Comparison of allografts and prosthetic valves when used for emergency aortic valve replacement for active infective endocarditis

Abstract

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) using allografts is an established method of treating aortic valve disease. It is uncertain, however, whether the increased technical demands of allograft AVR can be justified in emergency operations. This study reports 15 patients treated between 1987 and 1990 for acute bacterial or fungal endocarditis involving the aortic valve. Patients underwent emergency AVR because of severe congestive failure, overwhelming sepsis or cerebral emboli. Eight patients received prosthetic valves (group I: 4 mechanical, 4 porcine) and 7 received human allografts (group II: 5 aortic and 2 pulmonary). The groups were comparable in age (group I, 55 years; group II, 51 years), intravenous drug abuse (group I, 1; group II, 3), and previous AVR (group I, 3; group II, 2). One group I and 4 group II patients had septal abscesses. Additional procedures in group I included mitral valve replacement (2), tricuspid valve replacement (1) and aortic root replacement (1). Additional procedures in group II were mitral valve repair (1), root replacement (1), atrial septal defect closure (1) and aortocoronary bypass (1). Mean bypass times (group I, 189 minutes; group II, 204 minutes) and cross-clamp times (group I; 108 minutes; group II, 121 minutes) were similar. Operative deaths occurred in 4 of 8 group I and 1 of 7 group II patients. All surviving patients have been successfully followed (group I, 28 months; group II, 18 months). No group I patient has required reoperation. One group II patients required reoperation for recurrent infection affecting the allograft, and another group II patient died 10 months postoperatively from noncardiac causes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)