM Regent Mechanical Heart Valve ( Fig. 26.1 A) was introduced in 1977 by St. Jude Medical (since acquired by Abbott, Santa Clara, CA) and has become the most frequently implanted mechanical prosthesis worldwide. It consists of two pyrolytic semicircular leaflets or disks with a slit-like central orifice between the two leaflets and two larger semicircular orifices laterally. The opening angle of the leaflets relative to the annulus plane is 75 to 90 degrees. Hemodynamic characteristics compare favorably to those of a tilting disk valve ( Tables 26.1 and 26.2 ). As a performance index, the ratio of effective orifice area (EOA) to the area of the sewing ring ranges from 0.40 to 0.70, depending on valve size. EOAs range from 0.7 cm 2 for a 19-mm valve to 4.2 cm 2 for a 31-mm prosthesis.

Fig. 26.1, Different Types of Prosthetic Valve Models.

TABLE 26.1
Normal Doppler Echocardiographic Values for Selected Aortic Valve Prostheses.
Modified from Rosenhek R, Binder T, Maurer G, et al. Normal values for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of heart valve prostheses. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003;16:1116-1127.
Valve Type Size Peak Gradient (mmHg) Mean Gradient (mmHg) Peak Velocity (m/s) Effective Orifice Area (cm 2 )
Mechanical
SJM Regent Bileaflet 19 35.17 ± 11.16 18.96 ± 6.27 2.86 ± 0.48 1.01 ± 0.24
21 28.34 ± 9.94 15.82 ± 5.67 2.63 ± 0.48 1.33 ± 0.32
23 25.28 ± 7.89 13.77 ± 5.33 2.57 ± 0.44 1.6 ± 0.43
25 22.57 ± 7.68 12.65 ± 5.14 2.4 ± 0.45 1.93 ± 0.45
27 19.85 ± 7.55 11.18 ± 4.82 2.24 ± 0.42 2.35 ± 0.59
29 17.72 ± 6.42 9.86 ± 2.9 2 ± 0.1 2.81 ± 0.57
31 16 10 ± 6 2.1 ± 0.6 3.08 ± 1.09
On-X Bileaflet 19 21.3 ± 10.8 11.8 ± 3.4 1.5 ± 0.2
21 16.4 ± 5.9 9.9 ± 3.6 1.7 ± 0.4
23 15.9 ± 6.4 8.5 ± 3.3 2 ± 0.6
25 16.5 ± 10.2 9 ± 5.3 2.4 ± 0.8
27–29 11.4 ± 4.6 5.6 ± 2.7 3.2 ± 0.6
Medtronic-Hall Tilting disk 20 34.37 ± 13.06 17.08 ± 5.28 2.9 ± 0.4 1.21 ± 0.45
21 26.86 ± 10.54 14.1 ± 5.93 2.42 ± 0.36 1.08 ± 0.17
23 26.85 ± 8.85 13.5 ± 4.79 2.43 ± 0.59 1.36 ± 0.39
25 17.13 ± 7.04 9.53 ± 4.26 2.29 ± 0.5 1.9 ± 0.47
27 18.66 ± 9.71 8.66 ± 5.56 2.07 ± 0.53 1.9 ± 0.16
29 1.6
Omniscience Tilting disk 19 47.5 ± 3.5 28 ± 1.4 0.81 ± 0.01
21 50.8 ± 2.8 28.2 ± 2.17 0.87 ± 0.13
23 39.8 ± 8.7 20.1 ± 5.1 0.98 ± 0.07
Starr-Edwards Ball-and-cage 21 29 1
22 4 ± 0
23 32.6 ± 12.79 21.98 ± 8.8 3.5 ± 0.5 1.1
24 34.13 ± 10.33 22.09 ± 7.54 3.35 ± 0.48
26 31.83 ± 9.01 19.69 ± 6.05 3.18 ± 0.35
27 30.82 ± 6.3 18.5 ± 3.7 1.8
29 29 ± 9.3 16.3 ± 5.5
Bioprosthetic
Carpentier-Edwards pericardial Stented bioprosthesis 19 32.13 ± 3.55 24.19 ± 8.6 24.19 ± 8.6 1.21 ± 0.31
21 25.69 ± 9.9 20.3 ± 9.08 2.59 ± 0.42 1.47 ± 0.36
23 21.72 ± 8.57 13.01 ± 5.27 2.29 ± 0.45 1.75 ± 0.28
25 16.46 ± 5.41 9.04 ± 2.27 2.02 ± 0.31
27 19.2 ± 0 5.6 1.6
29 17.6 ± 0 11.6 2.1
Carpentier-Edwards Stented bioprosthesis 19 43.48 ± 12.72 25.6 ± 8.02 0.85 ± 0.17
21 27.73 ± 7.6 17.25 ± 6.24 2.37 ± 0.54 1.48 ± 0.3
23 28.93 ± 7.49 15.92 ± 6.43 2.76 ± 0.4 1.69 ± 0.45
25 23.94 ± 7.05 12.76 ± 4.43 2.38 ± 0.47 1.94 ± 0.45
27 22.14 ± 8.24 12.33 ± 5.59 2.31 ± 0.39 2.25 ± 0.55
29 22 9.92 ± 2.9 2.44 ± 0.43 2.84 ± 0.51
31 2.41 ± 0.13
CryoLife-O’Brien stentless Stentless bioprosthesis 19 12 ± 4.8 1.25 ± 0.1
21 10.33 ± 2 1.57 ± 0.6
23 8.5 2.2
25 7.9 2.3
27 7.4 2.7
Hancock II Stented bioprosthesis 21 20 ± 4 14.8 ± 4.1 1.23 ± 0.27
23 24.72 ±5.73 16.64 ± 6.91 1.39 ± 0.23
25 20 ± 2 10.7 ± 3 1.47 ± 0.19
27 14 ± 3 1.55 ± 0.18
29 15 ± 3 1.6 ± 0.15
Medtronic Mosaic Porcine Stented bioprosthesis 21 12.43 ± 7.3 1.6 ± 0.7
23 12.47 ± 7.4 2.1 ± 0.8
25 10.08 ± 5.1 2.1 ± 1.6
27 9
29 9
Mitroflow Stented bioprosthesis 19 18.7 ± 5.1 10.3 ± 3 1.13 ± 0.17
21 20.2 15.4 2.3
23 14.04 ± 4.91 7.56 ± 3.38 1.85 ± 0.34
25 17 ± 11.31 10.8 ± 6.51 2 ± 0.71
27 13 ± 3 6.57 ± 1.7 1.8 ± 0.2
Toronto stentless porcine Stentless bioprosthesis 20 10.9 4.6 1.3
21 18.64 ± 11.8 7.56 ± 4.4 1.21 ± 0.7
22 23 1.2
23 13.55 ± 7.28 7.08 ± 4.33 1.59 ± 0.84
25 12.17 ± 5.75 6.2 ± 3.05 1.62 ± 0.4
27 9.96 ± 4.56 4.8 ± 2.33 1.95 ± 0.42
29 7.91 ± 4.17 3.94 ± 2.15 2.37 ± 0.67

