Patient Risk Factors for Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ochi, Ayame; Cheng, Kevin; Zhao, Bing; Hardikar, Ashutosh; Negishi, Kazuaki

doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2019.09.013

Cited by 32 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent meta-analysis found that younger age was a significant risk factor for aortic structural valve degeneration, besides body surface area, smoking and patient-prosthesis mismatch. 3 In the present study, 50% of the subgroup of patients under 30 years old was reoperated in 10 years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 56%

Prótese Mecânica X Prótese Biológica: Uma Decisão Individualizada e Compartilhada

Fernandes¹,

Sampaio²

2021

Arquivos Brasileiros De Cardiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 56%

Prótese Mecânica X Prótese Biológica: Uma Decisão Individualizada e Compartilhada

Fernandes¹,

Sampaio²

2021

Arquivos Brasileiros De Cardiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the same cohort, 2.2% of the patients with mechanical valves and 5.2% with biological valves had to undergo reoperation and nearly 10% of the patients receiving a mechanical valve suffered from a major bleeding event (35). Avoidance of oral anticoagulation is possible if AV-repair is performed or biological valves are used, but there is strong evidence that after biological valve replacement, younger patients' age is a risk factor for earlier structural valve deterioration, exposing patients to the risk of repeated reoperations (36). In conclusion, AV-repair is a safe and feasible option in patients with AR and can achieve similar results in patients with TAV and BAV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves

Prinzing¹,

Boehm²,

Erlebach³

et al. 2020

J Thorac Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Aortic valve repair (AV-repair) is an alternative treatment option for patients with aortic regurgitation (AR), but durability is still reason for concern, especially for bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We retrospectively evaluated mid-term results after AV-repair in patients with BAV or tricuspid aortic valves (TAV), including reoperation rates, recurrence of regurgitation, and survival. Methods: Patients undergoing AV-repair between November 2004 and March 2016 without procedures involving the aortic root were included. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and after the operation and at follow-up. Repair techniques were recorded and evaluated. Results: Of 150 patients, 89 (59.3%) had TAV and 61 (40.7%) BAV. AR ≥ moderate was found in 66 patients with TAV (74.2%) and 49 with BAV (80.3%). At discharge, 74 TAV-patients had ≤ mild AR (84.4%), 11 (12.4%) moderate. 57 patients (93.4%) with BAV had ≤ mild AR, 1 (1.6%) moderate and 2 (3.3%) severe.Mean follow-up was 4.4±2.7 years with ≤ mild AR in 56 TAV patients (73.7%) and moderate in 18 (20.2%).In patients with BAV, 43 (76.8%) had ≤ mild AR and 4 (6.6%) moderate. Survival in patients with TAV was significantly decreased compared to BAV (P=0.033), but reoperation-rates did not differ significantly (P=0.651).Conclusions: AV-repair is a safe and feasible option in patients with AR and can achieve similar results in patients with TAV and BAV. The complexity of the repair technique predicts repair failure.

show abstract

“…55 The stress caused by the flowing blood may lead to exposure or fracture of the fibers in the prostheses' tissues. 60 Prospective studies have been conducted to evaluate the benefits and risks of implanting bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients under 60 years old, including the long-term structural changes and hemodynamic performance. 58 The younger patients are found to be more susceptible to suffer structural valve degeneration (SVD) of bioprosthetic valves.…”

Section: Advantages and Shortcomings Of Existing Artificial Heart Valvementioning

confidence: 99%

Recent progress in biomaterials for heart valve replacement: Structure, function, and biomimetic design

Shao

Tao

et al. 2021

VIEW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heart diseases caused by structure and function degradation is troubling millions of people all over the world. With the extension of human lifespan, the demand for heart valve replacement is rapidly increasing. However, the currently used prostheses of heart valve in clinic such as mechanical and tissue valves all have serious limitations over long-term stability after implanting. Therefore, novel artificial heart valves with outstanding durability and low degradation risk are still in great demands, despite of numerous studies in the literature. The sophisticated, multiscale structure of native heart valve is believed to be the key to its mechanical and biological durability during long-term cyclic motion. In this review, we discussed the complex structure of the native heart valve as well as their contributions to the valve's cyclic work. In addition, representative and state of the art studies of biomimetic heart valves inspired by the natural valve are also introduced. Based on these, the structural and functional design of future novel biomimetic heart valves are proposed.

show abstract

Patient Risk Factors for Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cited by 32 publications

References 49 publications

Prótese Mecânica X Prótese Biológica: Uma Decisão Individualizada e Compartilhada

Prótese Mecânica X Prótese Biológica: Uma Decisão Individualizada e Compartilhada

Comparison of outcomes following isolated repair of tricuspid versus bicuspid aortic valves

Recent progress in biomaterials for heart valve replacement: Structure, function, and biomimetic design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About