2015


To access this material please log in or register

Register Authorize
2015/№5

Evaluation of clinico-anamnestic and social status in recipients with dysfunction of xenoaortic bioprosthetic heart valve in mitral position

Rutkovskaya N. V., Kondyukova N. V., Kuzmina O. K., Levadin Yu. V., Avramenko O. E., Barbarash L. S.
Federal State Budgetary Institution, “Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” at the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Sosnovy Bulvar 6, Kemerovo 650002

Keywords: xenoaortic bioprostheses, heart valve prosthetic replacement

DOI: 10.18087/rhj.2015.5.2087

Background. The use of bioprostheses for correction of heart valve disease provides better quality of life but dictates a requirement for reoperations. Major causes for bioprosthesis dysfunction are primary tissue failure (PTF) with or without calcification and prosthetic endocarditis (PE). Aim. Comparative evaluation of clinico-anamnestic and social status in recipients of biological prostheses. Materials and methods. Patients with bioprosthesis dysfunction confirmed by ultrastructure studies, including PTF with calcification (n=63), PTF without calcinosis (n=19), PE (n=34), and recipients with preserved function of bioprostheses (n=108). Results. The compared groups significantly differed in gender, region of residence, working ability, age, compliance with drug therapy, and clinical status both at the time of primary implantation and during the development of bioprosthesis dysfunction. Conclusion. Features of clinico-anamnestic and social status of recipients can be considered factors influencing the duration of bioprosthesis functioning.
  1. Schoen FJ, Levy RJ. Calcification of tissue heart valve substitutes: progress toward understanding and prevention. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 Mar;79 (3):1072–80.
  2. Tillquist MN, Maddox TM. Cardiac crossroads: deciding between mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valve replacement. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011 Feb 17;5:91–9.
  3. Бокерия Л. А., Гудкова Р. Г. Сердечно-сосудистая хирургия 2013. Болезни и врожденные аномалии системы кровообращения. – М.: НЦССХ им. Бакулева, 2014. – 220 с.
  4. Oakley R, Kleine P, Bach DS. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in today’s practice. Circulation. 2008 Jan 15;117 (2):253–6.
  5. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K et al. ACC / AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Aug 1;48 (3):e1–148.
  6. Pibarot P, Dumesnil J. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation. 2009 Feb 24;119 (7):1034–48.
  7. Рутковская Н. В., Стасев А. Н., Одаренко Ю. Н. Биопротезирование клапанов сердца: реалии, проблемы, пути решения. Кардиология и сердечно-сосудистая хирургия. 2013;6:70–7.
  8. Барбараш Л. С., Журавлева И. Ю. Эволюция биопротезов клапанов сердца: достижения и проблемы двух десятилетий. Комплексные проблемы сердечно-сосудистых заболеваний. 2012;1:4–11.
  9. Барбараш Л. С., Одаренко Ю. Н., Кокорин С. Г. и др. Отдаленные результаты применения обработанных эпоксисоединением ксенобиопротезов в хирургии атриовентрикулярных пороков у лиц молодого возраста. Кардиология и сердечно-сосудистая хирургия. 2012;2:77–81.
  10. Барбараш Л. С., Караськов А. М., Семенов И. И. и др. Инфекционный эндокардит в структуре дисфункций биопротезов «Кемкор» и «Перикор». Патология кровообращения и кардиохирургия. 2010;1:26–30.
  11. Барбараш Л. С., Рогулина Н. В., Одаренко Ю. Н., Журавлева И. Ю. К вопросу о тактике выбора протеза для митральной позиции: сравнительная оценка 16‑летних результатов применения механического протеза «МИКС» и биологического протеза «КемКор». Грудная и сердечно-сосудистая хирургия. 2012;2:12–9.
  12. Рутковская Н. В., Савостьянова Ю. Ю., Барбараш О. Л. Факторы риска атеросклероза в формировании дисфункций биопротезов клапанов сердца. Кардиология. 2014;54 (6):76–80.
  13. Jamieson WR, Cartier PC, Allard M et al. Surgical management of valvular heart disease 2004. Can J Cardiol. 2004 Oct;20 (Suppl E): 7E-120E.
  14. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Mar 19;41 (6):893–904.
  15. Flameng W, Herregods MC, Vercalsteren M et al. Bioprosthetic-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2010 May 18;121 (19):2123–9.
  16. Shetty R, Pibarot P, Auget A et al. Lipid-mediated inflammation and degeneration of bioprosthetic heart valves. Eur J Clin Invest. 2009 Jun;39 (6):471–80.
Rutkovskaya N. V., Kondyukova N. V., Kuzmina O. K., Levadin Yu. V., Avramenko O. E., Barbarash L. S. Evaluation of clinico-anamnestic and social status in recipients with dysfunction of xenoaortic bioprosthetic heart valve in mitral position. Russian Heart Journal. 2015;14 (5):331–340

To access this material please log in or register

Register Authorize
Ru En