• Thorac Cardiovasc Surg · Aug 2016

    Comparative Study

    Long-Term Recovery of Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction after Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease.

    • Kushtrim Disha, Andres Espinoza, Mina Rouman, Maria-Anna Secknus, Thomas Kuntze, and Evaldas Girdauskas.
    • Department of Cardiac Surgery, Central Hospital Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany.
    • Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Aug 1; 64 (5): 418-26.

    AbstractBackground Long-term prognosis of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease and poor left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) is unknown. We aimed to analyze the recovery of LVEF and incidence of adverse events after AVR in patients with BAV and poor LVEF. Materials and Methods A total of 90 consecutive BAV patients (mean age 57 ± 10 years, 89% male) with baseline LVEF ≤40% underwent an isolated AVR between January 1, 1995, and June 30, 2008, and served as our study population. Follow-up data (800 patient-years) were obtained for all 90 hospital survivors. A subgroup of patients who underwent AVR for BAV stenosis (Group aortic stenosis [AS], n = 70) was compared with those who underwent AVR for BAV regurgitation (Group aortic regurgitation [AR], n = 20). Primary end point was the recovery of LVEF in AS Group versus AR Group. Secondary end points were survival and freedom from adverse cardiac events (i.e., cardiac-related death and need for reinterventions due to persisting heart failure). Results There was a significant increase in LVEF (mean follow-up 9.0 ± 5 years) in AS versus AR Group (i.e., 32 ± 7% [baseline] and 53 ± 9% [follow-up], p < 0.001 in AS Group vs. 33 ± 7% [baseline] and 38 ± 13% [follow-up], p = 0.07 in AR Group). Recovery rate of LVEF was significantly higher in AS Group versus AR Group (i.e., 2.8 percentage points (pp)/year vs. 0.7 pp/year, respectively). In Group AS, 86% of patients were responders, whereas in Group AR, only 30% (p < 0.001). The subjects in Group AR did not show a difference between baseline and follow-up left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (baseline 61 ± 12 vs. follow-up 58 ± 8, p = 0.813), whereas in Group AS, there was a significant difference of LVEDD (baseline 56 ± 7 vs. follow-up 54 ± 6 mm, p = 0.019). Ten-year survival was 76 ± 6.5% in AS Group versus 78 ± 11% in AR Group (p = 0.3). Prevalence of late adverse cardiac events was 7% in AS Group versus 40% in AR Group (p = 0.03). Conclusion The recovery of reduced LVEF after AVR surgery is significantly impaired in patients with BAV regurgitation as compared with BAV stenosis. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…