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.     

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.     

Redefining “low risk”: Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era

ObjectivesGuidelines suggest aortic valve replacement (AVR) for low-risk asymptomatic patients. Indications for transcatheter AVR now include low-risk patients, making it imperative to understand state-of-the-art surgical AVR (SAVR) in this population. Therefore, we compared SAVR outcomes in low-risk patients with those expected from Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) models and assessed their intermediate-term survival.MethodsFrom January 2005 to January 2017, 3493 isolated SAVRs were performed in 3474 patients with STS predicted risk of mortality <4%. Observed operative mortality and composite major morbidity or mortality were compared with STS-expected outcomes according to calendar year of surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for these outcomes. Patients were followed for time-related mortality.ResultsWith 15 observed operative deaths (0.43%) compared with 55 expected (1.6%), the observed:expected ratio was 0.27 for mortality (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.42), stroke 0.65 (95% CI, 0.41-0.89), and reoperation 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.60). Major morbidity or mortality steadily declined, with probabilities of 8.6%, 6.7%, and 5.2% in 2006, 2011, and 2016, respectively, while STS-expected risk remained at approximately 12%. Mitral valve regurgitation, ventricular hypertrophy, pulmonary, renal, and hepatic failure, coronary artery disease, and earlier surgery date were residual risk factors. Survival was 98%, 91%, and 82% at 1, 5, and 9 years, respectively, superior to that predicted for the US age-race-sex–matched population.ConclusionsSTS risk models overestimate contemporary SAVR risk at a high-volume center, supporting efforts to create a more agile quality assessment program. SAVR in low-risk patients provides durable survival benefit, supporting early surgery and providing a benchmark for transcatheter AVR.     

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.     

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.     

Ministernotomy compared with right anterior minithoracotomy for aortic valve surgery

ObjectivesMinisternotomy and right anterior minithoracotomy are the 2 main techniques applied for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The goal of this study is to compare early and long-term outcomes of both techniques.MethodsThe data of 2419 patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between 1999 and 2019 were prospectively collected. Retrospectively, patients were divided into the ministernotomy group (n = 1352) and the minithoracotomy group (n = 1067).ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 986 patients remained in each group. Operation time and rate of conversion to full sternotomy were significantly higher in the minithoracotomy group than in the ministernotomy group (184.6 ± 45.2 vs 241.3 ± 68.6, relative risk, 2.54, P = .005 and .09 vs .23, relative risk, 1.45, P = .013, respectively). The 30-day mortality, excluding cardiac death, was lower in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (0.012 vs 0.028, relative risk, 1.41, P = .011, respectively); the intensive care unit length of stay (12.4 vs 16.5, relative risk, 1.62, P = .037, respectively) and hospital length of stay (5.4 vs 8.7, relative risk, 1.74 P = .028, respectively) were significantly longer in the minithoracotomy group. The minithoracotomy surgical approach was the strongest independent predictor of early mortality (odds ratio, 4.24 [1.67-7.35], P = .002). The actuarial survival by Kaplan–Meier analysis at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years was significantly better in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (P = .0001). Actuarial freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 97.3% ± 4.4% in the ministernotomy group versus 95.8% ± 5.2% in the minithoracotomy group (P = .087).ConclusionsMinimally invasive aortic valve replacement using ministernotomy is associated with reduced operative time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and postoperative morbidities and incisional pain, and improves early and long-term mortality.     

The impact of surgical aortic valve replacement on quality of life—a multicenter study

