COMPARISON ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES FOLLOWING THE IMPLANTITION OF XENOAORTIC AND XENOPERICARDIAL EPOXY-TREATED BIOPROTHESIS IN THE MITRAL POSITION
https://doi.org/10.17802/2306-1278-2013-4-12-16
Abstract
Рurpose. To perform a retrospective comparison analysis of clinical use of xenoaortic prosthesis «PeriCor» and xenopericardial prosthesis «UniLine» in the immediate postoperative period.
Materials and methods. The analysis of surgical treatment of 88 patients with mitral valve disease was conducted. Bioprostheses «PeriCor» was implanted in 48 patients (Group I) and «UniLine» in 40 patients (Group II). The average age in Group 1 was 58,6±6,65 years, whereas in Group 2 – 65,1±7,1 years. Patients in both groups were characterized by severe initial clinical condition. The follow-up period in Group 1 was 127,3 patient-years, in Group II – 101,2 patient-years.
Results. One patient died in the in-hospital period in Group 1. The in-hospital mortality was 12,5 % in Group 2. There were no prosthesis-related complications found in both groups. In a 4-year follow up period 5 reoperations were performed in Group 1 due to causes of prosthetic valve dysfunction. There were no reoperations in Group 2.
Conclusion. The implantation of xenoaortic and xenopericardial bioprostheses in the mitral position allows to manage adequately intracardiac hemodynamic disorders in patients with acquired heart disease. Bioprostheses «PeriCor» and «UniLine» have the same hemodynamic characteristics in the immediate postoperative period.
About the Authors
A. N. Stasev
Federal State Budgetary Institution Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases, under the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Kemerovo
Russian Federation
research associate of cardiovascular biological prosthetics laboratory, cardiovascular surgeon of cardiosurgical department of FSBI RI for CICVD,
SB RAMS, PhD6, Sosnoviy blvd., Kemerovo, 650002, Tel.: +7 (3842) 64-45-76
Russian Federation
research associate of cardiovascular biological prosthetics laboratory, cardiovascular surgeon of cardiosurgical department of FSBI RI for CICVD,
SB RAMS, PhD6, Sosnoviy blvd., Kemerovo, 650002, Tel.: +7 (3842) 64-45-76
Yu. N. Odarenko
Federal State Budgetary Institution Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases, under the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Kemerovo
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
N. V. Rutkovskaya
Federal State Budgetary Institution Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases, under the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Kemerovo
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. Yu. Zhuravleva
Federal State Budgetary Institution Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases, under the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Kemerovo
«NeoCor» Company, Kemerovo
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
L. S. Barbarash
Federal State Budgetary Institution Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases, under the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Kemerovo
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Барбараш Л . С., Журавлева И . Ю. Эволюция биопротезов клапанов сердца: достижения и проблемы двух десятилетий // Комплексные проблемы сердечно-сосудистых заболеваний. 2012. № 1. С. 4–11.
2. Биологические протезы «Кемкор» и «Перикор» в атриовентрикулярных позициях сердца / А. М. Караськов [и др.] // Медицина и образование в Сибири. 2012. № 2. С. 66.
3. Биопротезы клапанов сердца в России: опыт трех клиник / Л. С. Барбараш [и др.] // Патология кровообращения и кардиохирургия. 2011. № 2. С. 21–26.
4. Бокерия Л . А ., Гудкова Р. Г . Сердечно-сосудистая хирургия-2011. Болезни и врожденные аномалии системы кровообращения. М., 2012. 196 с.
5. Инфекционный эндокардит в структуре дисфункций биопротезов «Кемкор» и «Перикор» / Л. С. Барбараш [и др.] // Патология кровообращения и кардиохирургия. 2010. № 1. С. 26–30.
6. К вопросу о тактике выбора протеза для митральной позиции: сравнительная оценка 16-летних результатов применения механического протеза «МИКС» и биологического протеза «КемКор» / Л. С. Барбараш [и др.] // Грудная и сердечно-сосудистая хирургия, 2012. № 2. С. 12–19.
7. Протезирование митрального клапана биологическими протезами «КемКор» и «ПериКор»: отдаленные результаты / Д. А. Астапов [и др.] // Патология кровообращения и кардиохирургия. 2010. №. 4. С. 23–8.
8. Сравнительная характеристика гидродинамических показателей биопротезов клапанов сердца «Юнилайн» и «Перикор» / К. Ю. Клышников [и др.] // Клиническая физиология сердца. 2013. № 1. C. 45–9.
9. Chanda J., Kuribayashi R., Abe T. Important factors in calcification of glutaraldehide treated bioprostheses // Abstr. Book. VIth World Congr. Int. Soc. Cardiothorac. Surg. (Hiroshima). 1996. Р. 54.
10. Glutaraldehyde-Fixed Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Conduits Calcify and Fail From Xenograft Rejection / Manji R. A. [et al.] // Circulation. 2006. 114 (4). Р. 318–327.
11. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J. Prosthetic Heart Valves: Selection of the Optimal Prosthesis and Long-Term Management. Circulation. 2009. 119 (7). Р. 1034–1048.
Review
For citations:
Stasev A.N., Odarenko Yu.N., Rutkovskaya N.V., Zhuravleva I.Yu., Barbarash L.S. COMPARISON ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES FOLLOWING THE IMPLANTITION OF XENOAORTIC AND XENOPERICARDIAL EPOXY-TREATED BIOPROTHESIS IN THE MITRAL POSITION. Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2013;(4):12-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17802/2306-1278-2013-4-12-16
Views:
507
