Prevalencia de Circulares de Cordón Umbilical

There are some limitations of this study. This is a report from a single center, with a small number of patients that are not matched one by one for preoperative risk parameters. Moreover the follow-up of the redo surgical group was assessed retrospectively. These results need to be confirmed in larger series of patients and possibly in randomized trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that high risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves treated with transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation have similar long term survival with an analogous group treated with redo cardiac valve surgery. Therefore, transcatheter valve- in-valve is a feasible alternative for high risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. These results need to be confirmed in larger series of patients and possibly in randomized trials.

REFERENCES

1. Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, et al. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1152-8.

2. Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechani- cal heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003; 89: 715-21.

3. Schelbert EB, Vaughan-Sarrazin MS, Welke KF, et al. Valve type and long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement in older patients. Heart 2008; 94: 1181-8.

4. Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Bio- prosthetic Surgical Valves: Results from the Global Valve-in-Valve Registry. Circulation 2012; 126: 2335-44.

5. Webb JG, Wood DA, Ye J, et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation 2010; 121: 1848-57.

6. Azadani AN, Tseng EE. Transcatheter heart valves for failing bioprostheses: state-of-the-art review of valve-in-valve implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011 1; 4: 621-8.

7. Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al. Recommendations for chamber quantification: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005; 18: 1440-63.

8. Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Com- mittee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009; 22: 975-1014.

9. de Weger A, Ewe SH, Delgado V, et al. First-in-man implantation of a trans-catheter aortic valve in a mitral annuloplasty ring: novel treatment modality for failed mitral valve repair. Eur J Cardiotho- rac Surg 2011; 39: 1054-6.

10. Ng AC, van der Kley F, Delgado V, et al. Percutaneous valve-in-valve procedure for severe paraval- vular regurgitation in aortic bioprosthesis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009; 2: 522-3.

11. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): The Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2451.96.

12. Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 82-90.

13. Vogt PR, Brunner-LaRocca H, Sidler P, et al. Reoperative surgery for degenerated aortic biopros- theses: predictors for emergency surgery and reoperative mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000; 17: 134-9.

14. Kumar P, Athanasiou T, Ali A, et al. Re-do aortic valve replacement: does a previous homograft influence the operative outcome? J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13: 904-12.

15. Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure - risk assessment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 24: 873-8.

16. Cohn LH, Aranki SF, Rizzo RJ, et al. Decrease in operative risk of reoperative valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1993; 56: 15-20.

17. Piazza N, Bleiziffer S, Brockmann G, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failing surgi- cal aortic bioprosthetic valve: from concept to clinical application and evaluation (part 2). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 733-42.

18. Kempfert J, Van Linden A, Linke A, et al. Transapical off-pump valve-in-valve implantation in patients with degenerated aortic xenografts. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 1934-41.

19. Pasic M, Unbehaun A, Dreysse S, et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation after previous aortic valve replacement: clinical proof of the “valve-in-valve” concept. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142: 270-7.

20. Sarkar K, Sardella G, Romeo F, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe regurgita- tion in native and degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 81: 864-70.

21. Linke A, Woitek F, Merx MW, et al. Valve-in-Valve Implantation of Medtronic CoreValve Prosthesis in Patients with Failing Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5: 689-97.

22. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic- valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1686-95.

23. Akins CW, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, et al. Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 65: 1545-51.