ObjectivesTo explore the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement on quality of life and the variance with age, particularly in patients at risk of deterioration.MethodsIn an observational, multicenter, cohort study of routinely collected health data, patients undergoing and electively operated between January 2011 and January 2015 with pre- and postoperative quality of life data were included. Patients were classified into 3 age groups: <65, 65-79, and ≥80 years. Quality of life was measured at baseline and at 1-year follow-up using the Short-Form Health Survey-12 or SF-36. We defined a >5-point difference as a minimal clinically important difference. Multivariable linear regression analysis, with adjustment for confounders, was used to evaluate the association between age and quality of life.ResultsIn 899 patients, mean physical health increased from 55 to 66 and mental health from 60 to 66. A minimal clinically important decreased physical health was observed in 12% of patients aged <65 years, 16% of patients aged 65-79 years, and 22% of patients aged ≥80 years (P = .023). A decreased mental health was observed in 15% of patients aged <65 years, 22% of patients aged 65-79 years, and 24% aged ≥80 years (P = .030). Older age and a greater physical and mental score at baseline were associated with a decreased physical and mental quality of life (P < .001).ConclusionsPatients surviving surgical aortic valve replacement on average improve in physical and mental quality of life; nonetheless, with increasing age patients are at higher risk of experiencing a deterioration.     

Antithrombotic therapy and bleeding events after aortic valve replacement with a novel bioprosthesis

ObjectiveSeveral recent-generation surgical tissue valves have been found to have bleeding rates exceeding rates recommended by regulatory bodies. We explored bleeding events using data from the Pericardial Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial for the Avalus valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) to examine whether this end point remains relevant for the evaluation of bioprostheses.MethodsPatients (n = 1115) underwent aortic valve replacement. Bleeding and thromboembolic event episodes in patients within 3 years postimplant were analyzed for frequency, timing, and severity, focusing on patients taking antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications at the time of the event. Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes are also reported.ResultsAt 3 years, the Kaplan-Meier cumulative probability estimate of all-cause death was 7.2% (cardiac, 3.6%; valve-related, 1.1%). The Kaplan-Meier cumulative probability estimates of all and major hemorrhage were 8.7% and 5.2%, respectively. Ninety-nine bleeding events occurred in 86 patients: most occurred >30 days postsurgery. Among the 51 late major bleeds, in 5 cases the patients were taking anticoagulant/antiplatelet medication for prophylaxis after surgical aortic valve replacement at the time of the event, whereas the remaining patients were taking medications for other reasons. Age (hazard ratio, 1.035; 95% confidence interval, 1.004-1.068), peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio, 2.135; 95% confidence interval, 1.106-4.122), renal dysfunction (hazard ratio, 1.920; 95% confidence interval, 1.055-3.494), and antithrombotic medication use at the time of the event (hazard ratio, 1.417; 95% confidence interval, 1.048-1.915) were associated with late bleeds (major and minor).ConclusionsOverall clinical outcomes demonstrated low mortality and few complications except for major bleeding. Most bleeding events occurred >30 days after surgery and in patients taking antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation for indications other than postimplant prophylaxis.     

Late results of aortic valve repair for isolated severe aortic regurgitation

ObjectivesThe objectives were to analyze the long-term outcomes of tricuspid aortic valve repair for isolated severe aortic regurgitation and the impact of different annuloplasty techniques.MethodsThe study cohort consists of 127 consecutive patients who received aortic valve repair for isolated severe aortic regurgitation in the tricuspid aortic valve between 1996 and 2019 in our institution. Exclusion criteria were aorta dilatation (≥45 mm), connective tissue disease, active endocarditis, type A dissection, and rheumatic disease. Mean age of patients was 55.6 ± 16 years, and 80% were male. Median follow-up was 6.4 years. Time-to-event analysis was performed, as well as risk of death, reoperation, and aortic regurgitation recurrence.ResultsCusp repair was performed in 117 patients (92%), and annuloplasty was performed in 126 patients (99%) with Cabrol stitch (73%), reimplantation technique (19.7%), or ring annuloplasty (6.3%). There was no hospital mortality. At 10 and 14 years, overall survival was 81% ± 5% and 71% ± 6%, respectively, and freedom from reoperation was 80% ± 5% and 73% ± 6%, respectively. Age and left coronary cusp repair were independent predictors of reoperation. Freedom from recurrent severe aortic regurgitation (>2+) was 73% ± 5% and 66% ± 7% at 10 and 12 years, respectively. Age, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and patch repair were independent predictors of recurrent aortic regurgitation. Type of annuloplasty had no impact on survival or reoperation.ConclusionsAortic valve repair for isolated severe aortic regurgitation in the tricuspid aortic valve is a safe procedure, and durability at 14 years is acceptable. In this study, the annuloplasty technique did not influence repair durability as was found in bicuspid aortic valve repair or aortic valve–sparing surgery. Severity of cusp pathology seems to be the main determinant of repair durability.     

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.     

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.     

The fate of aortic root and aortic regurgitation after supracoronary ascending aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the fate of the preserved aortic root after supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection.MethodsBetween October 1999 and March 2018, 339 patients underwent supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection at our institution. Late outcomes were evaluated, including overall survival, aortic-related death, and aortic root–related reoperation. The median follow-up was 3.7 years (1.4-8.4 years).ResultsOperative mortality was 46 patients (13.6%). The cumulative incidences at 5 years for aortic root–related reoperation, aortic-related death, and non–aortic related death were 2.5%, 14.5% and 12.4%, respectively. Multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis demonstrated greater sinus of Valsalva diameter and number of commissural detachments to be significant risk factors for a composite outcome consisting of aortic-related death or aortic root–related reoperation. Mixed-effects regression demonstrated that sinus of Valsalva diameter significantly increased with time (P < .001), and aortic regurgitation significantly worsened (P < .001).ConclusionsSinus of Valsalva diameter and commissural detachment were independent predictors of unfavorable outcomes after supracoronary aortic replacement. Close follow-up is particularly necessary for these patients, and aortic root replacement at the time of initial operation may lead to more favorable late outcomes.     

Bioprosthetic versus mechanical mitral valve replacements in patients with rheumatic heart disease

BackgroundRheumatic heart disease (RHD) remains a critical problem in developed countries. Few studies have compared the long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves in patients with RHD who have received mitral valve (MV) replacement.MethodsPatients with RHD who received MV replacement with bioprosthetic or mechanical valves were identified between 2000 and 2013 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. The primary late outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and redo MV surgery. Propensity score matching at a 1:1 ratio was performed.ResultsWe identified 3638 patients with RHD who underwent MV replacement. Among those patients, 1075 (29.5%) and 2563 (70.5%) chose a bioprosthetic valve and mechanical valve, respectively. After matching, 788 patients were assigned to each group. No significant difference in the risk of in-hospital mortality was observed between groups (P = .920). Higher risks of all-cause mortality (10-year actuarial estimates: 50.6% vs 45.5%; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.41; P = .040) and MV reoperation (10-year actuarial estimates: 8.9% vs 0.93%; subdistribution hazard ratio, 4.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.71-12.17; P <.01) were observed in the bioprosthetic valve group. Furthermore, the relative mortality benefit associated with mechanical valves was more apparent in younger patients and the beneficial effect persisted until approximately 65 years of age.ConclusionsIn the patients with RHD who underwent MV replacement, mechanical valves were associated with more favorable long-term outcomes in patients younger than the age of 65 years.     

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.     

Prosthetic choice in mitral valve replacement for severe chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation: Long-term follow-up

BackgroundProsthetic choice for mitral valve replacement is generally driven by patient age and patient and surgeon preference, and current guidelines do not discriminate between different etiologies of mitral valve disease. Our objective was to assess and compare short- and long-term outcomes after mitral valve replacement among patients with biological or mechanical prostheses in the setting of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.MethodsBetween 2000 and 2016, 424 patients underwent mitral valve replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation at our institution, using biological prosthesis in 188 (44%) and mechanical prosthesis in 236 (56%). A 1:1 propensity score match (n = 126 per group) and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to compare groups. Short-term outcomes included in-hospital mortality and other cardiovascular adverse events. Long-term outcomes included survival and hospital readmission for cardiovascular causes, stroke, and major bleeding.ResultsIn-hospital mortality and early postoperative adverse events were similar between groups in the propensity score match and inverse probability of treatment weighting cohorts. Overall long-term survival was similar at 5 and 9 years, but mechanical prosthesis recipients were more frequently readmitted to hospital for cardiovascular causes, including stroke and non-neurological bleeding in propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses (all P values < .004). Type of prosthesis did not independently influence all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.43; P = .959), but placement of a mechanical prosthesis was associated with increased risk of readmission for cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.32; P = .004) among matched patients.ConclusionsThe type of prosthesis has no influence on long-term survival among patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve replacement. There may be an increased risk of neurologic events and serious bleeding associated with mechanical prostheses.     

Congenital aortic and truncal valve reconstruction using the Ozaki technique: Short-term clinical results

ObjectivesAortic valve reconstruction (AVRec) with neocuspidization or the Ozaki procedure with complete cusp replacement for aortic valve disease has excellent mid-term results in adults. Limited results of AVRec in pediatric patients have been reported. We report our early outcomes of the Ozaki procedure for congenital aortic and truncal valve disease.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on all 57 patients with congenital aortic and truncal valve disease who had a 3-leaflet Ozaki procedure at a single institution from August 2015 to February 2019. Outcome measures included mortality, surgical or catheter-based reinterventions, and echocardiographic measurements.ResultsTwenty-four patients had aortic regurgitation (AR), 6 had aortic stenosis (AS), and 27 patients had AS/AR. Two patients had quadricuspid valves, 26 had tricuspid, 20 had bicuspid, and 9 had unicusp aortic valves. Four patients had truncus arteriosus. Thirty-four patients had previous aortic valve repairs and 5 had replacements. Preoperative echocardiography mean annular diameter was 20.90 ± 4.98 cm and peak gradient for patients with AS/AR was 53.62 ± 22.20 mm Hg. Autologous, Photofix, and CardioCel bovine pericardia were used in 20, 35, and 2 patients. Eight patients required aortic root enlargement and 20 had sinus enlargement. Fifty-one patients had concomitant procedures. Median intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were 1.87 and 6.38 days. There were no hospital mortalities or early conversions to valve replacement. At discharge, 98% of patients had mild or less regurgitation and peak aortic gradient was 16.9 ± 9.5 mm Hg. Two patients underwent aortic valve replacement. At median follow-up of 8.1 months, 96% and 91% of patients had less than moderate regurgitation and stenosis, respectively.ConclusionsThe AVRec procedure has acceptable short-term results and should be considered for valve reconstruction in pediatric patients with congenital aortic and truncal valve disease. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine the optimal patch material and late valve function and continued annular growth.     

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.     

Durability and clinical experience using a bovine pericardial prosthetic aortic valve

ObjectivesTo report the implant experience and long-term outcomes from a large tertiary care referral center on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a contemporary stented pericardial bioprosthesis with anticalcification treatment.MethodsPatients underwent SAVR using the Trifecta valve at a single institution. Endpoints included procedural outcomes, adverse events, prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM), long-term survival, and valve durability. Follow-up included 30-day, 6-month, and annual assessments. Treatment for structural valve deterioration (SVD) included surgical explant and valve-in-valve (V-in-V) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).ResultsSAVR was performed in 1241 patients (median age, 73.5 ± 6.4 years; 54% male; median logistic EuroSCORE, 7.8) with concomitant procedures in 713 cases (57.5%). Intraprocedural mortality was 1.4%, and 30-day mortality was 6.0%. At hospital discharge, 68 patients (5.5%) had moderate PPM, and no patients had severe PPM. Adverse events included cardiac arrhythmias (44.7%, mostly atrial fibrillation), respiratory failure (22.9%), acute renal failure requiring temporary renal replacement therapy (12.9%), and low cardiac output syndrome (3.3%). Follow-up data were available over a total of 5469 patient-years (median duration of follow-up, 4.7 years). Freedom at 8 years from all-cause mortality, valve-related mortality, reoperation for SVD (redo SAVR or V-in-V TAVI), and endocarditis were 78.4%, 98.0%, 93.3%, and 96.5%, respectively. Of the 30 patients with SVD, 17 were treated by V-in-V TAVI and 13 underwent surgical explant.ConclusionsOutcomes from this large single-center cohort at increased surgical risk demonstrate excellent long-term durability of the Trifecta valve for SAVR and feasibility of treating SVD by V-in-V TAVI.