Валеология: Здоровье, Болезнь, Выздоровление. 2020; : 50-54
ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ И МЕХАНИЧЕСКИХ ПРОТЕЗОВ КЛАПАНОВ СЕРДЦА В СОВРЕМЕННОЙ КАРДИОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ СЛУЖБЕ
Аннотация
В настоящей статье сделан современный обзор литературы, посвященный проблеме выбора вида протеза клапанов сердца в стационарной практике. Описаны основные принципы работы данных протезов и их недостатки. Рассматриваются основные категории пациентов как для механического, так и биологического протезов.
Список литературы
1. Yacoub M., Takkenberg J. Will heart valve tissue engineering change the world? // Nat. Clin. Pract. Neurol. – 2005. – Vol. 2. - № 60. – P. 1.
2. Dangas G. D., Weitz J. I., Giustino G., Makkar R., Mehran R. Prosthetic heart valve thrombosis // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. – 2016. – Vol. 68. – P. 2670–2689.
3. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J. G. Prosthetic Heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management // Circulation – 2009. – Vol. 119. – P. 1034–1048.
4. Ikonomidis J., Kratz J. M., Crumbley A. J. et al. // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. - 2003.- Vol. 126. - P. 2022–2031.
5. Sundt T., Schaff H., Soltesz E. G., Uva M. S., Adams D. H. Mechanical vs biologic valves: our modern day conundrum. // Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2016. – Vol. 28. – P. 404–417.
6. Rodriguez-Caulo E. More evidence favoring bioprostheses for patients older than 55 years in aortic valve replacement // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2019. – Vol. 157. – P. e357.
7. Diaz R., Hernandez-Vaquero D., Alvarez-Cabo R., Avanzas P., Silva J., Moris C. et al. Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic prosthesis: systematic review and meta-analysis // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. - 2018. – Vol. 11. - P. 112-115.
8. Chikwe J. The bioprosthetic versus mechanical valve debate: Unwinnable and increasingly irrelevant? // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2019. – Vol. 157. - Issue 6. – P. e358.
9. Butchart E. G., Ionescu A., Payne N., Giddings J., Grunkemeier G. L., Fraser A. G. A new scoring system to determine thromboembolic risk after heart valve replacement // Circulation. – 2003. – Vol. 108 (Suppl. II). – P. 1168–1174.
10. Elkayam U., Bitar F. Valvular heart disease and pregnancy // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. – 2005. - Vol. 46. – P. 403–410.
11. Manji R. A., Menkis A. H., Ekser B., Cooper D. K. The future of bioprosthetic heart valves // Indian J. Med. Res. – 2012. – Vol., N. 135. - P. 150–151.
12. Zilla P., Brink J., Human P., Bezuidenhout D. Prosthetic heart valves: catering for the few // Biomaterials. – 2008. – Vol. 29. – P. 385–406.
13. Lila N., McGregor C. G., Carpentier S., Rancic J., Byrne G. W., Carpentier A. Gal knockout pig pericardium: new source of material for heart valve bioprostheses // J Heart Lung Transpl. – 2010. - Vol. 29. – P. 538–43.
14. Singhal P., Luk A., Butany J. Bioprosthetic heart valves: impact of implantation on biomaterials // Int. Scholar Res. Not. Biomater. – 2013. - Vol. 22. – P. 1–14.
15. Clavel M. A., Webb J. G., Pibarot P., Altwegg L., Dumont E., Thompson C., et al. Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of percutaneous and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. – 2009. - Vol. 53. – P. 1883–1891.
16. Goldstone A. B., Chiu P., Baiocchi M., Lingala B., Patrick W. L., Fischbein M. P., et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2017. - Vol. 377. – P. 1847–1857.
17. Cribier A., Eltchaninoff H., Bash A., Borenstein N., Tron C., Bauer F., et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve first human case description //Circulation. – 2002 - Vol. 106. – P. 3006–3009.
18. Smith C. R., Leon M. B., Mack M. J., Miller D. C., Moses J. W., Svensson L. G., et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2011. - Vol. 364. - P. 2187–2198.
19. Leon M. B., Smith C. R., Mack M., Miller D. C., Moses J. W., Svensson L. G., et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2010. – Vol. 363. - P. 1597–1607.
