Key result
Simple pannus removal significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time (128.7 vs 179.7 minutes) compared to repeat aortic valve replacement, with similar early postoperative hemodynamics.
Why the study?
The safety and feasibility of simple pannus removal to preserve the prosthesis in patients with mechanical aortic valve dysfunction required confirmation through early clinical outcomes.
Does simple pannus removal improve early clinical outcomes compared to repeat aortic valve replacement in patients with mechanical aortic valve dysfunction due to pannus overgrowth?
Observational (n=24)
No
Does simple pannus removal improve early clinical outcomes compared to repeat aortic valve replacement in patients with mechanical aortic valve dysfunction due to pannus overgrowth?
Absolute Event Rate: 128.7% vs 179.7%
p-value: p=0.005
Simple pannus removal is a safe and feasible alternative to repeat aortic valve replacement for mechanical aortic valve dysfunction due to pannus overgrowth, offering shorter operative times and similar early hemodynamics.
Simple pannus removal may be feasible in selected patients; leaves open need for randomized trials versus repeat AVR.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to confirm the safety and feasibility of simple pannus removal in patients with mechanical aortic valve dysfunction for pannus overgrowth by evaluating its early clinical outcomes. METHODS: From March 2015 to April 2019, 24 consecutive patients with mechanical aortic valve dysfunction due to subaortic pannus underwent reoperation. In 12 patients the repeat aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed, and 12 received the simple pannus removal to preserve the previously implanted prosthesis. RESULTS: There was only 1 in-hospital death in simple pannus removal group. Significant differences were obtained between procedures in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp time (128.7 vs 179.7 and 74.2 vs 132.7 mins, respectively, P < 0.05). The C-reactive protein (CRP) in simple pannus removal group was lower on the first day (0.13 ± 0.09 vs 0.31 ± 0.22 mg/dl, P < 0.05) and continued to be lower within 1 week after operation. There was no significant difference between procedures in aortic transvalvular peak velocity and transvalvular mean pressure gradient (TMPG) (2.6 ± 0.4 vs 2.5 ± 0.4 m/s and 13.2 ± 3.6 vs 11.6 ± 2.6 mmHg, respectively, P > 0.05) in echocardiography 1 week after operation. In addition, the aortic transvalvular peak velocity and TMPG in echocardiography 1 week after operation in pannus removal group between the repeat and initial surgery were not statistically significant (2.6 ± 0.4 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3 m/s, 13.2 ± 3.6 vs. 13.0 ± 3.5 mmHg, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Simple pannus removal was a safe and effective procedure with satisfied early clinical outcomes for pannus overgrowth in mechanical aortic valve. However, further randomized and long-term follow-up studies were warranted to determine the clinical effects of the simple aortic pannus removal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Mechanical aortic valve dysfunction due to pannus overgrowth (n=24). Simple pannus removal vs. Repeat aortic valve replacement was evaluated on Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time in minutes (p=0.005). Simple pannus removal significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time (128.7 vs 179.7 minutes) compared to repeat aortic valve replacement, with similar early postoperative hemodynamics.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: