• Jose Rubio Alvarez, Juan Sierra, Marino Vega, Belen Adrio, Jose Martinez-Comendador, Francisco Gude, Jose Martinez-Cereijo, and Javier Garcia.
• Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. framan1@hotmail.com
• Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009 Nov 1;9(5):842-6.

BackgroundWe report our experience in the elderly with aortic valve replacement using the Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis.MethodsFrom January 1993 to January 2006, 491 patients over the age of 70 years received an aortic Mitroflow A12 bioprosthesis implantation. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 20% of patients. All patients had routine postoperative Echo-Doppler studies at discharge, one month and a mean of 11.1 months after surgery and annually thereafter.ResultsTwenty (4%) patients underwent a second aortic valve replacement due to bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (Group 2). Calcified stenosis was the most common finding at reoperation (98%). Median time to valve reoperation was 76 months. Of patients requiring reoperation, median age at first and second implantation was 73 (70-78) and 79 (76-83) years, respectively. For all patients, freedom from structural valve dysfunction (SVD) was 95+/-3% at 5 years and 55.8+/-2% at 10 years. Bioprosthetic valve deterioration was identified in 27 patients (Group 1). Median age of these patients at first operation and at diagnosis of deterioration by echo was 75 (70-84) and 77 (70-82) years, respectively. The median interval between operation and detection of bioprosthesis valve deterioration was 46 months. Among the total patient population, freedom from bioprosthetic deterioration was 85.7+/-2% at 5 years and 33.5+/-4% at 10 years.ConclusionThe Mitroflow A12 pericardial bioprosthesis provides less than optimal performance in elderly patients.

36 keywords...

hide…