TABLE 26.2
Normal Doppler Echocardiographic Values for Selected Mitral Valve Prostheses.
Modified from Rosenhek R, Binder T, Maurer G, et al. Normal valves for Doppler echocardiographic assessment of heart valve prostheses. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003;16:1116-1127.
Valve Size Peak Gradient (mmHg) Mean Gradient (mmHg) Peak Velocity (m/s) Pressure Half-Time (ms) Effective Orifice Area (cm 2 )
Mechanical
SJM Regent bileaflet 23 4 1.5 160 1
25 2.5 ± 1 1.34 ± 1.12 75 ± 4 1.35 ± 0.17
27 11 ± 4 5 ± 1.82 1.61 ± 0.29 75 ± 10 1.67 ± 0.17
29 10 ± 3 4.15 ± 1.8 1.57 ± 0.29 85 ± 0.29 1.75 ± 0.24
31 12 ± 6 4.46 ± 2.22 1.59 ± 0.33 74 ± 13 2.03 ± 0.32
On-X bileaflet 25 11.5 ± 3.2 5.3 ± 2.1 1.9 ± 1.1
27–29 10.3 ± 4.5 4.5 ± 1.6 2.2 ± 0.5
31–33 9.8 ± 3.8 4.8 ± 2.4 2.5 ± 1.1
Medtronic-Hall tilting disk 27 1.4 78
29 1.57 ± 0.1 69 ± 15
31 1.45 ± 0.12 77 ± 17
Bioprosthetic
Carpentier-Edwards stented bioprosthesis 27 6 ± 2 1.7 ± 0.3 98 ± 28
29 4.7 ± 2 1.76 ± 0.27 92 ± 14
31 4.4 ± 2 1.54 ± 0.15 92 ± 19
33 6 ± 3 93 ± 12
Hancock II stented bioprosthesis 27 2.21 ± 0.14
29 2.77 ± 0.11
31 2.84 ± 0.1
33 3.15 ± 0.22
Hancock pericardial stented bioprosthesis 29 2.61 ± 1.39 1.42 ± 0.14 105 ± 36
31 3.57 ± 1.02 1.51 ± 0.27 81 ± 23
Mitroflow stented bioprosthesis 25 6.9 2 90
27 3.07 ± 0.91 1.5 90 ± 20
29 3.5 ± 1.65 1.43 ± 0.29 102 ± 21
31 3.85 ± 0.81 1.32 ± 0.26 91 ± 22

