MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT WITH "MEDENG-2" AND "PERICOR" PROTHESES. A 10 YEAR EXPERIENCE
Based on 10 years of application of prostheses «PeriCore» and «MedEng-2» to assess the risk of poor results to justify the choice of tactics prosthesis. Material and methods. As of 2000-2008. in the Kuzbass kardiologiche-Soviet center at the mitral valve defect using prosthetic «MedEng-2» and «PeriCore» operated on 191 patients older than 18 years. Mechanical prosthesis «MedEng-2» 104 implanted patients, 87 – bioprosthesis «PeriCor». Results. Indicators of hospital mortality did not depend on the type of implanted prosthesis (p = 0.06). Remote mortality was significantly (p = 0.01) higher in recipients «MedEng-2» (28.3%), compared with a group of recipients «PeriCore» (19 %). Actuarial survival rates for the 5th and 10th years of observation among the recipients «PeriCore» amounted to 81.6 % and 72.6 %, among the recipients «MedEng-2» – 72.1 % and 51 %, respectively (p = 0.001 ). Actuarial lack of aggregate indicators artificia-mediated complications (incapacitating systemic embolism, valve thrombosis, clinically significant bleeding, dysfunction) of the 5th and the 10th year of observation were lower in recipients «Peri-core» and accounted for 90 % and 81.3 %, whereas as in recipients «MedEng-2» – 92.5 % and 91.7 %, respectively (p 5 = 0.100, p 10 = 0.001). Conclusion. Using the model proposed by R.E. Oakley for predicting the risk of distant artificia-induced mortality and disability, allowed the calculation of the overall risk level of a 15-year period for patients aged 50 years. To recipients «MedEng-2», the figure is 83.8 % for the recipient «PeriCore» – 64.7 %.