In patients with concomitant aortic and mitral valve disease is aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair superior to double valve replacement?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in patients with concomitant aortic and mitral valve disease is aortic valve replacement with mitral valve plasty (MVP) superior to double valve replacement (DVR) in terms of improved long-term survival? Altogether 156 papers were found using the reported search, of which seven represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Out of seven papers, that simultaneously compare these two treatment modalities, three favor MVP combined with aortic valve replacement (AVR) over DVR, two papers advocate the opposite and two failed to find any significant difference in long-term survival, freedom from reoperation and thromboembolic and bleeding complications between these two surgical options. All data presented derive from level 2b evidence. Critical appraisal of these studies is constricted by the large heterogeneity of the patients, diversity in treatment protocols and inherent selection bias. We conclude that currently the available evidence is insufficient to prove that AVR with MVP is superior to DVR in patients with double valve disease.     

Is prophylactic aortic valve replacement indicated during mitral valve surgery for mild to moderate aortic valve disease?

BACKGROUND: Determining the need for surgical treatment of coexisting mild to moderate aortic valve disease in patients referred for mitral valve surgery is often difficult. The purpose of this study was to assess long-term clinical outcome and the need for subsequent aortic valve replacement in patients with mild to moderate rheumatic aortic valve disease at the time of mitral valve surgery. METHODS: A total of 275 patients (90 men and 185 women, mean age 43 years) with rheumatic disease who underwent mitral valve surgery were followed up for an average of 9 years. Patients were classified into two groups: those with coexisting mild to moderate aortic valve disease at the time of mitral valve surgery (141 patients, group A) and those without (134 patients, group B). Primary outcomes (death and subsequent aortic valve surgery) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: At the time of mitral valve surgery, 104 patients (74%) in group A had mild aortic regurgitation, 37 (26%) had moderate aortic regurgitation, 5 had (4%) mild aortic stenosis, and 2 (1%) had moderate aortic stenosis. At the end of follow-up, no patient had severe aortic valve disease. In all, 12 patients (5%) in group A had primary events (eight deaths and four subsequent aortic valve replacements), and 12 patients (9%) in group B had such events (12 deaths). According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, neither the survival rate nor the event-free survival rate differed significantly over the follow-up period between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In most patients who have mild to moderate rheumatic aortic valve disease at the time of mitral valve surgery, the long-term outcome is comparable to that of subjects without aortic valve disease at the time of mitral valve surgery. Subsequent aortic valve replacement is rarely needed after a long follow-up period.     

Is a stentless aortic valve superior to conventional bioprosthetic valves for aortic valve replacement?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether a stentless valve is superior to conventional stented valves when tissue aortic valve replacement is performed. Altogether more than 515 papers were found using the reported search, of which 16 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We conclude that stentless valves allow a larger effective orifice area valve to be implanted with a lower mean and peak aortic gradient postoperatively. At six months several studies and a meta-analysis have shown superior left ventricular mass regression in the stentless valve groups. However, by 12 months the stented valve groups catch up in terms of mass regression and this significance disappears. So the 'eminent speaker from the floor', was right with his statement, that there have been no definitively proven benefits for stentless valves.     

When to refer patients with chronic kidney disease for vascular access surgery: Should age be a consideration?