20. Walther T., Simon P., Dewey T., Wimmer-Greinecker G., Falk V., Kasimir M. T., et al. Transapical minimally invasive aortic valve implantation. //Circulation. – 2007. – Vol. 116. – P. 1240–1245.
21. Joseph C., Marc R. Moon. Prosthetic valve selection in patients with left-sided endocarditis: bioprosthetic or mechanical valves? // Current opinion in Cardiology. - 2014. - Vol. 29 - Issue 2. – P. 127-132.
22. Toyoda N., Itagaki S., Tannous H., Egorova N. Chikwe J. Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valve Replacement for Infective Endocarditis: Focus on Recurrence Rates // Ann. Thorac. Surg. - 2018. – Vol. 106. – P. 99–106.
23. Siddiqui R. F., Abraham J. R., Butany J. Bioprosthetic heart valves: modes of failure // Histopathology. – 2009. – Vol. 55. – P. 135–144.
24. Manji R. A., Lee W., Cooper D. K. Xenograft bioprosthetic heart valves: Past, present and future // Int. J. Surg. – 2015. – Vol. 23. – P. 280–284.
25. Nishimura R. A., Otto M., Bonow R. O., Carabello B. A., Erwin III J. P., Fleisher L. A., Jneid H., Mack M. J., McLeod C. J., O’Gara P. T., Rigolin V. H., Sundt III T. M., Thompson A. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease // AHA / ACC GUIDELINE. – 2017. - P. e1180.
26. Glaser N., Jackson V., Holzmann M. J., Franco-Cereceda A., Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50–69 years // Eur. Heart J. - 2016. – Vol. 37. – P. 2658–2667.
27. Chikwe J., Chiang Y. P., Egorova N. N., Itagaki S., Adams D. H.. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years // JAMA. – 2015. – Vol. 313. – P. 1435–1442.
28. McClure R. S., McGurk S., Cevasco M., et al. Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: a propensity-matched analysis // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2014. – Vol. 148. – P. 1931–1939.
29. Chiang Y. P., Chikwe J., Moskowitz A. J., Itagaki S., Adams D. H., Egorova N. N. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years // JAMA. – 2014. – Vol. 312. – P. 1323–1329.
Valeology: Health - Illnes - recovery. 2020; : 50-54
APPLICATION OF BIOLOGICAL AND MECHANICAL PROSTHESES OF VALVES OF THE HEART IN MODERN CARDIAC SERVICE
Abstract
This article presents a modern review of the literature on the problem of choosing the type of prosthetic heart valves in stationary practice. The basic principles of operation of these prostheses and their disadvantages are described. Considers the main categories of patients for both mechanical and biological prostheses.
References
1. Yacoub M., Takkenberg J. Will heart valve tissue engineering change the world? // Nat. Clin. Pract. Neurol. – 2005. – Vol. 2. - № 60. – P. 1.
2. Dangas G. D., Weitz J. I., Giustino G., Makkar R., Mehran R. Prosthetic heart valve thrombosis // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. – 2016. – Vol. 68. – P. 2670–2689.
3. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J. G. Prosthetic Heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management // Circulation – 2009. – Vol. 119. – P. 1034–1048.
4. Ikonomidis J., Kratz J. M., Crumbley A. J. et al. // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. - 2003.- Vol. 126. - P. 2022–2031.
5. Sundt T., Schaff H., Soltesz E. G., Uva M. S., Adams D. H. Mechanical vs biologic valves: our modern day conundrum. // Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2016. – Vol. 28. – P. 404–417.
6. Rodriguez-Caulo E. More evidence favoring bioprostheses for patients older than 55 years in aortic valve replacement // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2019. – Vol. 157. – P. e357.
7. Diaz R., Hernandez-Vaquero D., Alvarez-Cabo R., Avanzas P., Silva J., Moris C. et al. Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic prosthesis: systematic review and meta-analysis // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. - 2018. – Vol. 11. - P. 112-115.
8. Chikwe J. The bioprosthetic versus mechanical valve debate: Unwinnable and increasingly irrelevant? // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2019. – Vol. 157. - Issue 6. – P. e358.
9. Butchart E. G., Ionescu A., Payne N., Giddings J., Grunkemeier G. L., Fraser A. G. A new scoring system to determine thromboembolic risk after heart valve replacement // Circulation. – 2003. – Vol. 108 (Suppl. II). – P. 1168–1174.