Average peak velocities are 3.0 ± 0.8 m/s in the aortic position and 1.6 ± 0.3 m/s in the mitral position. , Peak instantaneous gradients can be estimated using the Bernoulli equation, but mean gradient calculations are more useful. The phenomenon of pressure recovery across bileaflet and ball-cage aortic valves magnifies the estimate of the difference between left ventricular (LV) and aortic pressures (i.e., the systolic gradient), especially when the latter is derived from measurements obtained close to the valve rather than more distally in the ascending aorta ( Fig. 26.2 ). Additional confounding occurs from the contribution of flow acceleration through the narrow central orifice of a bileaflet valve.

Fig. 26.2, Pressure Recovery.

Doppler velocity determinations can overestimate the transvalvular gradient across mechanical bileaflet valves. Published reference tables of expected velocities for the various valve sizes should be consulted, and comparison with baseline postoperative studies should be made to avoid misdiagnosis of prosthetic valve stenosis (see Tables 26.1 and 26.2 ).

The Carbomedics mechanical heart valve (LivaNova, Arvada, CO) is a variation of the SJM Regent model prosthesis that can be rotated to prevent limitation of leaflet excursion by subvalvular tissue. For a given valve annulus size, the EOAs are generally larger and transprosthetic pressure gradients are lower for the bileaflet mechanical valves compared with the tilting disk valves. Bileaflet valves typically have a small amount of normal regurgitation (i.e., washing jet), designed in part to decrease the risk of thrombus formation. A small central jet and two converging jets emanating from the hinge points of the disks can be visualized on color Doppler flow imaging. ,

Tilting disk or monoleaflet valves use a single circular disk that rotates within a rigid annulus to occlude or open the valve orifice. The disk is secured by lateral or central metal struts. The Medtronic-Hall valve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) has a thin, circular disk of tungsten-impregnated graphite with pyrolytic coating, secured at its center by a curved, central guide strut within a titanium housing. The sewing ring is made of polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon). The disk opens to 75 degrees in the aortic model and to 70 degrees in the mitral model.

The disk of the Omniscience valve (Medical CV, Inc., Inner Grove Heights, MN) is made of pyrolytic carbon and has a seamless polyester knit sewing ring. The disk opens to 80 degrees and closes at an angle of 12 degrees to the annular plane.

For both valve types, the major orifice is semicircular in cross section. The non-perpendicular opening angle of the valve occluder tends to slightly increase the resistance to blood flow, particularly in the major orifices, resulting in estimated pressure gradients of 5 to 25 mmHg in the aortic position and 5 to 10 mmHg in the mitral position (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2 ). Tilting disk valves also have a small amount of regurgitation, arising from small gaps at the perimeter of the valve. With the Hall-Medtronic valve, there is a small amount of regurgitation around the central guide strut.

