Clinical Analysis of Repeated Heart Valve Replacement

Kim, Hyuck; Chung, Won Sang; Nam, Seung Hyuk; Kang, Jeong Ho; Kim, Young Hak; Lee, Chul Burm; Chon, Soon Ho; Shinn, Sung Ho

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are two choices for heart valve replacement-the use of a tissue valve and the use of a mechanical valve. Using a tissue valve, additional surgery will be problematic due to valve degeneration. If the risk of additional surgery could be reduced, the tissue valve could be more widely used. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors and mortality of patients undergoing repeated heart valve replacement and primary replacement. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We analyzed 25 consecutive patients who underwent repeated heart valve replacement and 158 patients who underwent primary heart valve replacement among 239 patients that underwent heart vale replacement in our hospital from January 1995 to December 2004. RESULT: There were no differences in age, sex, and preoperative ejection fraction between the repeated valve replacement group of patients and the primary valve replacement group of patients. In the repeated valve replacement group, the previously used artificial valves were 3 mechanical valves and 23 tissue valves. One of these cases had simultaneous replacement of the tricuspid and aortic valve with tissue valves. The mean duration after a previous operation was 92 months for the use of a mechanical valve and 160 months for the use of a tissue valve. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross clamp time were 152 minutes and 108 minutes, respectively, for the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 130 minutes and 89 minutes, respectively, for the primary valve replacement group of patients. These results were statistically significant. The use of an intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) was required for 2 cases (8%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 6 cases (3.8%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. An operative death occurred in one case (4%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and occurred in nine cases (5.1%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. Among postoperative complications, the need for mechanical ventilation over 48 hours was different between the two groups. The mean follow up period after surgery was 6.5+/-3.2 years. The 5-year survival of patients in the repeated valve replacement group was 74% and the 5-year survival of patients in the primary valve replacement group was 95%.
CONCLUSION
The risk was slightly increased, but there was little difference in mortality between the repeated and primary heart valve replacement group of patients. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the issue of avoiding the use of a tissue valve due to the risk of additional surgery, and it is encouraged to use the tissue valve selectively, which has several advantages over the use of a mechanical valve. In the case of a repeated replacement, however, the mortality rate was high for a patient whose preoperative status was not poor. A proper as sessment of cardiac function and patient status is required after the primary valve replacement. Subsequently, a secondary replacement could then be considered.