Repair Failures

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

MikeHeim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
709
Location
Minneapolis, MN
I have a random question for the repair folks out there. I know that there are several people on VR.com that have gotten valve repairs that later "failed". What causes them to fail? I've mulled it over a little bit myself, and I've come up with some possibilities:

  1. As the heart is reshaping and "normalizing" after surgery, the reshaping does not go as the surgeon anticipated and the repaired valve doesn't quite fit together correctly. I thought this was the point of putting in the plastic ring around the valve, but perhaps this doesn't always work?
  2. The valve is simply worked too hard after surgery and wears out quickly. The user engages in activities (such as heavy lifting) that cause too much stress on the repaired valve, and it fails.
  3. The valve was not repaired very well in the first place, and weakens over time.

I'm probably way off, but I got curious and did a Google search. Apparently there is no log on the World Wide Web of a valve repair ever failing! Anyways, I was just wondering if the people who have had valve repair failures could relate the reasons they were given why their particular repair did not work. Thanks!
 
I searched it and found this Mike,

By Jose M. Revuelta, MD
Reconstruction of the aortic valve has been rarely performed during a half-century of cardiac surgery. The aortic valve repair was reported early after the beginning of open heart surgery by Albert Starr [1] and Frank Spencer [2] in congenital heart diseases. The satisfactory short and long-term results with valve replacements, together with the limited knowledge of the aortic root function were the main causes of the lack of interest for this surgical alternative. Paul Wojewski recently pointed out [3]: “We have lost our way in aortic valve surgery. We have made a lot of valves but we have never followed in general the principals dictated by nature”. Few surgeons in the world investigated the anatomy and complex physiology of the aortic valve, and later they have tried to apply their research findings to the surgical field. Magdi Jacoub and Tirone David have developed surgical techniques to spare the aortic valve when the aortic root replacement is mandatory, with very encouraging and predictable mid- and long-term results in a significant number of patients. Their original techniques and later modifications have widely accepted and they are now used by a growing number of surgeons.

Surgical reconstruction of the acquired aortic valve regurgitation has been explored with unpredictable results. During the eighties, Alain Carpentier [4,9] and Carlos G. Duran [5,7,8,11,12], at our Institution in Santander, have introduced different techniques to repair the aortic insufficiency with satisfactory mid-term results. During the last decade, several publications demonstrated an increasing interest with this challenging surgery. However, a variety of reconstructive techniques were used, without a clear categorization of the indications, or a separate analysis of the durability of each surgical technique.

Aortic regurgitation is produced by lack of coaptation of the leaflets due to prolapse of one or all cusps, the dilatation of the aortic annulus and/or the sinotubular junction, the damage or destruction of one leaflet, or the structural modification of the cusps. As John A. Carr and Edward B. Savage from Chicago have recently reported in an elegant review [6], the types of reconstructive technique used, mainly depends on the surgeon preferences. In general, these techniques could be classified as followed:

For isolated annular dilatation (non-aneurysmatic dilatation)

Circular annuloplasty
Commissural plication
Pericardial valve extension
Supraaortic crest enhancement
For leaflet damage or destruction

Leaflet simple suture
Pericardial patch repair
Pericardial extension
For leaflet prolapse

Free edge leaflet plication
Leaflet resuspension
Triangular resection
For leaflet retraction

Lunulae unrolling
Lunulae shaving
Commissurotomy
Pericardial extension
Duran et al [7] have reported the indications and limitations of aortic valve reconstruction, with the different repairs. Most of their patients did not required anticoagulation prophylaxis, only receiving antiplatelet drugs, with a low incidence of thromboembolic events (less than 1%).

Postoperative valve-related complications after aortic valve repair were low as shown in a meta-analysis of 761 patients [6]. The small incidence on thromboembolic events (1%) after aortic valve repair in patients without anticoagulation encourages for a persistent investigation on this surgical approach. Infective endocarditis is also low (average: 0.7%) over a mean follow-up of 4 years, significantly lower than the reported incidence after aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses. This incidence is appreciably higher (2.4%) after aortic cusp pericardial extension techniques [6].

Durability after aortic valve repair still remains uncertain. The reported 10-year freedom from reoperation rate was 64%, with a reoperation rate of 7.8%. This fact represents the determining factor in selecting this surgical alternative. Different authors agreed that the clinical outcome is significantly worse for the repaired rheumatic and bicuspid aortic valves than for the other etiologies, with higher recurrence and reoperation rates. Early causes of failure were suture dehiscence, incomplete repair, pericardial patch tear or detachment. Late failures were due to progression of the disease, pericardial patch or strip tissue degeneration (tear, fibrosis, retraction or calcification) [13]. Aortic leaflet extension with a strip of glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium was used by Duran et al. [8] in patients with severe valve incompetence, but not long-term results have been described. Ahn et al. [10], from South Korea, have reported their experience in a group of 34 patients with pericardial leaflet extension technique, and only 8 patients were free from aortic valve regurgitation, but 93% of patients are free from reoperation one year after surgery. They concluded that a long-term follow-up study will be necessary to evaluate the durability of this reconstructive procedure.