10. Elkayam U., Bitar F. Valvular heart disease and pregnancy // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. – 2005. - Vol. 46. – P. 403–410.
11. Manji R. A., Menkis A. H., Ekser B., Cooper D. K. The future of bioprosthetic heart valves // Indian J. Med. Res. – 2012. – Vol., N. 135. - P. 150–151.
12. Zilla P., Brink J., Human P., Bezuidenhout D. Prosthetic heart valves: catering for the few // Biomaterials. – 2008. – Vol. 29. – P. 385–406.
13. Lila N., McGregor C. G., Carpentier S., Rancic J., Byrne G. W., Carpentier A. Gal knockout pig pericardium: new source of material for heart valve bioprostheses // J Heart Lung Transpl. – 2010. - Vol. 29. – P. 538–43.
14. Singhal P., Luk A., Butany J. Bioprosthetic heart valves: impact of implantation on biomaterials // Int. Scholar Res. Not. Biomater. – 2013. - Vol. 22. – P. 1–14.
15. Clavel M. A., Webb J. G., Pibarot P., Altwegg L., Dumont E., Thompson C., et al. Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of percutaneous and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis // J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. – 2009. - Vol. 53. – P. 1883–1891.
16. Goldstone A. B., Chiu P., Baiocchi M., Lingala B., Patrick W. L., Fischbein M. P., et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2017. - Vol. 377. – P. 1847–1857.
17. Cribier A., Eltchaninoff H., Bash A., Borenstein N., Tron C., Bauer F., et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve first human case description //Circulation. – 2002 - Vol. 106. – P. 3006–3009.
18. Smith C. R., Leon M. B., Mack M. J., Miller D. C., Moses J. W., Svensson L. G., et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2011. - Vol. 364. - P. 2187–2198.
19. Leon M. B., Smith C. R., Mack M., Miller D. C., Moses J. W., Svensson L. G., et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2010. – Vol. 363. - P. 1597–1607.
20. Walther T., Simon P., Dewey T., Wimmer-Greinecker G., Falk V., Kasimir M. T., et al. Transapical minimally invasive aortic valve implantation. //Circulation. – 2007. – Vol. 116. – P. 1240–1245.
21. Joseph C., Marc R. Moon. Prosthetic valve selection in patients with left-sided endocarditis: bioprosthetic or mechanical valves? // Current opinion in Cardiology. - 2014. - Vol. 29 - Issue 2. – P. 127-132.
22. Toyoda N., Itagaki S., Tannous H., Egorova N. Chikwe J. Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valve Replacement for Infective Endocarditis: Focus on Recurrence Rates // Ann. Thorac. Surg. - 2018. – Vol. 106. – P. 99–106.
23. Siddiqui R. F., Abraham J. R., Butany J. Bioprosthetic heart valves: modes of failure // Histopathology. – 2009. – Vol. 55. – P. 135–144.
24. Manji R. A., Lee W., Cooper D. K. Xenograft bioprosthetic heart valves: Past, present and future // Int. J. Surg. – 2015. – Vol. 23. – P. 280–284.
25. Nishimura R. A., Otto M., Bonow R. O., Carabello B. A., Erwin III J. P., Fleisher L. A., Jneid H., Mack M. J., McLeod C. J., O’Gara P. T., Rigolin V. H., Sundt III T. M., Thompson A. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease // AHA / ACC GUIDELINE. – 2017. - P. e1180.
26. Glaser N., Jackson V., Holzmann M. J., Franco-Cereceda A., Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50–69 years // Eur. Heart J. - 2016. – Vol. 37. – P. 2658–2667.
27. Chikwe J., Chiang Y. P., Egorova N. N., Itagaki S., Adams D. H.. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years // JAMA. – 2015. – Vol. 313. – P. 1435–1442.
28. McClure R. S., McGurk S., Cevasco M., et al. Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: a propensity-matched analysis // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. – 2014. – Vol. 148. – P. 1931–1939.
29. Chiang Y. P., Chikwe J., Moskowitz A. J., Itagaki S., Adams D. H., Egorova N. N. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years // JAMA. – 2014. – Vol. 312. – P. 1323–1329.
