Outcome after Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparison of Homografts with Mechanical Prostheses Eckehard Kilian, Martin Oberhoffer, Ingo Kaczmarek, Daniel Bauerfeind,
Eckart Kreuzer, Bruno Reichart |
|||||||
Background and aim of the study: Aortic valve replacement
(AVR) in younger patients is conventionally performed using a mechanical
prosthesis (MP), although homograft (HG) implantation is an accepted
alternative. This study compares, retrospectively, the follow up of these
two dissimilar prostheses. |
multivariate analysis. Freedom from reoperation was superior
after MP implantation (log rank, p = 0.007); in six MP patients the indications
for redo surgery were prosthesis infection (n = 2) and paravalvular leak
(n = 4). In 20 HG patients, redo surgery was required due to prosthesis
infection (n = 12), stenotic degeneration (n = 2), regurgitation > grade
II (n = 4), or paravalvular leak (n = 2). Age at the time of implantation
and valve type were independent risk factors. Thromboembolic complications
were mainly seen in MP patients (log rank, p <0.001): there were five
ischemic infarctions and 11 transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) compared
to three TIAs among HG patients. Cerebral bleeding was found in only
18 cases after MP implantation, and in no cases after HG implantation.
In the multivariate analysis, the type of prosthesis was an independent
risk factor. |
||||||
|
|||||||