Few years ago, we explored [14] whether or not the aortic valve repair was safe in patients with non-severe rheumatic aortic valve disease during other valvular procedures. In a group of 53 patients who underwent aortic valve repair with different repair techniques at the time of mitral or mitro-tricuspid valve surgery, only 12.7% were free from aortic valve structural deterioration 22 years after surgery; so, we concluded that the concomitant aortic valve repair did not seem appropriate. However, Al-Halees et al. [15] have later reported that, in their experience, repair of associated moderate aortic valve incompetence is worth considering even in predominantly young rheumatic population. They were more optimistic about the validity of this surgical approach, on a similar group of patients with a freedom from reoperation of 63.4% at 8-year follow-up. These authors pointed out that the lack of TEE in our series could explain the differences in our clinical outcomes.

Further analysis are necessary, separating the different etiologies, valve pathologies, and particularly the types of aortic valve repair technique used. Aortic valve repair will provide the patients with a better quality of life, no need for permanent anticoagulation, a lower incidence of thromboembolic events, endocarditis, and other valve-related complications. However, the durability of repair is still unclear, so it will require additional attention in order to establish the indications, to validate techniques, and above all to assess the durability of aortic valve repair in larger series of patients."


References
Starr A, Menashe V, Dotter D. Surgical correction of aortic insufficiency associated with ventricular septal defect. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1960;111:71-6.

Spencer FC, Bahnson HT, Neill CA. The treatment of aortic regurgitation associated with a ventricular septal defect. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1962;43:222-23.

Wojewski, P. Aortic Valve Surgery - The Third Millennium. Available at http://www.ctsnet.org/doc/8387. Posted October 21, 2003.

Carpentier A. Cardiac valve surgery: The “French correction”. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1983;86:323.

Duran CG, Alonso J, Gaite L, Cagigas JC, Fleitas MG, Revuelta JM. Long-term results of conservative repair of rheumatic aortic valve insufficiency. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg 1988;2:200-05.

Carr JA, Savage EB. Aortic valve repair for aortic insufficiency in adults: a contemporary review and comparison with replacement techniques. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:6-15.

Duran CMG, Kumar N, Gometza B, Al Halees Z. Indications and limitations of aortic valve reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg 1991;52:447-454.

Duran CG, Gometza B, Kumar N, et al. From aortic cusp extension to valve replacement with stentless pericardium. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:S428-32.

Fabiani JN, Dreyfus GD, Marchand M, et al. The autologous tissue cardiac valve: a new paradigm for heart valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:S189.

Ahn H, Kim KH, Kim YJ. Midterm result of leaflet extension technique in aortic regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002;21:465-469.

Duran CG. Reconstructive techniques for rheumatic aortic valve disease. J Card Surg 1988;2:23.

Duran CMG, Gometza B. Aortic valve reconstruction in the young. J Card Surg 1994;9 (Suppl):204-208.

Grinda JM, Latremouille C, Berrebi AJ, Zegdi R, Chauvaud S, Carpentier AF, Fabiani JN, Deloche A. Aortic cusp extension valvuloplasty for rheumatic aortic valve disease: midterm results. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:438-43.

Bernal JM, Fernández M, Rabasa JM, Gutierrez F, Morales C, Revuelta JM. Repair of nonsevere rheumatic aortic valve disease during other valvular procedures: Is it safe? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;115:1130-5.

Al-Halees Z, Gometza B, Al-Sanei A, Duran C. Repair of moderate aortic valve lesions associated with other pathology: an 11-year follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2001;20:247-251.

Publication Date: 4-May-2004
Last Modified: 14-Jan-2005


ABOUT US | CONTACT US Search CTSNet:
Copyright © 1998 - 2006 by CTSNet. CTSNet is a registered trademark of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Network.
All rights reserved. See the Expanded Proprietary Legend and Disclaimer.
 
me too

me too

i have always wondered the same thing. there are always lots of discussions about mechanical vs. tissue with the pros and cons but there is never a discussion about repair vs. other options...mech/tissue. there have been a couple of members in the last year that went with a repair and ended back on the table due to the repair not working. i have always wondered if there is someone on here that has had a repair that has lasted for more than 10 years. it seems to me that a repair has a higher risk of re-op than a tissue valve does...which is what we are all trying to avoid. not trying to start another arguement about mech vs. tissue but i would think that if this is the case...there would be more people on this site that would be against repair like it is done with tissue...just my opinion. i really started to wonder this and was going to post a question about this after reading about eric's situation. hope everything goes well with his situation.
 
It's a question I'd be interested in as well. It seems that with Repair surgery and Ross procedures it is the most important type to make sure you have someone very experienced in it. Of course we all want experienced people, but I think in many ways repairs can be more complicated than replacements.

Has anyone had a repair and been told that it probably wouldn't last their lifetime? I know some of our members have been told that their repairs should last a lifetime.
 
I am will be three years out from my repair in August (wow. . .hard to believe :D ). There is no reason why my repair shouldn't last a lifetime (or so I am told).

