Long-term survival after xenograft versus homograft aortic root replacement: Results from a prospective randomized trial

ObjectiveThe study objective was to investigate the long-term survival of patients undergoing xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement.MethodsA total of 166 patients requiring aortic valve surgery were randomized to undergo the Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) bioprosthesis (N = 90) or a homograft (N = 76) full root aortic valve replacement between 1997 and 2005 in a single institution. Six patients randomly assigned to the homograft crossed over to the Freestyle bioprosthesis because of the unavailability of suitably sized homografts. All surgeons were required to adhere to the standard surgical technique for homograft root implantation previously described. Follow-up was 98.5% complete.ResultsThe mean age of the study population was 65 ± 8 years. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with root aortic valve replacement in 76 of 166 patients (46%, P = not significant between groups), and overall hospital mortality was 4.8% (8/166, P = not significant between groups). Median follow-up was 13.8 years (range, 0-21.8 years; 2033 patient-years). The Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 2 arms at 5, 10, and 15 years. Twenty-year survival was 28.3% ± 5% for the Freestyle group versus 25.1% ± 5.7% for the homograft group (P = .90), which was comparable to the age- and sex-matched UK general population. The freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 20 years was comparable for the Freestyle group versus the homograft group (67.9% ± 8.8% vs 67.2% ± 10.3%, respectively; P = .74).ConclusionsThis is the first study to investigate the long-term survival of xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement from a prospective randomized trial. The observed 20-year overall survival and freedom from aortic valve reoperation serve as a benchmark for future studies on interventions for aortic valve disease in the elderly.     

Improved Outcomes of Reimplantation vs Remodeling in Marfan Syndrome: A Propensity-Matched Study

BackgroundValve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) has excellent outcomes when performed in experienced centers in well-selected patients. It is suggested that reimplantation of the aortic valve may have better durability than remodeling in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS), although long-term comparative data are limited.MethodsBetween 1988 and 2018, 194 patients with MFS underwent VSRR at our institution. From these, we derived a propensity-matched cohort of 68 patients (44 who underwent reimplantation and 24 who had remodeling). Early outcomes included death and perioperative complications. Late outcomes were survival, probability of aortic insufficiency, and reintervention up to 20 years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 17.8 years (interquartile range, 12.0-20.6 years) for the entire matched cohort.ResultsBaseline variables were similar between reimplantation and remodeling patients after matching: age (39 ± 12 vs 40 ± 13 years, P = .75) and male sex (28 [64%] vs 15 [63%], P = 1.0). Similar 20-year survival was observed after reimplantation compared with remodeling (82% vs 72%, P = .20), whereas the probability of developing greater than mild aortic insufficiency at 20 years was increased after remodeling (5.8% vs 13%, P = .013). More patients underwent reoperation on the aortic valve after a remodeling procedure than after reimplantation of the aortic valve (18% vs 0%, P = .018).ConclusionsVSRR provides excellent long-term survival and freedom from valve-related complications outcomes in patients with MFS. Reimplantation of the aortic valve was associated with a lower risk of aortic valve reoperation and aortic insufficiency than the remodeling procedure after 2 decades of follow-up.     

Clinical impact of the heart team on the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement among octogenarians

ObjectivesThe effectiveness of a multidisciplinary heart team in the management of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is unknown. This study evaluated the impact of a heart team on the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians.MethodsBetween May 2007 and January 2016, 528 patients aged 80 years or more were referred to our institutional heart team for a transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Among these, 101 were redirected to surgical aortic valve replacement (heart team group). These patients were compared with a surgical aortic valve replacement cohort (n = 506) without prior heart team screening (non-heart team group), taken from the same time period. Propensity score matching with bootstrap analysis was performed; 76 heart team patients were matched to 76 non-heart team patients. Early and late outcomes including survival and readmission for cardiovascular causes were compared.ResultsMatched subgroups were largely comparable; congestive heart failure and echocardiographic pulmonary hypertension were more prevalent in the heart team group. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the matched heart team group (0% vs 6.0%, bootstrap mean difference 6.0%, 95% confidence interval, 2.2-9.8). The risk of stroke, low cardiac output state, reexploration for bleeding, pneumonia, and prolonged ventilation was also significantly lower in the heart team group. There was no significant between-group difference regarding late survival (hazard ratio, 0.86, 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.33, P = .49) or readmission for cardiovascular reasons (hazard ratio, 0.70, 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.20, P = .19).ConclusionsPreoperative multidisciplinary assessment of octogenarians by a heart team was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and adverse events after surgical aortic valve replacement.     

Valve-sparing root replacement in patients with bicuspid aortopathy: An analysis of cusp repair strategy and valve durability

ObjectiveValve-sparing root replacement using reimplantation techniques is increasingly applied to bicuspid aortopathy. Long-term durability of cusp repair is unclear. We analyze midterm results using a conservative approach to cusp repair.MethodsFrom 2006 to 2018, 327 patients underwent valve-sparing reimplantation, 66 with bicuspid valves. Leaflets were analyzed after reimplantation. A majority (51/66) required no cusp repair. Fifteen patients had cusp repair limited to closure of unfused raphe or central plication. Patients were followed by echocardiography.ResultsMean age of patients was 44.7 ± 12.3 years. The cusp repair group had a higher incidence of preoperative moderate (10% vs 40%) or severe (4% vs 33.3%) aortic insufficiency (P < .001). There was no operative mortality or major complication. Mean follow-up was 51.6 ± 40.8 months. On postoperative echocardiography, incidence of none, trace, or mild aortic insufficiency was 41.3% (19/46), 43.5% (20/46), and 15.2% (7/46) in the no cusp repair group and 40% (6/15), 40% (6/15), and 20% (3/15) in the cusp repair group, respectively (P = .907). Few patients progressed in degree of aortic insufficiency. No patients required reoperation. At 5 years, freedom from any aortic insufficiency was 46.9% versus 15.8% (P = .013), and freedom from greater than trace aortic insufficiency was 59.1% versus 36.9% (P = .002) due to the higher rate of postoperative trace and mild aortic insufficiency with cusp repair. There was no difference in freedom from greater than mild aortic insufficiency (92.1% vs 100%; P = .33).ConclusionsValve-sparing root replacement is reliably performed with bicuspid aortic valves whether or not cusp reconstruction is necessary. Few patients progress to greater than mild aortic insufficiency. Need for reoperation is rare in midterm follow-up.     

Differences among sexes in presentation and outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection repair

ObjectiveFemale sex is a known risk factor in most cardiac surgery, including coronary and valve surgery, but unknown in acute type A aortic dissection repair.MethodsFrom 1996 to 2018, 650 patients underwent acute type A aortic dissection repair; 206 (32%) were female, and 444 (68%) were male. Data were collected through the Cardiac Surgery Data Warehouse, medical record review, and National Death Index database.ResultsCompared with men, women were significantly older (65 vs 57 years, P < .0001). The proportion of women and men inverted with increasing age, with 23% of patients aged less than 50 years and 65% of patients aged 80 years or older being female. Women had significantly less chronic renal failure (2.0% vs 5.4%, P = .04), acute myocardial infarction (1.0% vs 3.8%, P = .04), and severe aortic insufficiency. Women underwent significantly fewer aortic root replacements with similar aortic arch procedures, shorter cardiopulmonary bypass times (211 vs 229 minutes, P = .0001), and aortic crossclamp times (132 vs 164 minutes, P < .0001), but required more intraoperative blood transfusion (4 vs 3 units) compared with men. Women had significantly lower operative mortality (4.9% vs 9.5%, P = .04), especially in those aged more than 70 years (4.4% vs 16%, P = .02). The significant risk factors for operative mortality were male sex (odds ratio, 2.2), chronic renal failure (odds ratio, 3.4), and cardiogenic shock (odds ratio, 6.8). The 10-year survival was similar between sexes.ConclusionsPhysicians and women should be cognizant of the risk of acute type A aortic dissection later in life in women. Surgeons should strongly consider operations for acute type A aortic dissection in women, especially in patients aged 70 years or more.     

Endovascular treatment of complicated versus uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection

ObjectiveThe study objective was to analyze the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair performed for complicated and uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections.MethodsPatients from WL Gore's Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissections were included, and data were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsOf 5014 patients enrolled in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment, 172 underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissections. Of these repairs, 102 were for complicated acute type B aortic dissections and 70 were for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections. There were 46 (45.1%) procedures related to aortic branch vessels versus 15 (21.4%) in complicated type B aortic dissections and uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (P = .002). The mean length of stay was 14.3 ± 10.6 days (median, 11; range, 2-75) versus 9.8 ± 7.9 days (median, 8; range, 0-42) in those with complicated type B aortic dissections versus those with uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections (P < .001). Thirty-day mortality was not different between groups (complicated type B aortic dissections 2.9% vs uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections 1.4%, P = .647), as well as aortic complications (8.8% vs 5.7%, P = .449). Aortic event-free survival was 62.9% ± 37.1% versus 70.6% ± 29.3% at 3 years (P = .696).ConclusionsIn the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment, thoracic endovascular aortic repair results for complicated type B aortic dissections versus uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections showed that 30-day mortality and perioperative complications were equally low for both. The midterm outcome was positive. These data confirm that thoracic endovascular aortic repair as the first-line strategy for treating complicated type B dissections is associated with a low risk of complications. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to define the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in uncomplicated acute type B dissections compared with medical therapy. However, in the absence of level A evidence from randomized trials, results of the uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection patient cohort treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair from registries are important to understand the related risk and benefit.     

Open hemiarch versus clamped ascending aorta replacement for aortopathy during initial bicuspid aortic valve replacement

BackgroundThere is controversy regarding the extent of aortic resection necessary in patients with aortopathy related to bicuspid aortic valve disease. To address this issue, we reviewed our experience in patients undergoing ascending aorta replacement during bicuspid aortic valve replacement.MethodsWe reviewed 702 patients who underwent ascending aorta replacement at the time of initial nonemergent native bicuspid aortic valve replacement at our institution between January 2000 and June 2017. Treatment cohorts included an open hemiarch replacement group (n = 225; 32%) and a clamped ascending aorta replacement group (n = 477; 68%).ResultsMedian patient age was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51-67 years), female sex was present in 113 patients (16%), ejection fraction was 62% (IQR, 56%-66%), and aortic arch diameter was 33 mm (IQR, 29-36 mm). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the hemiarch replacement group (188 minutes vs 97 minutes; P < .001). Procedure-related complications (36%) and mortality (<1%) were similar in the 2 groups; however, the hemiarch group had an increased odds of blood transfusion (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-2.28; P = .006). The median duration of follow-up was 6.0 years (95% CI, 5.3-6.8 years). Overall survival was 94 ± 1% at 5 years and 80 ± 2% at 10 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated similar survival in the 2 groups (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.33; P = .439). No repeat aortic arch operations were done for aortopathy over the duration of clinical follow-up.ConclusionsCompared with patients in the clamped ascending aorta replacement group, patients in the hemi-arch replacement group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, along with an increased risk of blood transfusion, but similar freedom from repeat aortic arch operation and survival. We identified no advantage of performing hemiarch replacement in the absence of aortic arch dilation.     

Is hemiarch replacement adequate in acute type A aortic dissection repair in patients with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion?

