4.6 Article

Long-term outcome of cryopreserved allograft for aortic valve replacement

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.04.040

关键词

cryopreserved aortic allograft; aortic valve replacement; endocarditis; long-term; allograft; structural valve degeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The most efficient surgical approach to severe aortic valve disease in the young adult is still debated: cryopreserved aortic allograft offers excellent hemodynamic and avoid anticoagulation, but long-term durability is influenced by structural valve deterioration (SVD). This study aimed to describe long-term results of aortic allografts and to identify factors influencing long-term durability. Methods: From January 1993 to August 2010, 210 patients underwent aortic allograft replacement via the free-hand subcoronary implantation technique (N = 55) or root replacement with coronary reimplantation (N = 155). Clinic and echocardiographic follow-up was updated to April 2016. Results: Overall mortality and cardiac mortality occurred in 80 (38.1%) and 64 (30.5%) patients, respectively. Reoperation was required in 69 cases (32.8%), whereas SVD required reoperation in 57 cases (27.1%). No early endocarditis occurred, whereas late endocarditis occurred in 4 patients. The free-hand technique seems to be associated with improved left ventricular remodeling compared with the root-replacement technique, and smaller allograft size represents a predictor of reoperation independently on the surgical technique used. In the overall population, there were 44 women of childbearing age, and 37 patients remained pregnant during the follow-up of the study. No differences were found in the clinical outcomes among women who had children and who did not. Conclusions: Cryopreserved allograft is a valid option, especially in complex infective endocarditis and in women of childbearing age. A careful choice of allograft size and implantation technique can reduce the risk of SVD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据