To determine whether age should inform our approach toward permanent vascular access placement in patients with chronic kidney disease, we conducted a retrospective cohort study among 11 290 non-dialysis patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <25 ml/min/1.73 m(2) based on 2000-2001 outpatient creatinine measurements in the Department of Veterans Affairs. For each age group, we examined the percentage of patients that had and had not received a permanent access by 1 year after cohort entry, and the percentage in each of these groups that died, started dialysis, or survived without dialysis. We also modeled the number of unnecessary procedures that would have occurred in theoretical scenarios based on existing vascular access guidelines. The mean eGFR was 17.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2) at cohort entry. Twenty-five percent (n=2870) of patients initiated dialysis within a year of cohort entry. Among these, only 39% (n=1104) had undergone surgery to place a permanent access beforehand. As compared with younger patients, older patients were less likely to undergo permanent access surgery, but also less likely to start dialysis. In all theoretical scenarios examined, older patients would have been more likely than younger patients to receive unnecessary procedures. If all patients had been referred for permanent access surgery at cohort entry, the ratio of unnecessary to necessary procedures after 2 years of follow-up would have been 5:1 for patients aged 85-100 years but only 0.5:1 for those aged 18-44 years. Currently recommended approaches to permanent access placement based on a single threshold level of renal function for patients of all ages are not appropriate.     

Is repair of aortic valve regurgitation a safe alternative to valve replacement?

OBJECTIVE: To assess outcome of valve repair in patients with aortic valve regurgitation with emphasis on incidence and risk of reoperation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 160 consecutive patients (127 men) who underwent aortic valve repair between 1986 and 2001. Ages ranged from 14 to 84 years (mean 55 +/- 17 years). Patients were categorized according to the main etiology of valve disease; 63 patients (39%) had annular dilation leading to central leakage, 54 (34%) had bicuspid valve, 34 (21%) with tricuspid valve had cusp prolapse, and 9 (6%) had cusp perforation. Repair methods included commissural plication (n = 154, 96%), partial cusp resection with plication (n = 47, 29%), resuspension or cusp shortening (n = 44, 28%), and closure of cusp perforation (n = 10, 6%). RESULTS: There was 1 early death (0.6%). Two patients required re-repair of the aortic valve during initial hospitalization. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, there were 16 late deaths. Overall, 16 of 159 hospital survivors had late reoperation on the aortic valve (mean interval 2.8 years) without early mortality. Risks of reoperation on the aortic valve were 9%, 11%, and 15% at 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve repair can be performed with low risk and excellent freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortality. Late recurrence of aortic valve regurgitation led to reoperation in 8.8% of patients, but mortality associated with subsequent procedures is low. Aortic valve repair appears to be a good option for selected patients, particularly young patients who wish to avoid chronic anticoagulation with warfarin.     

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in diabetes: When to refer to the hepatologist?

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become one of the most common chronic liver diseases worldwide. A strong relationship exists between NAFLD and diabetes mellitus. There is growing evidence of a mechanistically complex and strong association between the two diseases. Current data also shows that one disease actually leads to worsening of the other and vice versa. Understanding of the various pathophysiological mechanisms involved, natural history and spectrum of these two diseases is essential not only for early diagnosis and management but also for prevention of severe disease forms. Despite the tremendous progress made in recent times in acquiring knowledge about these highly prevalent diseases, the guidelines and recommendations for screening and management of diabetics with NAFLD remain ambiguous. An interdisciplinary approach is required to not only raise awareness of the prevalence of NAFLD in diabetics but also for better patient management. This can help attenuate the development of significant complications, such as cirrhosis, decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma in these patients, thereby halting NAFLD in its tracks. This review focuses on the pivotal role of primary care physicians and endocrinologists in identification of NAFLD in diabetics in early stages and the role of proactive screening for prompt referral to hepatologist.     

Papillary fibroelastoma of the aortic valve in a ��-thalassemia patient

Papillary fibroelastomas are uncommon benign tumors with frond-like growths usually arising from the heart valves. The identification of their presence is of major clinical importance owing to the fact that although rarely symptomatic they can cause coronary occlusion, stroke, and even sudden cardiac death. We present an asymptomatic 38-year-old woman with homozygous β-thalassemia in whom transthoracic echocardiography incidentally discovered an aortic mass. Two-dimensional echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the diagnosis of papillary fibroelastoma. Valvesparing tumor resection, even in asymptomatic patients, is recommended as the standard therapy procedure.     

Are bicuspid aortic valves a limitation for aortic valve repair?