ObjectiveThe study objective was to determine if hemiarch replacement is an adequate arch management strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection and arch branch vessel dissection but no cerebral malperfusion.MethodsFrom January 2008 to August 2019, 479 patients underwent open acute type A aortic dissection repair. After excluding those with aggressive arch replacement (n = 168), cerebral malperfusion syndrome (n = 34), and indeterminable arch branch vessel dissection (n = 1), 276 patients with an acute type A aortic dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome who underwent hemiarch replacement comprised this study. Patients were then divided into those with arch branch vessel dissection (n = 133) and those with no arch branch vessel dissection (n = 143).ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 62 years, with the arch branch vessel dissection group being younger (60 vs 62 years, P = .048). Both groups had similar aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic diameters, with significantly more DeBakey type I dissections (100% vs 80%) in the arch branch vessel dissection group. The arch branch vessel dissection group had more aortic root replacement (36% vs 27%, P = .0035) and longer aortic crossclamp times (153 vs 128 minutes, P = .007). Postoperative outcomes were similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups, including stroke (10% vs 5%, P = .12) and operative morality (7% vs 5%, P = .51). The arch branch vessel dissection group had a significantly greater cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year: 19% vs 4%, P = .04) with a hazard ratio of 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.27; P = .048), which was similar between groups among only DeBakey type I dissections (8-year: 19% vs 5%, P = .11). The 8-year survival was similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups (76% vs 74%, P = .30).ConclusionsHemiarch replacement was adequate for patients with acute type A aortic dissection with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome, but carried a higher risk of late reoperation.     

Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis

ObjectiveSutureless aortic valves are a novel option for aortic valve replacement. We sought to demonstrate noninferiority of sutureless versus standard bioprostheses in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.MethodsThe Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients were randomized (March 2016 to September 2018) to aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or stented valve using conventional or minimally invasive approach. Primary outcome was freedom from major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention) at 1 year.ResultsAt 47 centers (12 countries), 910 patients were randomized to sutureless (n = 453) or conventional stented (n = 457) valves; mean ages were 75.4 ± 5.6 and 75.0 ± 6.1 years, and 50.1% and 44.9% were female, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were 2.4 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 1.3, and a ministernotomy approach was used in 50.4% and 47.3%, respectively. Concomitant procedures were performed with similar rates in both groups. Noninferiority was demonstrated for major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year, whereas aortic valve hemodynamics improved equally in both groups. Use of sutureless valves significantly reduced surgical times (mean extracorporeal circulation times: 71.0 ± 34.1 minutes vs 87.8 ± 33.9 minutes; mean crossclamp times: 48.5 ± 24.7 vs 65.2 ± 23.6; both P < .0001), but resulted in a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs 3.6% at 1 year). Incidences of perivalvular and central leak were similar.ConclusionsSutureless valves were noninferior to stented valves with respect to major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (alone or with coronary artery bypass grafting). This suggests that sutureless valves should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program.     

Outcomes after endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: A population-based study

ObjectiveWe sought to determine the early and late outcomes of endovascular versus open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.MethodsWe performed a multicenter population-based study across the province of Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2017. The primary end point was mortality. Secondary end points were time to first event of a composite of mortality, permanent spinal cord injury, permanent dialysis, and stroke, the individual end points of the composite, patient disposition at discharge, hospital length of stay, myocardial infarction, and secondary procedures at follow-up.ResultsA total of 664 adults undergoing surgical repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (endovascular: n = 303 [45.5%] vs open: n = 361 [54.5%]) were identified using an algorithm of administrative codes validated against the operative records. Propensity score matching resulted in 241 patient pairs. Endovascular repairs increased during the study and currently comprise more than 50% of total repairs. In the matched sample, open repair was associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital death (17.4% vs 10.8%, P = .04), complications (26.1% vs 17.4%, P = .02), discharge to rehabilitation facilities (18.7% vs 10.0%, P = .02), and longer length of stay (12 [7-21] vs 6 [3-13] days, P < .01). Long-term mortality was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.50), nor were the other secondary end points, with the exception of secondary procedures, which were higher in the endovascular group (hazard ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-4.55). At 8 years, overall survival was 41.3% versus 44.6% after endovascular and open repair (P = .62).ConclusionsEndovascular repair was associated with improved early outcomes but higher rates of secondary procedures after discharge. Long-term survival after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is poor and independent of repair technique.     

The fate of aortic valve after rheumatic mitral valve surgery

ObjectiveDeterioration of the native aortic valve function by a late progression of rheumatic disease is not infrequent in patients who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery; however, this phenomenon has not been clearly quantified.MethodsA total of 1155 consecutive patients (age 52.0 ± 12.9 years; 807 female) who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery without concomitant aortic valve surgery from 1997 to 2015 were enrolled. The primary end point was the composite of progression to severe aortic valve dysfunction or a requirement of subsequent aortic valve replacements during follow-up. To determine the risk factors of the primary outcome, we performed the generalized linear mixed model.ResultsThe baseline severities of aortic valve were none to trivial in 880 patients (76.2%), mild in 256 patients (22.2%), and moderate in 19 patients (1.6%). The latest 1062 echocardiographic assessments (91.9%; median, 81.2 postoperative months; interquartile range, 37.3-132.1 months) demonstrated 26 cases (0.33%/patient-year) meeting the primary end point during follow-up. Cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 10 years was 0.4% ± 0.3% and 7.4% ± 2.5% depending on the presence of mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at baseline (P < .01). In multivariable analyses, aortic valve peak pressure gradient (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.20), aortic regurgitation degree (mild over none: odds ratio, 3.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-9.23), and time (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) were significantly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point.ConclusionsProgression of severe aortic valve dysfunction and the need for aortic valve replacement are uncommon in patients undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery. However, such events were relatively common among those with mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at the time of mitral valve surgery.     

Aortic balloon occlusion technique versus moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest with antegrade cerebral perfusion in total arch replacement and frozen elephant trunk for acute type A aortic dissection

BackgroundModerate hypothermic circulatory arrest (MHCA) with antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) is safe and efficient in total arch replacement (TAR) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Complications related to hypothermia and ischemia are inevitable, however. The aortic balloon occlusion (ABO) technique is performed to elevate the lowest nasopharyngeal temperature to 28°C and shorten the circulatory arrest time. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this new technique.MethodsWe reviewed the clinical data of patients with ATAAD who underwent TAR and FET, including 79 who underwent ABO and 109 who underwent MHCA/ACP.ResultsCirculatory arrest time was significantly lower in the ABO group compared with the MHCA/ACP group (mean, 4.8 ± 1.2 minutes vs 18.4 ± 3.1 minutes; P < .001). The composite endpoint was comparable in the 2 groups (11.4% for ABO vs 13.8% for MHCA/ACP; P = .631). Fewer patients in the ABO group developed high-grade acute kidney injury (AKI) according to a modified RIFLE criterion (22.8% vs 36.7%; P = .041), and the rate of hepatic dysfunction was lower in the ABO group (11.4% vs 28.4%; P = .005). Multivariable logistic analysis showed that the ABO technique is protective against duration of ventilation >24 hours (odds ratio [OR], 0.455; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.234-0.887; P = .021), hepatic dysfunction (OR, 0.218; 95% CI, 0.084-0.561; P = .002), and grade II-III AKI (OR, 0.432; 95% CI, 0.204-0.915; P = .028).ConclusionsThe ABO technique significantly shortens the circulatory arrest time in TAR and FET. Available clinical data suggest that it has a certain protective effect on the liver and kidney. Future large-sample studies are warranted to thoroughly evaluate this new technique.     

Intervention rates and outcomes in medically managed uncomplicated descending thoracic aortic dissections

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term incidence and outcome of aortic interventions for medically managed uncomplicated thoracic aortic dissections.MethodsBetween January 2012 and December 2018, 91 patients were discharged home with an uncomplicated, medically treated aortic dissection (involving the descending aorta with or without aortic arch involvement, no ascending involvement). After a median period of 4 (first quartile: 2, third quartile: 11) months, 30 patients (33%) required an aortic intervention. Patient characteristics, radiographic, treatment, and follow-up data were compared for patients with and without aortic interventions. A competing risk regression model was analyzed to identify independent predictors of aortic intervention and to predict the risk for intervention.ResultsPatients who underwent aortic interventions had significantly larger thoracic (P = .041) and abdominal (P = .015) aortic diameters, the dissection was significantly longer (P = .035), there were more communications between both lumina (P = .040), and the first communication was significantly closer to the left subclavian artery (P = .049). A descending thoracic aortic diameter exceeding 45 mm was predictive for an aortic intervention (P = .001; subdistribution hazard ratio: 3.51). The risk for aortic intervention was 27% ± 10% and 36% ± 11% after 1 and 3 years, respectively. Fourteen patients (47%) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 11 patients (37%) thoracic endovascular aortic repair and left carotid to subclavian bypass, 3 patients (10%) total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique, and 2 patients (7%) thoracoabdominal aortic replacement. We observed no in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsThe need for secondary aortic interventions in patients with initially medically managed, uncomplicated descending aortic dissections is substantial. The full spectrum of aortic treatment options (endovascular, hybrid, conventional open surgical) is required in these patients.     

Biological versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement

ObjectivesLong-term real-world outcomes are critical for informing decisions about biological (Bio) or mechanical (Mech) prostheses for aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients aged between 50 and 65 years. The objective was to compare long-term survival and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (ie, stroke, reoperation, and major bleeding) within this population.MethodsThis was a multicenter observational study including all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent an aortic valve replacement because of severe isolated aortic stenosis between the years 2000 and 2018. A total of 5215 patients from 27 Spanish hospitals were registered with a follow-up of 15 years. Multivariable analyses, including a 2:1 propensity score matching (1822 Mech and 911 Bio) and competing risks analyses were applied.ResultsBio prostheses were implanted in 19% of patients (n = 992). No significant differences were observed between matched groups in long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.47; P = .33). Stroke rates were higher for Mech prostheses, but not significant (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50-1.03; P = .07). Finally, higher rates of major bleeding were found in the Mech group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among the Bio group (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.80-5.14; P < .001). Bio prostheses increased from 13% in the period from 2000 to 2008 to 24% in 2009 to 2018.ConclusionsLong-term survival was comparable among groups in patients between 50 and 65 years of age. Mech prostheses were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, whereas Bio prostheses entailed higher reoperation rates. Bio prostheses seem a reasonable choice for patients between 50 and 65 years in Spain.     

A progress report on reimplantation of the aortic valve

ObjectiveTo examine the late outcomes of reimplantation of the aortic valve (RAV) in patients followed prospectively since surgery.MethodsAll 465 patients who had RAV from 1989 to 2018 were followed prospectively with periodic clinical and echocardiographic assessments. Mean follow-up was 10 ± 6 years and 98% complete.ResultsPatients' mean age was 47 ± 5.1 years, and 78% were men. The aortic root aneurysm was associated with Marfan syndrome in 164 patients, Loeys–Dietz syndrome in 13, bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) in 67, and type A aortic dissection in 33. Aortic insufficiency (AI) was greater than mild in 298 patients. Concomitant procedures were performed in 105 patients. There were 5 operative and 51 late deaths. At 20 years, 69.1% of patients were alive and free from aortic valve reoperation, and the cumulative probability of aortic valve reoperation with death as a competing risk was 6.0%, and the cumulative probability of developing moderate or severe AI was 10.2%. Only time per 1-year interval was associated with the development of postoperative AI by multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, >1.02-1.10; P = .006). Gradients across preserved BAV increased in 5 patients, and 1 required reoperation for aortic stenosis. Distal aortic dissections occurred in 22 patients, primarily in those with associated genetic syndromes.ConclusionsRAV provides excellent long-term results, but there is a progressive rate of AI over time, and patients with BAV may develop aortic stenosis. Patients with genetic syndromes have a risk of distal aortic dissections. Continued surveillance after RAV is necessary.     

