M. Iida, K. Nishimura, K. Kono, Ken Chen, Tsukasa Ikeda, Hiroo Ota, M. Uchiyama, Naomi Ozawa, T. Imazuru, T. Shimokawa
{"title":"透析患者主动脉瓣置换术的早期预后","authors":"M. Iida, K. Nishimura, K. Kono, Ken Chen, Tsukasa Ikeda, Hiroo Ota, M. Uchiyama, Naomi Ozawa, T. Imazuru, T. Shimokawa","doi":"10.17554/J.ISSN.2309-6861.2019.06.168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Although the “mechanical valve” has historically been the popular choice to use as a prosthetic valve to treat dialysis patients requiring aortic value replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis, bioprosthetic valves have also started to be considered for use, due to improvements of surgical outcomes observed through its technical improvements. In this study, we demonstrated our valve treatment strategy and investigated the early outcome to patients with dialysis. Methods: 470 patients received an AVR between January 2009 and December 2012. We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the clinical course of 32 patients with dialysis. 15 patients were male and 17 patients were female, with an average age of 72.4 ± 7.3 years (range: 57-86 years). The mean duration of hemodialysis was 8.7 years (range: 0.1-36 years). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgery score and Euro Score II was 17.0% and 8.9%, respectively. We used a bioprosthetic valve for patients aged >65 years. Results: Mean observation period was 958 days. Regarding early mortality, there were 5 operative deaths within 30 days after operation (15.6%). There were 6 operative late deaths (20.7%). 1- and 3-year survivals in the bioprosthetic valve group were 68% and 46%, respectively. On the other hand, those in the mechanical valve group were 75% and 50%, respectively. Conclusion: The use of bioprosthetic valves should be considered due to its added benefits and because there is no statistically significant difference on survival and valve-related complications between bioprosthetic and mechanical valve group.","PeriodicalId":92802,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular therapy","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Early Outcome of Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery for Dialysis Patients\",\"authors\":\"M. Iida, K. Nishimura, K. Kono, Ken Chen, Tsukasa Ikeda, Hiroo Ota, M. Uchiyama, Naomi Ozawa, T. Imazuru, T. Shimokawa\",\"doi\":\"10.17554/J.ISSN.2309-6861.2019.06.168\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: Although the “mechanical valve” has historically been the popular choice to use as a prosthetic valve to treat dialysis patients requiring aortic value replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis, bioprosthetic valves have also started to be considered for use, due to improvements of surgical outcomes observed through its technical improvements. In this study, we demonstrated our valve treatment strategy and investigated the early outcome to patients with dialysis. Methods: 470 patients received an AVR between January 2009 and December 2012. We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the clinical course of 32 patients with dialysis. 15 patients were male and 17 patients were female, with an average age of 72.4 ± 7.3 years (range: 57-86 years). The mean duration of hemodialysis was 8.7 years (range: 0.1-36 years). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgery score and Euro Score II was 17.0% and 8.9%, respectively. We used a bioprosthetic valve for patients aged >65 years. Results: Mean observation period was 958 days. Regarding early mortality, there were 5 operative deaths within 30 days after operation (15.6%). There were 6 operative late deaths (20.7%). 1- and 3-year survivals in the bioprosthetic valve group were 68% and 46%, respectively. On the other hand, those in the mechanical valve group were 75% and 50%, respectively. Conclusion: The use of bioprosthetic valves should be considered due to its added benefits and because there is no statistically significant difference on survival and valve-related complications between bioprosthetic and mechanical valve group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular therapy\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17554/J.ISSN.2309-6861.2019.06.168\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17554/J.ISSN.2309-6861.2019.06.168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:虽然“机械瓣膜”历来是治疗因主动脉瓣狭窄而需要主动脉瓣膜置换术(aortic value replacement, AVR)的透析患者的普遍选择,但由于其技术改进观察到手术效果的改善,生物瓣膜也开始被考虑使用。在这项研究中,我们展示了我们的瓣膜治疗策略,并调查了透析患者的早期结果。方法:2009年1月至2012年12月间接受AVR治疗的470例患者。我们回顾性分析了32例透析患者的临床过程。男性15例,女性17例,平均年龄72.4±7.3岁(范围:57 ~ 86岁)。血液透析的平均持续时间为8.7年(范围:0.1-36年)。胸外科学会评分和欧洲评分II的平均值分别为17.0%和8.9%。我们对年龄>65岁的患者使用生物瓣膜。结果:平均观察时间958 d。早期死亡率方面,术后30天内手术死亡5例(15.6%)。术后晚期死亡6例(20.7%)。生物瓣膜组1年和3年生存率分别为68%和46%。另一方面,机械瓣膜组分别为75%和50%。结论:生物瓣膜与机械瓣膜组在生存和瓣膜相关并发症方面无统计学差异,可考虑使用生物瓣膜,因为其具有额外的益处。
The Early Outcome of Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery for Dialysis Patients
Objectives: Although the “mechanical valve” has historically been the popular choice to use as a prosthetic valve to treat dialysis patients requiring aortic value replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis, bioprosthetic valves have also started to be considered for use, due to improvements of surgical outcomes observed through its technical improvements. In this study, we demonstrated our valve treatment strategy and investigated the early outcome to patients with dialysis. Methods: 470 patients received an AVR between January 2009 and December 2012. We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the clinical course of 32 patients with dialysis. 15 patients were male and 17 patients were female, with an average age of 72.4 ± 7.3 years (range: 57-86 years). The mean duration of hemodialysis was 8.7 years (range: 0.1-36 years). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgery score and Euro Score II was 17.0% and 8.9%, respectively. We used a bioprosthetic valve for patients aged >65 years. Results: Mean observation period was 958 days. Regarding early mortality, there were 5 operative deaths within 30 days after operation (15.6%). There were 6 operative late deaths (20.7%). 1- and 3-year survivals in the bioprosthetic valve group were 68% and 46%, respectively. On the other hand, those in the mechanical valve group were 75% and 50%, respectively. Conclusion: The use of bioprosthetic valves should be considered due to its added benefits and because there is no statistically significant difference on survival and valve-related complications between bioprosthetic and mechanical valve group.