The bulky Starr-Edwards ball-cage valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) (see Fig. 26.1 B), the oldest commercially available prosthetic heart valve, was first used in 1965 and was discontinued in 2007. The ball-cage valve is more thrombogenic and has less favorable hemodynamic performance characteristics than bileaflet or tilting disk valves.

Durability and long-term outcomes

Mechanical valves have excellent long-term durability, up to 50 years for the Starr-Edwards valve and more than 35 years for the SJM Regent valve. Structural valve deterioration (SVD), exemplified by some older-generation Björk-Shiley valves (i.e., strut fracture with disk embolization) and Starr-Edwards prostheses (i.e., ball variance), is now rare. The 10-year rate of freedom from valve-related death exceeds 90% for the SJM Regent and the Carbomedics bilealfet valves. The Medtronic-Hall prosthesis has achieved comparable longevity. Actuarial survival rates, which depend on several patient factors such as age, gender, ventricular function, coronary artery disease, functional status, and major comorbidities, range from 94% ± 2% at 10 years for SJM Regent valves to 85% ± 3% at 9 years for Omniscience valves and 60% to 70% at 10 years for Starr-Edwards valves ( Table 26.3 ).

TABLE 26.3
Long-Term Outcome After Mechanical Valve Replacement: Selected Series.
COMPLICATIONS (%/PATIENT-YEAR)
Valve Type Ref. No. Years Implanted N Mean Age Survival Thromboembolism Bleeding Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis Valve Thrombosis
Bileaflet
SJM Regent 118 1977–1987 1298 62 ± 13 Event-free :
67% ± 8% at 9 yr
1.5 0.56 0.16 0.09
SJM Regent 25 1978–1991 91 39 (range, 15–50) Event-free:
94% ± 2% at 10 yr
0.6 0.8 0.4
SJM Regent AVR 29 1977–1997 1419 63 ± 14 Actuarial:
82% at 5 yr
51% at 15 yr
45% at 19 yr
SJM Regent AVR + CABG 29 1977–1997 971 70 ± 10 Actuarial:
72% at 5 yr
45% at 10 yr
15% at 19 yr
Carbomedics 28 1989–1997 1019 61 ± 10 Event-free:
82% at 7 yr
Mortality rate: 2.9%/yr
1.0 1.7 0.1 0.1
Tilting Disk
Medtronic-Hall 24 1977–1987 1104 56 Actuarial : 1.2
AVR 46% ± 2% at 15 yr 1.8 0.05
MVR 2% ± 4% at 15 yr 1.9 0.19
DVR 28% ± 5% at 15 yr 1.9 0.13
Ball-Cage
Starr-Edwards 26 1963–1977 362 40 ± 10 yr Event-free :
AVR 66.4% at 10 yr 1.36 1.06
MVR 73.4% 1.25 0.56
Starr-Edwards 27 1969–1991 1100 57 yr 59.6% at 10 yr
31.2% at 20 yr
1.26 0.18 0.39 0.02
AVR, Aortic valve replacement; CABG , coronary artery bypass grafting surgery; DVR, double valve replacement; MVR, mitral valve replacement; yr, year.

All patients with mechanical valves require lifelong anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA). Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not approved for use in this patient subset. In a small phase 2 study, dabigatran was associated with increased rates of thromboembolic and bleeding complications compared with warfarin. Higher-intensity anticoagulation is required for mechanical valves placed in the mitral versus the aortic position, for patients with multiple mechanical prostheses, and often for patients with additional risk factors for thromboembolism (e.g., atrial fibrillation). Even with appropriately targeted anticoagulation, reported rates of thromboembolism range from 0.6 to 3.3 per 100 patient-years for patients with bileaflet or tilting disk valves. , , , ,

Complications related to anticoagulation in this population occur at rates of 0.9 to 2.3 per 100 patient-years. Long-term issues associated with mechanical valves include infective endocarditis, paravalvular leak (PVL), hemolytic anemia, thromboembolism/valve thrombosis, pannus ingrowth, prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM), and hemorrhagic complications related to anticoagulation ( Fig. 26.3 ).