Is anterior mitral valve leaflet length important in outcome of septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?

ObjectivesElongation of mitral valve leaflets is a phenotypic feature of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and some surgeons advocate plication of the anterior leaflet at the time of septal myectomy. The present study investigates mitral valve leaflet length and outcomes of patients undergoing septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.MethodsWe reviewed the records and echocardiograms of 564 patients who underwent transaortic septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy between February 2015 and April 2018. Extended septal myectomy without plication of the anterior leaflet was the standard procedure. From intraoperative prebypass transesophageal echocardiograms, we measured anterior and posterior mitral valve leaflets and their coaptation length. For comparison, we performed these mitral valve leaflet measurements in 90 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 92 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in the same period. Among patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy undergoing septal myectomy, we assessed left ventricular outflow tract gradient relief and 1-year survival in relation to leaflet length.ResultsMedian patient age (interquartile range) was 60.3 (50.2-67.7) years, and 54.1% were male. Concomitant mitral valve repair was performed in 36 patients (6.4%), and mitral valve replacement was performed in 8 patients (1.4%), primarily for intrinsic mitral valve disease. Patients in the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy cohort had significantly longer mitral valve leaflet measurements compared with patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement (P < .001 for all 3 measurements). Preoperative resting left ventricular outflow tract gradients were not related to leaflet length (<30 mm, median 49 [21, 81.5] mm Hg vs ≥30 mm, 50.5 [21, 77] mm Hg; P = .76). Further, gradient reduction after myectomy was not related to leaflet length; patients with less than 30 mm anterior leaflet length had a median gradient reduction of 33 (69, 6) mm Hg compared with 36.5 (62, 6) mm Hg for patients with leaflet length 30 mm or more (P = .36). Anterior mitral valve leaflet length was not associated with increased 1-year mortality (P = .758).ConclusionsOur study confirms previous findings that patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy have slight (5 mm) elongation of mitral valve leaflets. In contrast to other reports, increased anterior mitral valve leaflet length was not associated with higher left ventricular outflow tract gradients. Importantly, we found no significant relationship between anterior mitral valve leaflet length and postoperative left ventricular outflow tract resting gradients or gradient relief. Thus, in the absence of intrinsic mitral valve disease, transaortic septal myectomy with focus on extending the excision beyond the point of septal contact is sufficient for almost all patients.     

Surgical outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation

ObjectivesThe surgical indications for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) in patients in cardiopulmonary arrest remain controversial. Outcomes of AAAD for patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were evaluated.MethodsBetween 2004 and 2018, of the 519 patients who underwent AAAD repair, 34 (6.6%) required CPR before or on starting AAAD repair. The patients were divided into 2 groups, survivors (n = 13) and nonsurvivors (n = 21), to compare the early operative outcomes, including mortality and neurological events.ResultsThe major cause of cardiovascular collapse requiring CPR was aortic rupture/cardiac tamponade (n = 21 [61.8%]), followed by coronary malperfusion (n = 12 [35.3%]) and acute aortic valve regurgitation (n = 3 [8.8%]). There were 3 (23.1%) patients in the survivors group and 11 (52.4%) in the nonsurvivors group who required ongoing CPR at the beginning of AAAD repair (P = .039). Of these patients, 1 survivor and 6 nonsurvivors could not achieve return of spontaneous circulation after pericardiotomy (P = .045). Although the duration from onset or arrival to the operating room was similar (P = .35 and P = .49, respectively), overall duration of CPR was shorter in survivors (10 minutes [range, 7.5-16 minutes] vs 16.5 minutes [range, 15-20 minutes]; P = .044). All survivors without any neurological deficits showed return of spontaneous circulation after pericardiotomy. Multivariate regression modeling showed that CPR duration >15 minutes was a significant risk factor for in-hospital mortality (P = .0040).ConclusionsCPR duration beyond 15 minutes may be a contraindication for AAAD repair. Moreover, we should reconsider surgery for patients who cannot achieve return of spontaneous circulation after pericardiotomy.     

