Special Report: 26-Year Durability of a Bioprosthesis Implanted in a 21-Year-Old Patient

Abstract

The choice of prosthetic heart valve type is largely dependent upon patient's age at implantation and on what, in his eyes, seems more pertinent: avoidance of complications associated with anticoagulation of mechanical valves or structural valve deterioration of bioprosthetic valves. Long lasting and new promising concepts such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation are promoting the use of bioprosthesis even in younger patients. However, it is up to the individual patient to decide.

Keywords

aortic valve - heart valve replacement - transapical - transcatheter aortic valve implantation

• References

• 1 Banbury MK, Cosgrove III DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RW, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 72 (3) 753-757
• 2 Davierwala PM, Borger MA, David TE, Rao V, Maganti M, Yau TM. Reoperation is not an independent predictor of mortality during aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131 (2) 329-335
• 3 Lund O, Nielsen SL, Arildsen H, Ilkjaer LB, Pilegaard HK. Standard aortic St. Jude valve at 18 years: performance profile and determinants of outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 69 (5) 1459-1465
• 4 Prasongsukarn K, Jamieson WR, Lichtenstein SV. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses in age group 61-70 years. J Heart Valve Dis 2005; 14 (4) 501-508 , 510–511, discussion 509
• 5 Santini F, Casali G, Viscardi F , et al. The CarboMedics prosthetic heart valve: experience with 1,084 implants. J Heart Valve Dis 2002; 11 (1) 121-126 , discussion 27
• 6 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 (4) 1152-1158
• 7 Birkmeyer NJ, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN, Grunkemeier GL, Marrin CA, O'Connor GT. Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70 (6) 1946-1952
• 8 Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults: an update. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55 (22) 2413-2426
• 9 van Geldorp MW, Eric Jamieson WR, Kappetein AP , et al. Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (4) 881-886 , e1–e5
• 10 Sievers HH, Stierle U, Charitos EI , et al. Fourteen years' experience with 501 subcoronary Ross procedures: surgical details and results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 140 (4) 816-822 , e1–e5
• 11 Charitos EI, Stierle U, Hanke T, Schmidtke C, Sievers HH, Richardt D. Long-term results of 203 young and middle-aged patients with more than 10 years of follow-up after the original subcoronary Ross operation. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93 (2) 495-502
• 12 Smedira NG, Blackstone EH, Roselli EE, Laffey CC, Cosgrove DM. Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in nonelderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131 (3) 558-564 , e4
• 13 Klieverik LM, Takkenberg JJ, Bekkers JA, Roos-Hesselink JW, Witsenburg M, Bogers AJ. The Ross operation: a Trojan horse?. Eur Heart J 2007; 28 (16) 1993-2000