Fig. 26.3, Prosthetic Valve Complications.

Tissue valves

Tissue or biological valves include porcine and bovine stented and stentless bioprostheses, homografts (or allografts) from human cadaveric sources, and autografts of pericardial or pulmonic valve origin. They provide an alternative, less thrombogenic heart valve substitute for which long-term anticoagulation in the absence of additional risk factors for thromboembolism is not required.

Stented bioprostheses

The traditional design of a bioprosthetic valve consists of three biological leaflets made from a porcine aortic valve or bovine pericardium and treated with glutaraldehyde to reduce antigenicity. The leaflets are mounted on a metal or polymeric stented ring, and they open to a circular orifice in systole, resembling the anatomy of the native aortic valve (see Fig. 26.1 C, D). Most bioprosthetic valves are treated with anticalcifying agents or processes.

Newer-generation bovine pericardial valves (Carpentier-Edwards Magna, Edwards Lifesciences [see Fig. 26.1 D] or St. Jude Trifecta, LivaNova) offer improved hemodynamic performance compared with earlier-generation porcine bioprostheses (see Tables 26.1 and 26.2 ). In the aortic position, the antegrade velocity varies as a function of valve size but approximates 2.4 m/s, with a mean gradient of 14 mmHg and an indexed valve area of 1.04 cm 2 /m 2 . The pericardial aortic valve has a larger EOA at any given valve size between 19 and 29 mm. The average peak gradient in the mitral position is 9 ± 3 mmHg, with an EOA of 2.5 ± 0.6 cm 2 . In a prospective randomized trial of patients with aortic valve disease, the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna bovine pericardial valve (Edwards Lifesciences) demonstrated better hemodynamic performance and greater LV mass regression over 5 postoperative years than the newer-generation Medtronic Mosaic porcine valve (Medtronic, Inc.).

A small degree of regurgitation can be detected by color Doppler flow imaging in 10% of normally functioning bioprostheses. One limitation of earlier generations of bioprosthetic valves was their limited durability due to SVD, typically beginning within 5 to 7 years after implantation but varying by position and age at implantation, with tissue changes characterized by calcification, fibrosis, tears, and perforations (see Fig. 26.3 ).

SVD occurs earlier for mitral than for aortic bioprosthetic valves, perhaps because of exposure of the mitral prosthesis to relatively higher LV closing pressures. The process of SVD is accelerated in younger patients ( Fig. 26.4 ), in those with disordered calcium homeostasis (e.g., end-stage renal disease), and possibly in pregnant women independent of younger age. With most current-generation bioprosthetic pericardial valves, the durability is excellent, with SVD rates of 2% to 10% at 10 years, 10% to 20% at 15 years, and 40% at 20 years , ( Table 26.4 ; Fig. 26.5 ). Accelerated SVD and reduced survival have been reported with Mitroflow models 12A/LX.

Fig. 26.4, Freedom From Structural Valve Deterioration (SVD). Actuarial Freedom from SVD for 4910 Operative Survivors of Isolated Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement with a Hancock Porcine Valve (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) or a Carpentier-Edwards porcine valve (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, CA). The curves are stratified by age group and show a significantly lower rate of SVD for older compared with younger patients. A Weibull regression model based on patient age and valve position (smooth lines) was used to fit the actuarial Kaplan-Meier curves (jagged lines).

