|
|
||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 1998;65:1032-1038
© 1998 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Department of Cardiac Surgery, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Brisbane, Australia
Accepted for publication November 3, 1997.
Address reprint requests to Dr OBrien, Department of Cardiac Surgery, The Prince Charles Hospital, Rode Rd, Chermside, Brisbane 4032, Queensland, Australia
Background. The impact of allograft valve viability on valve durability remains controversial. Analyses of our clinical results have demonstrated the superiority of the cryopreserved valve viable at the time of implantation over the 4°C stored valve nonviable at the time of implantation. In this study, we quantitatively assessed the effects on viability of current and past valve-processing protocols at The Prince Charles Hospital.
Methods. The viability of pulmonary valves was quantitatively analyzed by thin-layer autoradiography to assess the effects of donor type, antibiotics, and valve storage.
Results. Control valve segments obtained from beating-heart donor valves had a higher initial viability (0.92 ± 0.02) than nonbeating-heart donor valves (0.66 ± 0.03). Cryopreservation after low-dose antibiotic sterilization significantly reduced viability to 50% to 60% of the control, and in the presence of amphotericin B, viability dropped further to 10% to 36% of the control. After 7 days storage at 4°C, viability was reduced to 2% of control and to 0% viability after 21 days.
Conclusions. For maximal preimplantation viability, valves should be procured as soon as possible after cessation of heart beat and should be cryopreserved if they are not to be clinically implanted within 1 to 2 days. Amphotericin B should not be used in conjunction with cryopreservation if viability is to be maximized.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. R. Hampton and E. D. Verrier Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement: Autograft/Homograft Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 895 - 914. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
G. Pompilio, G. Polvani, G. Piccolo, A. Guarino, A. Nocco, A. Innocente, M. Porqueddu, L. Dainese, F. Veglia, A. Sala, et al. Six-year monitoring of the donor-specific immune response to cryopreserved aortic allograft valves: Implications with valve dysfunction Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2004; 78(2): 557 - 563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. E. Rendal Vazquez, T. D. Roman, M. G. Cuesta, C. Z. Botta, J. S. Ibanez, S. P. Diaz, and C. A. Nunez Viability and histologic structure of porcine valves after cryopreservation Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2004; 77(1): 186 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. R. Hampton, A. J. Chong, and E. D. Verrier Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement: Homograft/Autograft Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 867 - 888. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
R. E. Shaddy and J. A. Hawkins Immunology and failure of valved allografts in children Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2002; 74(4): 1271 - 1275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Javadpour, D. Veerasingam, and A.E. Wood Calcification of homograft valves in the pulmonary circulation -- is it device or donation related? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., July 1, 2002; 22(1): 78 - 81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Palka, S. Harrocks, A. Lange, D. J. Burstow, and M. F. O'Brien Primary Aortic Valve Replacement With Cryopreserved Aortic Allograft: An Echocardiographic Follow-Up Study of 570 Patients Circulation, January 1, 2002; 105(1): 61 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Tominaga, T. Kitagawa, Y. Masuda, T. Hori, M. Kano, O. Yasuta, and I. Katoh Viability of cryopreserved semilunar valves: an evaluation of cytosolic and mitochondrial activities Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2000; 70(3): 792 - 795. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |