Durability after aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow versus the Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis: a single-centre experience in 2393 patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study compares the durability and risk of reoperation in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either a Mitroflow or a Carpentier-Edwards (CE) pericardial bioprosthesis. Since AVR with bioprosthetic valves has increased progressively in recent years as compared to mechanical valves, especially in patients aged 60-70 years, there has been renewed interest in the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses. METHODS: We compared 440 AVR with Mitroflow valves with 1953 AVR with CE pericardial valves implanted from 1999 to 2014 with regard to reoperation, reoperation for structural valve deterioration (SVD) and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Ten-year freedom from explant of any cause was higher for CE Perimount (98 ± 0.7%) than for Mitroflow (95 ± 1.4%, P < 0.01). Reasons for explant for CE Perimount were SVD (n = 2), endocarditis (n = 8) and paraprosthetic leak (n = 10). The reasons for explant for Mitroflow were SVD (n = 11), endocarditis (n = 3) SVD and pericarditis (n = 1) and paraprosthetic leak (n = 2). Ten-year freedom from explant due to SVD was higher for CE Perimount (100%) than for Mitroflow (96%) (P < 0.01). In small aortic annuli (bioprosthesis size 19-21 mm), freedom from SVD at 10 years for CE Perimount and Mitroflow was 100 versus 96%, respectively. By multivariate analysis, it was found that bioprosthesis size was not a risk factor for SVD. The choice of valve type could not be demonstrated to influence long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: The Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis provides less than optimal mid- and long-term durability compared with the CE Perimount pericardial valve, especially for small aortic diameter implants (19 and 21 mm). This study hereby confirms the existence of a real risk of valvular deterioration of the Mitroflow valve that might compromise the prognosis of the patients.

Congestive heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function after acute myocardial infarction: clinical and prognostic implications.

AIMS: To characterise the prevalence, in-hospital complications, management, and long-term outcome of patients with congestive heart failure but preserved left ventricular systolic function after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: 3166 consecutive patients screened for entry in the Bucindolol Evaluation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial with definite acute myocardial infarction and echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular systolic function were included between 1998 and 1999 in this prospective observational study. Main outcome measures were occurrences of in-hospital complications and all cause mortality. RESULTS: Congestive heart failure was seen during hospitalisation in 1464 patients (46%), 717 patients had preserved left ventricular systolic function (wall motion index > or =1.3 corresponding to ejection fraction > or =0.40), and 732 patients had systolic dysfunction (wall motion index <1.3). One year mortality in patients with no heart failure, heart failure with preserved systolic function, and heart failure with systolic dysfunction were 6, 22 and 35%, P<0.0001. Unadjusted risk of death from all causes associated with heart failure and preserved systolic function was 3.3 (95% CI 2.8-4.0), and after adjustment for baseline characteristics and left ventricular systolic function in multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis the risk was 2.1 (95% CI 1.7-2.6), P<0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Congestive heart failure is frequently present in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function, and is associated with increased risk of in-hospital complications and death following acute myocardial infarction.