EARLY OUTCOMES OF SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR AORTIC VALVE DISEASE AT MILITARY HOSPITAL 103
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives:To evaluate the early results of surgical treatment for aortic valve disease with mechanical valve replacement. Methods:A retrospective, descriptive case series study was conducted on 36 patients with aortic valve disease who underwent mechanical valve replacement at Military Hospital 103 from September 2019 to December 2024. Results:36 patients had an average age of 56.1 ± 10.2 years, ranging from 23 - 72; males accounted for 75%. Preoperative heart failure was presented in 58.3% of NYHA II and 41.7% of NYHA III. 11.1% of patients had aortic valve stenosis; 58.3% had aortic valve regurgitation; 30.6% had combined aortic stenosis and regurgitation. The aortic cross-clamp time and the cardiopulmonary bypass time were 158.1 ± 60.3 and 201.5 ± 77.3 minutes, respectively. 21 and 23 were the most commonly used valve sizes, accounting for 30.6% and 47.2%, respectively. Postoperatively, no death and third-degree atrioventricular block were noted; 1 case required intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation due to low cardiac output syndrome, 1 case required reoperation due to bleeding, and 1 case had wound infection. Conclusion:Mechanical aortic valve replacement represents a safe and effective method for the management of aortic valve disease, and a low rate of complications for patients with aortic valve disease.
Keywords
Aortic valve, Heart valve disease, Mechanical prosthetic valve
Article Details
References
(ESC) and the European Association for CardioThoracic Surgery (EACTS). European Heart Journal. 2021; 43(7):561-632. DOI: 10.1093/ eurheartj/ ehab395.
2. Ngô Phi Long, Nguyễn Trường Giang, Dương Đức Hùng. Đánh giá kết quả sớm phẫu thuật thay van hai lá và van động mạch chủ bằng van nhân tạo cơ học On-X tại Bệnh viện Bạch Mai. Tạp chí Y Dược Lâm sàng 108. 2022; 17(5):117-121.
3. Saito S, Tsukui H, Iwasa S, et al. Bileaflet mechanical valve replacement: An assessment of outcomes with 30 years of follow-up. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016; 23(4):599-607. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivw196. Epub 2016 Jun 23.
4. Emery RW, Krogh CC, Arom KV, et al. The St. Jude Medical cardiac valve prosthesis: A 25-year experience with single valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 79(3):776-782; discussion 782-783.
5. Huckaby LV, Sultan I, Gleason TG, et al. Outcomes of tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients 50 to 70 years of age. J Card Surg. 2020; 35(10):2589-2597. DOI: 10.1111/jocs.14844. Epub 2020 Jul 11.
6. Toyoda N, Itagaki S, Tannous H, et al. Bioprosthetic versus mechanical valve replacement for infective endocarditis: Focus on recurrence rates. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 106(1):99-106. DOI: 10.1016/ j.athoracsur.2017.12.046. Epub 2018 Feb 13.
7. Anantha-Narayanan M, Reddy YNV, Sundaram V, et al. Endocarditis risk with bioprosthetic and mechanical valves: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2020; 106(18):1413-1419. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316718. Epub 2020 May 29.
8. Di Eusanio M, Fortuna D, De Palma R, et al. Aortic valve replacement: Results and predictors of mortality from a contemporary series of 2256 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Apr; 141(4):940-947.
9. Çelik M, Durko AP, Bekkers JA, et al. Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement over three decades. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022; 164(6):1742-1751.e8.