Intravenous amino acid therapy for kidney protection in cardiac surgery patients: A pilot randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveTo determine whether a continuous intravenous infusion of standard amino acids could preserve kidney function after on-pump cardiac surgery.MethodsAdult patients scheduled to receive cardiac surgery lasting longer than 1 hour on-pump were randomized to standard care (n = 36) or an infusion of amino acids initiated immediately after induction of anesthesia (n = 33). The study's primary outcome measurements assessed renal function. These assessments included duration of renal dysfunction, duration and severity of acute kidney injury (AKI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time, urine output, and use of renal-replacement therapy. Complications and other measures of morbidity were also assessed.ResultsSixty-nine patients (mean age 71.5 [standard deviation 9.2] years; 19 of 69 women) were enrolled and randomized. Patients received coronary artery bypass graft surgery (37/69), valve surgery (24/69), coronary artery bypass graft and valve surgery (6/69), or other procedures (2/69). Mean on-pump time was 268 [standard deviation 136] minutes. Duration of renal dysfunction did not differ between the groups (relative risk, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-3.79, P = .84). However, patients who received the amino acid infusion had a reduced duration of AKI (relative risk, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.005-0.11, P < .0001) and greater eGFR (+10.8%; 95% CI, 1.0%-20.8%, P = .033). Daily mean urine output was also significantly greater in patients who received the amino acid infusion (1.4 ± 0.5 vs 1.7 ± 0.9 L/d; P = .046).ConclusionsCommencing an infusion of standard amino acids immediately after the induction of anesthesia did not alter duration of renal dysfunction; however, other key measures of renal function (duration of AKI, eGFR and urine output) were significantly improved. These results warrant replication in multicenter clinical trials.     

Optimum surgical treatment for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis: An analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons national database

ObjectiveThe incidence of intravenous drug–associated tricuspid valve endocarditis in the United States is rapidly increasing. Our goal was to evaluate the outcomes of isolated tricuspid valve operations using the Society of Thoracic Surgeon Adult Cardiac Surgical Database.MethodsFrom July 2011 to December 2016, 1613 patients with intravenous drug–associated tricuspid valve endocarditis underwent isolated tricuspid valve operations for endocarditis. Patients were stratified on the basis of type of tricuspid valve operation: valvectomy in 119 (7%), repair in 532 (33%), and replacement in 962 (60%). Risk factors and 30-day outcomes were compared among groups using Kruskal–Wallis and Pearson's chi-square tests. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated risk-adjusted operative mortality and morbidity by operative technique.ResultsAge, gender, race, and renal function were comparable among groups. Compared with the repair and replacement groups, the valvectomy group had a higher rate of acute infection (90% vs 79%, 84%; P < .01), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (10.17 vs 8.44, 9.74, P < .01), and urgent/emergency surgery (91% vs 75%, 83%; P < .01), respectively. Operative mortality was higher in those undergoing valvectomy (16%) (P < .01) compared with repair (2%) or replacement (3%). After risk adjustment, valvectomy was associated with a higher risk of operative mortality compared with repair (odds ratio, 3.82; P < .01), whereas there was no difference in operative mortality between repair and replacement (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .89).ConclusionsThis contemporary series of intravenous drug–associated tricuspid valve endocarditis reveals that valvectomy is an independent predictor of operative mortality. When anatomically possible, repair should be the preferred management for tricuspid valve endocarditis to avoid recurrent valve infection and prosthetic valve degeneration.