TABLE 26.4
Long-Term Outcome After Tissue Valve Replacement: Selected Series.
Valve Type Ref. No. Years Implanted N Age (Yr ± SD) Actuarial Survival Freedom From (or Annual Rate of) Thromboembolism Freedom From (or Annual Rate of Structural Valve Deterioration
Stented Bioprostheses
Porcine (Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards) 39 1971–1990 2879 AVR 60 ± 15 77% ± 1% at 5 yr
54% ± 2% at 10 yr
32% ± 3% at 15 yr
92% ± 1% at 10 yr 78% ± 2% at 10 yr
49% ± 4% at 15 yr
MVR 58 ± 13 70% ± 1% at 5 yr
50% ± 2% at 10 yr
32% ± 3% at 15 yr
86% ± 1% at 10 yr 69% ± 2% at 10 yr
32% ± 4% at 15 yr
Carpentier-Edwards Porcine 40 1975–1986 1195 57.3 57.4% ± 1.5% at 10 yr (1.6%/pt-yr) (3.3%/pt-yr)
Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial 42 1984–1995 254 71 (range, 25–87) 80% ± 3% at 5 yr
50% ± 8% at 10 yr
36% ± 9% at 12 yr
67% ± 13% at 12 yr 86% ± 9% at 12 yr
Stentless Bioprostheses
Toronto SPV 105 1987–1993 123 61 ± 12 91% ± 4% at 6 yr 87% ± 7% at 6 yr (0%/pt-yr)
Edwards Prima 106 1991–1993 200 68.5 ± 8 95% at 1 yr (3% at 1 yr) (AV block requiring pacemaker 7% at 1 yr, mild AR 27% at 1yr)
Homografts
Cryopreserved 107 1981–1991 18 46 85% at 8 yr 85% at 8 yr
Antibiotic sterilized, subcoronary 108 1973–1983 200 50 81% ± 3% at 10 yr
58% ± 4% at 20 yr
31% ± 5% at 20 yr
81% ± 3% at 10 yr
Pulmonic Autografts
Pulmonic autografts 109 1986–1995 195 8 mo–62 yr 95% ± 2% at 2 yr
81% ± 5% at 8 yr
Pulmonary autografts 28 1994–2001 108 38 (range, 19–66) 95% at 5 yr
95% at 10 yr
99% freedom from reoperation at 10 yr
AR , Aortic regurgitation; AV, atrioventricular; AVR, aortic valve replacement; MVR, mitral valve replacement.

Fig. 26.5, Freedom From Structural Valve Deterioration (SVD).

Stentless bioprostheses

The rigid sewing ring and stent-based construction of certain bioprostheses allow easier implantation and maintenance of the three-dimensional relationships of the leaflets. However, these features also contribute to impaired hemodynamic performance and accelerated SVD. Stentless porcine valves (see Fig. 26.1 E) were developed in part to address these issues. Their use has been restricted to the aortic position. Implantation is technically more challenging, whether they are deployed in a subcoronary position or as part of a mini-root, and they are therefore preferred by only a minority of surgeons.

Early postoperative mean gradients can be less than 15 mmHg (with further improvement in valve performance over time due to aortic root remodeling), leading to lower peak exercise transvalvular gradients and more rapid reduction in LV mass. David et al. reported a rate of freedom from SVD with the stentless Toronto SPV (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN) at 12 years of 69% ± 4%, 52% ± 8% for patients younger than 65 years, and 85% ± 4% for patients 65 years of age and older. The researchers limited the use of this stentless valve to older patients with small aortic annuli. They also emphasized the marked mortality hazard associated with reoperation for valve failure within 1 year of implantation. Sutureless bioprosthetic valves have been developed to decrease the complexity and duration of implantation of bioprosthetic valves (see Fig. 26.1 G).

Homografts

Aortic valve homografts are harvested from human cadavers within 24 hours of death and are treated with antibiotics and cryopreserved at −196°C. They have become most commonly implanted in the form of a total root replacement with reimplantation of the coronary arteries. Homograft valves appear to be resistant to infection and are preferred by many surgeons for management of aortic valve and root endocarditis in the active phase. Neither immune suppression nor routine anticoagulation is required.

Despite earlier expectations, long-term durability beyond 10 years is not superior to that for current-generation pericardial valves, and reoperation may be technically more challenging due to excessive root and leaflet calcification. In an echocardiographic follow-up study of 570 patients with aortic valve homografts, 72% had signs of valve dysfunction at 6.8 ± 4.1 years after implantation, with moderate to severe aortic regurgitation in 15.4%, moderate aortic stenosis in 10%, and severe aortic stenosis in 2.5%. Rates of homograft reoperation at 15 years for SVD, which do not account for all cases of SVD, approximate 20% for patients 41 to 60 years of age and 16% for those older than 60 years at the time of implantation.