Having said that, prior to surgery, I was quoted three different success rates. The first surgeon said he had a 65% chance of repairing the valve, second surgeon said he had a 85% chance of repair. . .third one said 95% chance of repair.

So. . .having said that, I would say repair success/fail rate is highly dependent on the skill and experience of the surgeon. Unlike a mechanical valve, which is a fairly standard surgery, with fairly standard sewing, etc, repairs can take much more skill and judgement - after opening you up, the surgeon must make one final call as to whether he can repair the valve. The surgeon must accurately determine whether or not the valve is repairable (judgement/experience), then, if determined repairable, attempt the repair (skill)

Out of curiousity, anyone on this board have a CCF valve repair fail on him or her? Anyone have a Cosgrove repair fail on him or her?
 
I am will be three years out from my repair in August (wow. . .hard to believe :D ). There is no reason why my repair shouldn't last a lifetime (or so I am told).

Having said that, prior to surgery, I was quoted three different success rates. The first surgeon said he had a 65% chance of repairing the valve, second surgeon said he had a 85% chance of repair. . .third one said 95% chance of repair.

Based on that, I would say repair success/fail rate is highly dependent on the skill and experience of the surgeon. Unlike inserting a mechanical valve, which is a fairly standard surgery with fairly standard sewing, etc, repairs can take much more skill and judgement - after opening you up, the surgeon must make one final call as to whether he can repair the valve. The surgeon must accurately determine whether or not the valve is repairable (judgement/experience), then, if determined repairable, attempt the repair (skill). If the surgeon has only done a few, both skill and judgement may be lacking.

Haivng said that, out of curiousity, anyone on this board have a CCF valve repair fail on him or her? Anyone have a Cosgrove repair fail on him or her?

The bennies of a repair are nice. . .right now I am on no meds, have no lifestyle/diet restrictions, can get pregnant if I so choose, and don't think of my heart except in the occaisional stressful moment.
 
Both through the discussions with my Cardiologist and Surgeon before my surgery, as well as the research I did on the side I found the following advantages of a repair:

  1. No anti-coagulation
  2. A good repair will last a lifetime
  3. Lower mortality rate during and immediately after surgery
  4. Lower risk of developing Endocarditis

The biggest disadvantage is that a certain number of repairs fail, usually pretty quickly. The number that was quoted to me was 10%, but I can't substatiate that. I was told after my surgery that my repair went very well and that it should hold up infinitely (I doubt he would have told anyone that he totally screwed up - sounds like a CYA job). At that point, I was quoted 95%. I don't have time to find it right now, but awhile back I had a link that showed very good long-term success for repairs that had been done in the mid-80's. I would hope the surgery techniques and technology has gotten even better by now.
 
mmarshall said:
it seems to me that a repair has a higher risk of re-op than a tissue valve does...which is what we are all trying to avoid.

Well, that's not what I read/believed when I had valve surgery, but it may be the case:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/108/10_suppl_1/II-90

Background? There are no randomized trials comparing outcomes after mitral valve (MV) repair and replacement. Propensity scoring is a powerful tool that has the potential to reduce selection bias in nonrandomized studies.

Methods? From the BC Cardiac Registries, 2 060 patients presented for MV surgery, with or without CABG between 1991 and 2000. We then identified 322 MV repairs who were then matched by propensity score to an equal number of MV replacement patients. We compared survival and freedom from re-operation outcomes using Cox proportional hazards model analysis. Multivariable analysis was then used to compare outcomes in 358 MV repair patients with 352 MV replacement patients who had undergone chordal sparing surgery.

Results? The comparison groups generated using propensity scores were well balanced with respect to all collected baseline risk factors. Median follow-up time was 3.4 years. Patients undergoing MV repair had significantly improved survival (RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.75) but a trend toward more re-operations (RR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.47) compared with patients undergoing replacement. Mitral valve repair patients still had better survival (RR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.85) compared with MV replacement patients who had undergone chordal sparing surgery.

Conclusion? We used propensity score methods to reduce selection bias in a population-based cohort of patients undergoing MV repair/replacement. Repair was associated with better survival, but a trend to increased re-operation.
 
Personal experience - I was born with a bicuspid aortic valve that was found when I was about 6 months old. In 1976 at the age of 17 I had surgery at the Baptist Hospital in WS, NC and the valve was repaired. The surgeon was prepared to replace the valve but decided it could be repaired. My repaired aortic valve lasted 30 years and I have just had surgery, 4/13/06, to replace the valve with an On-X mechanical valve. My surgeon this time was pretty impressed with the repair that lasted 30 years.
 
I had a Tricuspid repair that lasted 22 years. The valve slowly deteriorated over the last 3 years. Just recently had it replaced. I had the repair when I was 14 years old and they told me at the time that it might have to replace it in my 30's. They were right. The repair was a little more difficult because they had to push the valve up a little as well because it was sitting low in the atrium.

As far as post op for replacment, I was told no strenous exercise (lifting weights) for 3 months. Not only is this for the sternum but because the Doctor said they want to ensure the valve seats properly and has grown in.
 
Back
Top