Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with xenogenic pericardial stentless prosthesis BioLAB KB/A
https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-3966
Abstract
Aim. To evaluate long-term results of using xenogenic pericardial stentless prosthesis BioLAB KB/A.
Material and methods. From 2007 to 2014, 57 xenogenic pericardial stentless prostheses BioLAB KB/A were implanted. The mean age of operated patients was 70±4 (49-80 years of age); 6 patients were younger than 65 years old. The mean follow-up period was 8 years (4-11 years). The mean age of patients at the time of examination was 79 (70-89) years.
Results. Five- and ten-year survival rates were 73,82±7,99% and 51,01±11,23%, respectively. Four patients underwent long-term reoperation due to bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Freedom from reoperation associated with infective endocarditis after a year was 95,1±2,4%, three years — 92,65±4,1%, five years — 89,1±5,2%, and seven years — 89,1±5,2%. Freedom from prosthetic valve dysfunction due to structural degeneration was 9,58±1,83 years.
Conclusion. We consider it possible to use the xenogenic pericardial stentless prostheses BioLAB KB/A for aortic valve replacement in elderly patients, especially with a narrow aortic root. However, using a technically more complex technique for a larger geometric opening is not justified. Significant regurgitation at 7 years after surgery requires considering reoperation, but already in older patients and with a number of comorbidities.
About the Authors
S. I. Babenko
Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
R. M. Muratov
Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
N. N. Soboleva
Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
D. A. Titov
Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
N. P. Bakuleva
Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
M. I. Fedoseikina
Bakulev National Medical Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
References
1. Bakhtiary F, Schiemann M, Dzemali O, et al. Stentless bioprostheses improve postoperative coronary flow more than stented prostheses after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131(4):883-8. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.10.055.
2. Ennker J, Albert A, Ennker IC. Stentless aortic valves. Current aspects. HSR Proceedings in Intensive Care & Cardiovascular Anesthesia. 2012;4(2):77-82.
3. Babenko SI, Muratov RM, Chabaidze TA, et al. Results of correction of aortic valve defects using small-diameter “BioLAB” xenopericardial prosthesis in old patients. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2020;22(1):79-85. (In Russ.) doi:10.15825/1995-1191-2020-1-79-85.
4. Bockeria LA, Muratov RM, Babenko SI, et al. A new xenopericardial stentless bioprosthesis “BioLAB” in the surgery of aortic valve. Grudnaya i serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya. 2015;57(1):25-31. (In Russ.)
5. Barrat-Boyes G. Homograft aortic valve replacement in aortic incompetence and stenosis. Thorax. 1964;19(2):131-50. doi:10.1136/thx.19.2.131.
6. Ross DN. Aortic valve replacement. Lancet. 1966;2(7461):461-3. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(66)92769-3.
7. Minami K, Boethig D, Mirow N, et al. Mitroflow pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: an analysis of long-term outcome and prognostic factors. J Heart Valve Dis. 2000;9(1):112-22.
8. Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M, et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: Durability results up to 21 years. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2008;136(3):688-96. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.05.022.
9. Garrta-Bengochea J, Sierra J, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, et al. Left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with the new Mitroflow 12A pericardial bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15(3):446-51;discussion 451-2.
10. Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, et al. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(5):1262-3. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.052.
11. Schneider AW, Hazekamp MG, Versteegh MIM, et al. Reinterventions after freestyle stentless aortic valve replacement: an assessment of procedural risks. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56(6):1117-1123. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezz222.
12. Grubitzsch H, Zobel S, Christ T, et al. Redo procedures for degenerated stentless aortic xenografts and the role of valve-in-valve transcatheter techniques. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;51(4):653-659. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezw397.
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Babenko S.I., Muratov R.M., Soboleva N.N., Titov D.A., Bakuleva N.P., Fedoseikina M.I. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with xenogenic pericardial stentless prosthesis BioLAB KB/A. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(12):3966. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2020-3966
Views:
630
Email this article 