Autografts

In the Ross procedure, the patient’s own pulmonic valve or autograft is harvested as a small tissue block containing the pulmonic valve, annulus, and proximal pulmonary artery; it is inserted in the aortic position, usually as a complete root replacement with reimplantation of the coronary arteries. The pulmonic valve and right ventricular outflow tract are then replaced with an aortic or a pulmonic homograft. The procedure therefore requires two separate valve operations, a longer time on cardiopulmonary bypass, and a steep learning curve. With appropriate selection of young patients by expert surgeons at experienced centers of excellence, operative mortality rates are less than 1%, and 20-year survival rates are as high as 95% and similar to those of the general population. Advantages of the autograft include its ability to increase in size during childhood growth, excellent hemodynamic performance characteristics, lack of thrombogenicity, and resistance to infection.

The hemodynamic performance characteristics of the pulmonary autograft are similar to those of a normal, native aortic valve. Early homograft stenosis occurs in 10% to 20% of patients and is caused by extrinsic compression from inflammation and adventitial fibrosis. , The procedure is usually reserved for children and young adults but should be avoided in patients with dilated aortic roots given the unacceptably high incidence of accelerated degeneration, pulmonary autograft dilatation, and significant regurgitation. Significant degrees of aortic regurgitation and the deposition of calcium are additional markers for suboptimal outcomes. In propensity-matched analyses, survival and functional outcomes with the Ross procedure have equaled or exceeded those observed with mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacement in selected young patients.

Transcatheter bioprostheses

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a valuable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis across the spectrum of operative risk. The TAVR case volume in the United States surpassed SAVR case volume for treatment of isolated aortic stenosis in 2016, and the gap has continued to widen. Two main types of transcatheter aortic valves are used: balloon-expandable valves and self-expanding valves (see Fig. 12.1 in Chapter 12 ).

The Edwards Sapien XT and Sapien 3 balloon-expandable valves (Edwards Lifesciences) consist of a three-leaflet pericardial bovine valve mounted in a cobalt-chromium frame. These valves are available in 20-, 23-, 26-, and 29-mm sizes. The most common access routes for TAVR are the transfemoral, transapical, and transaortic routes. Approximately 80% to 90% of TAVR procedures are performed using the transfemoral approach. As catheter sheath sizes decrease (i.e., 14 or 16 Fr for most valves), access is anticipated to shift even more toward the transfemoral approach. The transfemoral approach is associated with lower mortality rates and more rapid recovery compared with alternative access approaches.

The CoreValve Evolut R and Evolut Pro self-expanding valves (Medtronic, Inc.) consist of three leaflets of porcine pericardium seated relatively higher in a nitinol frame to provide true supra-annular positioning of valve leaflets. The valves are available in 23-, 26-, 29-, and 31-mm sizes. The CoreValve Evolut R and Evolut Pro are most frequently implanted using the transfemoral approach.

For a given aortic annulus size, transcatheter valves have larger EOAs and lower transvalvular gradients compared with surgical bioprosthetic valves. Rates of SVD have not been higher with TAVR valves than with SAVR valves. , Compared with SAVR, transcatheter valve implantation results in higher rates of PVL and heart block necessitating permanent pacemaker insertion. The risks of PVL and heart block have decreased over time with improved case selection and device performance. Moderate to severe PVL is associated with a 2.0- to 2.5-fold increase in mortality rates. Some studies suggest that even mild pulmonary valve regurgitation may have a deleterious impact on outcomes in vulnerable patient subsets (e.g., patients with severe LV concentric hypertrophy and severe diastolic dysfunction without preexisting AR).

Current-generation balloon-expandable valves (Sapien 3) are designed with a skirt at the inflow aspect of the valve stent to reduce the incidence of PVL. Self-expanding valves have slightly larger EOAs and lower gradients but somewhat higher rates of PVL than balloon-expandable valves. , Self-expanding valves are also associated with a higher incidence of postprocedural PPM. , Placement of a TAVR valve inside a failed surgically implanted bioprosthesis (valve-in-valve procedure) is approved for patients who are considered to be at high risk for reoperation.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here