Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 May;14(5):575-9.
doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivs005. Epub 2012 Jan 31.

Outcome after redo-mitral valve replacement in adult patients: a 10-year single-centre experience

Hunaid A Vohra  1 , Robert N Whistance, Apostolos Roubelakis, Andrew Burton, Clifford W Barlow, Geoffrey M K Tsang, Steve A Livesey, Sunil K Ohri
Affiliations

Outcome after redo-mitral valve replacement in adult patients: a 10-year single-centre experience

Hunaid A Vohra et al. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012 May.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the overall outcome of adult patients undergoing redo-mitral valve replacement (redo-MVR) at our institution. Forty-nine patients (24 males) underwent redo-MVR with either bioprosthetic (n = 24) or mechanical valves (n = 25) between January 2000 and 2010. Median age of patients was 63 years (range 21-80 years), and the mean additive EuroSCORE was 12 ± 4. Median time to re-operation was 8.2 ± 6.6 years for first time redo-MVR and 6.4 ± 5.6 years for second-time redo-MVR. Indications included prosthetic endocarditis (n = 22), para-prosthetic leak (n = 12), structural valve degeneration (n = 8), prosthetic valve thrombosis (n = 6) and malignancy (n = 1). The mean follow-up was 47.5 ± 37.0 months (range 0.1-112.3 months). In-hospital mortality was 12% (n = 6). Mean hospital stay was 17 ± 11 days (range 8-50 days). Actuarial survival at 1 and 5 years was 81 ± 5% and 72 ± 6%, respectively. Three patients required re-intervention: two for prosthetic valve endocarditis and one for para-prosthetic leak. Multivariate analysis showed that overall survival was associated with the LVEF < 50% (P < 0.001), concomitant AVR (P < 0.001) and urgent surgery (P = 0.03).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Kaplan–Meier plot and survival table for all patients who underwent redo-mitral valve replacement. Cumulative survival is plotted on y-axis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Hufnagel CA, Harvey WP, Rabil PJ, McDermott TF. Surgical correction of aortic insufficiency. Surgery. 1954;35:673–83. - PubMed
    1. Shuhaiber J, Anderson R. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31:267–75. - PubMed
    1. Song JK, Kim MJ, Yun SC, Choo SJ, Song JM, Song H, et al. Long-term outcomes of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty versus open cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:103–10. - PubMed
    1. Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, Janusz MT, Fradet GJ, Lichtenstein SV, et al. Reoperation for bioprosthetic mitral structural failure: risk assessment. Circulation. 2003;108:98–102. - PubMed
    1. Akay TH, Gultekin B, Ozkan S, Aslim E, Uguz E, Sezgin A, et al. Mitral valve replacements in redo patients with previous mitral valve procedures: mid-term results and risk factors for survival. J Card Surg. 2008;23:415–21. - PubMed

MeSH terms