110 research outputs found

    Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update

    Get PDF
    Although porcine aortic valves or pericardial tissue mounted on a stent have made implantation techniques easier, these valves sacrifice orifice area and increase stress at the attachment of the stent, which causes primary tissue failure. Optimizing hemodynamics to prevent patient–prosthetic mismatch and improve durability, stentless bioprostheses use was revived in the early 1990s. The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview of stentless valves in the aortic position. Retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies showed similar operative mortality and morbidity in stented and stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR), though stentless AVR required longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Several cohort studies showed improved survival after stentless AVR, probably due to better hemodynamic performance and earlier left ventricular (LV) mass regression compared with stented AVR. However, there was a bias of operation age and nonrandomization. A randomized trial supported an improved 8-year survival of patients with the Freestyle or Toronto valves compared with Carpentier–Edwards porcine valves. On the contrary, another randomized study did not show improved clinical outcomes up to 12 years. Freedom from reoperation at 12 years in Toronto stentless porcine valves ranged from 69% to 75%, which is much lower than for Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valves. Cusp tear with consequent aortic regurgitation was the most common cause of structural valve deterioration. Cryolife O’Brien valves also have shorter durability compared with stent valves. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 44% at 10 years. Early prosthetic valve failure was also reported in patients who underwent root replacement with Shelhigh stentless composite grafts. There was no level I or IIa evidence of more effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, LV mass regression, surgical risk, durability, and late outcomes in stentless bioprostheses. There is no general recommendation to prefer stentless bioprostheses in all patients. For new-generation pericardial stentless valves, follow-up over 15 years is necessary to compare the excellent results of stented valves such as the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount and Hancock II valves

    Pathological Investigation of Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis, Compared with Atherosclerotic Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis and Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve Regurgitation

    Get PDF
    Congenital bicuspid aortic valve (CBAV) is the main cause of aortic stenosis (AS) in young adults. However, the histopathological features of AS in patients with CBAV have not been fully investigated.We examined specimens of aortic valve leaflets obtained from patients who had undergone aortic valve re/placement at our institution for severe AS with CBAV (n = 24, CBAV-AS group), severe AS with tricuspid aortic valve (n = 24, TAV-AS group), and severe aortic regurgitation (AR) with CBAV (n = 24, CBAV-AR group). We compared the histopathological features among the three groups. Pathological features were classified using semi-quantitative methods (graded on a scale 0 to 3) by experienced pathologists without knowledge of the patients' backgrounds. The severity of inflammation, neovascularization, and calcium and cholesterol deposition did not differ between the CBAV-AS and TAV-AS groups, and these four parameters were less marked in the CBAV-AR group than in the CBAV-AS (all p<0.01). Meanwhile, the grade of valvular fibrosis was greater in the CBAV-AS group, compared with the TAV-AS and CBAV-AR groups (both p<0.01). In AS patients, thickness of fibrotic lesions was greater on the aortic side than on the ventricular side (both p<0.01). Meanwhile, thickness of fibrotic lesions was comparable between the aortic and ventricular sides in CBAV-AR patients (p = 0.35).Valvular fibrosis, especially on the aortic side, was greater in patients with CBAV-AS than in those without, suggesting a difference in the pathogenesis of AS between CBAV and TAV

    Improved long-term performance of pulsatile extracorporeal left ventricular assist device

    Get PDF
    SummaryBackground and purposeThe majority of heart transplant (HTx) candidates require left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support for more than 2 years before transplantation in Japan. However, the only currently available device is the extracorporeal pulsatile LVAD. The long-term management of extracorporeal LVAD support has improved remarkably over the years. To determine which post-operative management factors are related to the long-term survival of patients on such LVAD, we retrospectively compared the incidence of complications and their management strategies between the initial and recent eras of LVAD use, classified by the year of LVAD surgery.MethodsSixty-nine consecutive patients supported by extracorporeal pulsatile LVAD as a bridge to HTx between 1994 and 2007 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were assigned according to the time of LVAD surgery to either group A (n=30; between 1994 and 2000) or group B (n=39; between 2001 and 2007).ResultsPatients in group B survived significantly longer on LVAD support than those in group A (674.6 vs. 369.3 days; p<0.001). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were significantly higher in group B than that in group A (82% vs. 48%, p<0.0001; 68% vs. 23%, p<0.0001, respectively). The proportion of deaths due to cerebrovascular accidents was lower (17% vs. 50%, p<0.001) in group B compared with group A. The incidences of systemic infection were similar in both groups, but the proportions of patients alive and achieving transplant surgery after systemic infection were higher in group B than those in group A (55% vs. 14%, p<0.01; 14% vs. 36%, p<0.05, respectively).ConclusionsThe long-term survival of patients even on “first-generation” extracorporeal LVAD has improved significantly in the recent era. Careful management of cerebrovascular accidents and systemic infection will play important roles in the long-term LVAD management

    Annual report by The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery

    Get PDF
    All data regarding cardiovascular surgery and thoracic surgery were obtained from NCD, whereas data regarding esophageal surgery were collected from survey questionnaire by The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery forms because NCD of esophageal surgery does not include non-surgical cases (i.e., patients with adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation alone). Based on the change in data aggregation, there are several differences between this 2015 annual report and previous annual reports: the number of institutions decreased in each category from 578 (2014) to 568 (2015) in cardiovascular, from 762 to 714 in general thoracic and from 626 to 571 in esophageal surgery. Because more than two departments in the same institute registered their data to NCD individually, we cannot calculate correct number of institutes in this survey. Then, the response rate is not indicated in the category of cardiovascular surgery (Table 1), and the number of institutions classified by the operation number is also not calculated in the category of cardiovascular surgery (Table 2)

    The Management of Carotid Artery Stenosis with Coronary Artery Disease

    No full text
    corecore