Objective: To compare the mid-term results after aortic valve (AV) repair in bicuspid AVs with those in tricuspid AVs. Methods: Between 2000 and 2010, 100 patients (mean age 47.2 years) underwent AV repair procedures for insufficient bicuspid AV (n = 43) and tricuspid AV (n = 57). Aortic regurgitation (AR) more than moderate was present in 31/43 and 21/57 patients in the bicuspid AV and the tricuspid AV group, respectively. Concomitant root replacement by either the reimplantation or the remodeling technique was performed in 42 patients (bicuspid AV 17/43, tricuspid AV 25/57). All patients were prospectively studied with postoperative and further annual clinical assessment and echocardiography. Follow-up was 99% complete with a mean follow-up time of 22 months. Results: Three patients died during the initial hospitalization, all due to postoperative cardiac failure. Overall actuarial 3 years’ survival was 93 ± 4.2% without significant differences between the two groups. Overall actuarial 3 years’ freedom from AV-related reoperation was 86 ± 5.1% without significant differences between the groups (85 ± 9.7% for bicuspid AV, 86 ± 6.0% for tricuspid AV; log-rank test: p = 0.98). Overall actuarial 3 years’ freedom from recurrent AR ≥ moderate was 100% and AR > trace was 71.3 ± 8.2% without significant differences between the groups (76.5 ± 11.7% for bicuspid AV, 71.4 ± 9.4 for tricuspid AV; log-rank test: p = 0.97). Conclusions: The mid-term outcome in terms of survival, freedom from reoperation or recurrent AR is similar for both groups of patients after AV repair procedures. Therefore, we advocate valve repair also in patients presenting with an insufficient bicuspid AV.     

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in patients with concomitant mitral regurgitation: should the mitral valve be dealt with?

Co-existent mitral regurgitation may adversely influence both morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Whilst it is accepted that concomitant mitral intervention is required in severe, symptomatic mitral regurgitation, in cases of mild–moderate non-structural mitral regurgitation, improvement may be seen following aortic valve replacement alone, avoiding the increased risk of double-valve surgery. The exact benefit of such a conservative approach is, however, yet to be adequately quantified. We performed a systematic literature review identifying 17 studies incorporating 3053 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with co-existing mitral regurgitation. These were meta-analysed using random effects modelling. Heterogeneity and subgroup analysis were assessed. Primary end points were change in mitral regurgitation severity and 30-day, 3-, 5- and 10-year mortality. Secondary end points were end-organ dysfunction (neurovascular, renal and respiratory), and the extent of ventricular remodelling following aortic valve replacement. Our results revealed improvement in the severity of mitral regurgitation following aortic valve replacement in 55.5% of patients, whereas 37.7% remained unchanged, and 6.8% worsened. No significant difference was seen between overall data and either the functional or moderate subgroups. The overall 30-day mortality following aortic valve replacement was 5%. This was significantly higher in moderate–severe mitral regurgitation than nil–mild mitral regurgitation both overall (p = 0.002) and in the functional subgroup (p = 0.004). Improved long-term survival was seen at 3, 5 and 10 years in nil–mild mitral regurgitation when compared with moderate–severe mitral regurgitation in all groups (overall p < 0.0001, p < 0.00001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The relative risk of respiratory, renal and neurovascular complications were 7%, 6% and 4%, respectively. Reverse remodelling was demonstrated by a significant reduction in left-ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left-ventricular mass (p = 0.0007 and 0.01, respectively), without significant heterogeneity. No significant change was seen in left-ventricular end-systolic diameter (p = 0.10), septal thickness (p = 0.17) or left atrial area (p = 0.23). We conclude that despite reverse remodelling, concomitant moderate–severe mitral regurgitation adversely affects both early and late mortality following aortic valve replacement. Concomitant mitral intervention should therefore be considered in the presence of moderate mitral regurgitation, independent of the aetiology.