Publication: Pulmonary valve replacement with bioprosthetic valve: Current technique and early results
2
Issued Date
2019-02-01
Resource Type
ISSN
01252208
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85068603730
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.102, No.2 (2019), S47-S51
Suggested Citation
N. Kantathut, P. Cherntanomwong, P. Leelayana, P. Samarnkatiwat, S. Khajarern Pulmonary valve replacement with bioprosthetic valve: Current technique and early results. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.102, No.2 (2019), S47-S51. Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/51889
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Pulmonary valve replacement with bioprosthetic valve: Current technique and early results
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF THAILAND| 2019. Background: Pulmonary valve replacement has proven benefits in patients with congenital heart disease. Although the choice of replacement valve remains controversial, bioprosthetic valve has an excellent short-term and mid-term durability, no limit in availability and readily to use, and no requirement for anticoagulation. Objective: The present study aimed to describe our surgical technique for pulmonary valve replacement with bioprosthetic valve and to report early clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: All patients from January 2016 to July 2018: 11 patients underwent pulmonary valve replacement with bioprosthetic valve for congenital heart disease and were retrospectively reviewed. Pre-operative and postoperative data were compared. Results: Mean age was 30.91+12.29 years. Ten (90.91%) patient had prior cardiac surgery. All patients were classified in NYHA class II (90.91%) and III (9.09%). Mean follow-up period was 9.34+4.78 months. Mean ICU stays and hospital stays were 1.63+0.50 and 6.54+4.01 days, respectively. No complications or mortality occurred. All patients’ NYHA classifications were improved to class I (100%). Pre-operative LVEF and postoperative % LVEF were similar 59+9.41 vs. 60.36+9.42 (p = 0.358). There was no significant difference in pre-operative and postoperative QRS duration 149+27.07 vs. 146.36+28.27 ms, (p = 0.616). Conclusion: Pulmonary valve replacement with bioprosthetic valve with our current surgical technique is simple, safe, reproducible, and has excellent clinical outcomes.