• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Mon, 22.07.24

Search results


February 2016
Amjad Shalabi MD, Ehud Raanani MD, Amihai Shinfeld MD, Rafael Kuperstein MD, Alexander Kogan MD, Alexander Lipey MD, Eyal Nachum MD and Dan Spiegelstein MD

Background: Prolonged life expectancy has increased the number of elderly high risk patients referred for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). These referred high risk patients may benefit from sutureless bioprosthesis procedures which reduce mortality and morbidity.

Objectives: To present our initial experience with sutureless aortic bioprotheses, including clinical and echocardiographic results, in elderly high risk patients referred for AVR. 

Methods: Forty patients (15 males, mean age 78 ± 7 years) with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis underwent AVR with the 3F Enable™ or Perceval™ sutureless bioprosthesis during the period December 2012 to May 2014. Mean logistic EuroScore was 10 ± 3%. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, intraoperatively, at discharge and at follow-up.

Results: There was no in-hospital mortality. Nine patients (22%) underwent minimally invasive AVR via a right anterior mini-thoracotomy and one patient via a J-incision. Four patients underwent concomitant coronary aortic bypass graft, two needed intraoperative repositioning of the valve, one underwent valve exchange due to inappropriate sizing, three (7.5%) had a perioperative stroke with complete resolution of neurologic symptoms, and one patient (2.5%) required permanent pacemaker implantation due to complete atrioventricular block. Mean preoperative and postoperative gradients were 44 ± 14 and 13 ± 5 mmHg, respectively. At follow-up, 82% of patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I and II.

Conclusions: Sutureless AVR can be used safely in elderly high risk patients with relatively low morbidity and mortality. The device can be safely implanted via a minimally invasive incision. Mid-term hemodynamic results are satisfactory, demonstrating significant clinical improvement.

 

January 2016
Eyal R. Nachum MD, Ehud Raanani MD, Amit Segev MD, Victor Guetta MD, Ilan Hai MD, Amihai Shinfeld MD, Paul Fefer MD, Hamdan Ashraf MD, Israel Barabash MD, Amjad Shalabi MD and Dan Spiegelstein MD

Background: The rate of mitral bioprosthesis implantation in clinical practice is increasing. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation has been described for high risk patients requiring redo valve surgery. 

Objectives: To report our experience with transapical valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral bioprosthesis.

Methods: Since 2010, 10 patients have undergone transapical valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthesis in our center. Aortic valve-in-valve implantation was performed in one of them and mitral valve-in-valve implantation in nine. Mean age was 82 ± 4 years and 6 were female (67%). Mean time from original mitral valve (MV) replacement to valve-in-valve procedure was 10.5 ± 3.7 years. Follow-up was completed by all patients with a mean duration of 13 ± 12 months. 

Results: Preoperatively, all patients presented with significant mitral regurgitation; two with mitral stenosis due to structural valve failure. All nine patients underwent successful transapical valve-in-valve implantation with an Edwards Sapien™ balloon expandable valve. There was no in-hospital mortality. Mean and median hospital duration was 15 ± 18 and 7 days respectively. Valve implantation was successful in all patients and there were no major complications, except for major femoral access bleeding in one patient. At last follow-up, all patients were alive and in NYHA functional class I or II. Echocardiography follow-up demonstrated that mitral regurgitation was absent or trivial in seven patients and mild in two. At follow-up, peak and mean gradients changed from 26 ± 4 and 8 ± 2 at baseline to 16.7 ± 3 and 7.3 ± 1.5, respectively.

Conclusions: Transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthesis is feasible in selected high risk patients. Our early experience with this strategy is encouraging. Larger randomized trials with long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up are recommended.

 

March 2015
Michael Shpoliansky BSc, Dan Spiegelstein MD, Amihai Shinfeld MD and Ehud Raanani MD
April 2007
D. Spiegelstein, P.l Ghosh, L. Sternik, S. Tager, A. Shinfeld and E. Raanani

Background: During the last decade new surgical techniques for mitral valve repair were developed. We have been using those techniques in order to widen the spectrum of patients eligible for MV[1] repair.

Objectives: To assess the operative and mid-term results a wide variety of surgical techniques.

Methods: From January 2004 through December 2006, 213 patients underwent MV repair in our institution. Valve pathology was degenerative in 123 patients (58%), ischemic in 37 (17%), showed annular dilatation in 25 (12%), endocarditis in 16 (8%), was rheumatic in 13 (6%), and due to other causes in 14 (7%). Preoperative New York Heart Association score was 2.35 ± 0.85 and ejection fraction 53 ± 12%. Isolated MV repair was performed in 90 patients (42%) and 158 concomitant procedures were done in 123 patients (58%). A wide variety of surgical techniques was used in order to increase the number of repairs compared to valve replacement.

Results: There were 7 in-hospital deaths (3.3%). NYHA[2] class improved from 2.19 ± 0.85 to 1.4 ± 0.6, and freedom from reoperation was 100%. Echocardiography follow-up of patients with degenerative MV revealed that 93% of the patients (115/123) were free of mitral regurgitation greater than 2+ grade. In patients operated by a minimal invasive approach there were no conversions to sternotomy, no late deaths, none required reoperation, and 96% were free of MR[3] greater than 2+ grade. The use of multiple surgical techniques enabled the repair of more than 80% of pure MR cases.

Conclusions: MV repair provides good perioperative and mid-term results, and supports the preference for MV repair over replacement, when feasible. Multiple valve repair techniques tailored to different pathologies increases the feasibility of mitral repair.







[1] MV = mitral valve

[2] NYHA = New York Heart Association

[3] MR = mitral regurgitation


Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel