Clinical outcome of aortic valve replacement with 19-mm prosthetic valve in elderly patients

From 1979 to June 2005, 90 patients aged 65 or older underwent aortic valve replacement with 19-mm prosthetic valve. They were 84 women and 6 men, with a mean age of 74. The mean body surface area was 1.35 m2. Bioprosthetic valves were implanted in 77 patients (85.6%). In-hospital mortality was 2.2% (2 of 90). There were 13 late deaths. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improved to class I in most of survivors. Survival rates for 5 and 10 years were 84.9 and 71.2%, respectively. The outcome of aortic valve replacement with 19-mm prosthetic valve in elderly patients was excellent.     

Stentless aortic valve replacement in elderly patients

OBJECTIVE: Seven-year clinical and hemodynamic results of the Cryolife O'Brien (CLOB) stentless bioprosthesis in elderly patients are reported. METHODS: From 1993 to 2000, 36 patients aged >75 years had a CLOB implanted in the aortic position. Eighteen (50%) were male. All patients were monitored with serial echocardiograms performed preoperatively, at discharge, six months, one year and yearly thereafter. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 2.4% (1/36). Actuarial survival at one, five and seven years were 96.7+/-1.5, 94.8+/-2.0 and 94.8+/-2.0%, respectively. Peak and mean gradients (PG and MG) reduced and effective orifice area index (EOAI) increased over time (P<0.001). Left ventricular mass index (LVMI) reduced by 32 g/m2 at discharge (P<0.001) and by 33 g/m2 at six months (P<0.001) without further significant changes. CONCLUSIONS: In our series CLOB xenograft resulted to be a satisfactory valve substitute in elderly patients.     

Patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement in the elderly

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on survival and left ventricular mass regression in elderly patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients >65 years old who underwent isolated AVR from 1990 and 2007 were analyzed retrospectively. A bioprosthesis was used in 42 cases and a mechanical valve in 59. The mean follow-up period was 3.1 years (0.1-14.2 years). The indexed effective orifice area (i-EOA) was determined from echocardiographic data in clinical reports in the literature and indexed to body surface area (cm2/m2). Mild PPM was defined as an i-EOA between 0.65 and 0.85. We also evaluated the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and the left ventricular mass (LVM) index. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients (33.6%) had PPM. No patient had an i-EOA <0.65. Freedom from valve-related death was 86.3% +/- 6.7% in the PPM-negative group and 85.7% +/- 7.9% in the PPM-positive group at 5 years after AVR. The mean LVM index (g/m2) decreased significantly (P < 0.01), from 239.2 to 167.4 in the PPM-negative group and from 229.1 to 154.4 in the PPM-positive group, respectively. NYHA functional status was excellent at late follow-up in both groups. CONCLUSION: Mild PPM occurred in a large proportion of elderly patients undergoing AVR but did not affect midterm survival or LV mass regression.     

Durability and outcome of aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair versus double valve replacement

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate morbidity and mortality after double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP). METHODS: From 1977 to 2000, 379 patients underwent DVR (n = 299) or AVR + MVP (n = 80). Actuarial survival and freedom from reoperation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential predictors of mortality and reoperation were entered into a Cox multiple regression model. Propensity score was introduced for the multivariable regression modeling for adjustment of a selection bias. RESULTS: Survival 15 years after surgery was similar between the groups (DVR, 81% +/- 3%; AVR + MVP, 79% +/- 7%; p = 0.44). Freedom from thromboembolic event at 15 years was similar between the groups (p = 0.25). Freedom from mitral valve reoperation at 15 years was significantly better for the DVR group (54% +/- 5%) as compared with the AVR + MVP group (15% +/- 6%; p = 0.0006), primarily due to progression of mitral valve pathology and early structural deterioration of bioprosthetic aortic valve used for patients with AVR + MVP. After AVR + MVP, freedom from mitral reoperation at 15 years was 63% +/- 16% for nonrheumatic heart diseases, and 5% +/- 5% for rheumatic disease (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although both DVR and AVR + MVP provided excellent survival, DVR with mechanical valves should be the procedure of choice for the majority of patients because of lower incidence of valve failure and similar rate of thromboembolic complications compared with AVR + MVP. MVP should not be performed in patients with rheumatic disease because of higher incidence of late failure.     

Systematic review of the outcome of aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis

Background

After the establishment of aortic valve replacement procedure for aortic stenosis, there are heterogeneous studies and varying reports on outcome. An analysis that compares individual studies to summarize the overall effect is still lacking. This study systematically analyzes the change in left ventricular (LV) mass index and ejection fraction after aortic valve replacement in adult patients.

Methods

We performed MEDLINE and bibliographic searches and included 27 articles published between 1980 and 2003 about the outcome of valve replacement in 1546 aortic stenosis patients. To allow comparisons, we stratified the patients into early (0-6 months), intermediate (7-24 months), and late (25-120 months) follow-up groups for the analysis of both LV mass regression and ejection fraction. We separately analyzed five articles that reported groups of patients with low preoperative ejection fraction.

Results

Increase in ejection fraction after surgery is more pronounced in the patients that have low preoperative ejection fraction (28% ± 4.3%_preop vs 40% ± 9.4%_{6-41 months} follow-up). Patients with normal or high preoperative ejection fraction have variable outcomes. However, regression of LV mass is uniformly achieved regardless of age, sex, time of operation, or types of valve substitute. Furthermore, LV mass regresses predominantly within the first 6 months after surgery (g/m², 181 ± 25.8_preop vs 124 ± 27_{6 months}, 117 ± 15_{24 months}, and 113 ± 14_{120 months} follow-up).

Conclusions

This systematic review supports the concept that aortic stenosis patients with LV dysfunction show a clear functional improvement after aortic valve replacement. Ventricles regress rapidly and reach their approximate final size within the first 6 months of surgery.     

Surgical technique of aortic valve replacement for small aortic annulus in elderly patients

Recent reports have shown that aortic valve replacement in elderly patients over 65 years with atherosclerotic aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus is possible by using a small sized bioprosthesis (Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve). Here we present out surgical technique. Firstly, the native calcified aortic valve was removed completely to gain total exposure of the surrounding aortic root and sinus of Valsalva like Bentall procedure. Secondly, a small sized bioprosthesis was implanted with intermittent noneverting mattress 2-0 sutures with spaghetti and small polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) felt. Aortic annulus is the dilated by inserting Hegar dilator sizing from 25 to 27 mm. Therefore, aortic valve replacement for small aortic annulus in intra- or supra-annular position should be easily accomplished. Good surgical results and hemodynamic state were achieved in 25 consecutive cases using this technique.     

Mitral valve replacement in patients after aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve replacement in patients who previously had undergone aortic valve replacement is a technical challenge. The rigid aortic prosthesis limits visualization of the anterior mitral annulus and placement of sutures. METHODS: Reoperative mitral valve replacement was performed in five patients after aortic valve replacement. Two patients underwent resternotomy to allow verification of normal aortic prosthetic valve function. Anterolateral right thoracotomy was used for reentry in the remaining three patients. Exposure of the anterior mitral annulus was accomplished by initial traction on the intact anterior leaflet, with resection of this leaflet only after placement of sutures. RESULTS: All patients survived the surgical procedure and are well 2 to 30 months after operation. In one patient it was impossible to open one cusp of the mitral prosthesis, nor was it possible to rotate the valve. The valve was reimplanted, but sutures were tied only after testing for full free cusp motion. CONCLUSIONS: When appropriate, right thoracotomy incision offers excellent exposure of the mitral valve with minimal dissection. Placement of sutures along the anterior portion of the annulus is facilitated by traction downwards on the anterior leaflet. Full range of motion of the prosthetic cusps should be verified before tying the sutures.     

The optimal timing of aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis

Purpose

The elderly population with severe aortic stenosis (AS) requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) is increasing. The optimal timing of AVR in these patients has been under discussion.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data from severe AS patients (n = 84) who underwent AVR with/without concomitant procedures from 2005 to 2010. The symptom status, preoperative data, operative outcome, late survival and freedom from cardiac events were compared between elderly patients (age ≥80 years [n = 31]) and younger patients (age <80 years [n = 53]).

Results

The operative mortality in elderly patients (3.2 %) and younger patients (3.8 %) was comparable. The symptoms in elderly patients were more severe and hospitalized heart failure (HF) was more frequently noted as the primary symptom (p = 0.017). Patients with and without hospitalized HF differed significantly in late survival and freedom from cardiac events (p = 0.001), but advanced age had no significant effect. The results of a Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that hospitalized HF was a significant predictor for cardiac events after AVR, irrespective of age (hazard ratio 6.93, 95 % confidence interval 1.83–26.26, p < 0.004).

Conclusions

In elderly patients with severe AS, surgery should be recommended even in the presence of minimal symptoms and should be performed before the onset of life-threatening HF.     

Evaluation of aortic valve replacement involving small severely calcified aortic annulus in elderly patients

We performed aortic valve replacement in 24 patients aged over 70 with small calcified valves. The surgical management of such patients remains controversial as the extensive calcification compromises implantation. Hence, we used an ultrasonic debridement instrument to remove calcium and selected a small prosthesis with the largest possible orifice without enlargement of the aortic annulus. Echocardiography showed significant reductions in left ventricular mass index compared with preoperative values. Early and mid-term prognosis has been relatively good.     

Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: Meta-analysis and microsimulation

ObjectiveTo support decision-making in aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients, we provide a comprehensive overview of outcome after AVR with bioprostheses.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of studies reporting clinical outcome after AVR with bioprostheses in elderly patients (mean age ≥70 years; minimum age ≥65 years) published between January 1, 2000, to September 1, 2016. Reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risks.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 34 patient cohorts were included, encompassing a total of 12,842 patients with 55,437 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up 5.0 ± 3.3 years). Pooled mean age was 76.5 ± 5.5 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 5.42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-6.55), thromboembolism rate was 1.83%/year (95% CI, 1.28-3.61), and bleeding rate was 0.75%/year (95% CI, 0.50-1.11). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was based on pooled time to SVD data (Gompertz; shape: 0.124, rate: 0.003). For a 75-year-old patient, this translated to an estimated life expectancy of 9.8 years (general population: 10.2 years) and lifetime risks of bleeding of 7%, thromboembolism of 17%, and reintervention of 9%.ConclusionsThe low risks of SVD and reintervention support the use of bioprostheses in elderly patients in need of AVR. The estimated life expectancy after AVR was comparable with the general population. The results of this study inform patients and clinicians about the expected outcomes after bioprosthetic AVR and thereby support treatment decision-making. Furthermore, our results can be used as a benchmark for long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients who were eligible for surgery and other (future) alternative treatments (eg, tissue-engineered heart valves).     

Early experience of aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis in elderly patients.

OBJECTIVES: Stentless bioprostheses have been gaining popularity in recent years as hemodynamically superior alternatives to conventional stented bioprostheses. METHODS: Between July 1996 and November 1998, 13 patients with aortic valve disease, 7 males and 6 females with a mean age (+/- SD) of 68 +/- 5 years, underwent an aortic valve replacement using the Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis. The predominant lesions were stenosis in 8 patients and regurgitation in 5, while 2 patients had endocarditis. The operation was performed by a subcoronary technique in 9, root-inclusion technique in 3, and full root technique in 1 patient. RESULTS: Throughout the follow-up periods (with average follow-up period of 20.6 months), there was no hospital mortality, though there was one late death of unknown cause. The New York Heart Association class improved in all patients. The peak transvalvular gradient decreased from 18.4 +/- 9.8 to 12.6 +/- 9.6 mmHg, and the effective valve orifice area increased from 2.30 +/- 0.96 to 2.59 +/- 1.05 cm2 between the 1-month and the 6-month follow-up examinations. In patients with aortic regurgitation, the left ventricular end-diastolic/end-systolic volume index significantly decreased from 147 +/- 36/62 +/- 19 to 73 +/- 26/33 +/- 14 ml/m2 at 1 month after the operation. The left ventricular mass index also significantly decreased from 189 +/- 26 to 143 +/- 30 g/m2 in patients with aortic regurgitation and from 171 +/- 28 to 144 +/- 30 g/m2 in those with aortic stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although long-term follow-up is required for further evaluation, the early results appeared to indicate that the Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis was suitable for elderly patients requiring aortic valve replacement.     

Clinical experience with stentless pericardial aortic monopatch for aortic valve replacement

A stentless pericardial aortic monopatch was used in 60 consecutive patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. The monopatch is constructed of a sheet of glutaraldehyde-treated bovine pericardium, tailored and shaped to fit the aortic anulus, and is sutured in place without a stent or sewing ring. The valve area is effectively preserved by this method. Results indicate that this technique is simple, inexpensive, and applicable to all cases of aortic valve disease. It does not require anticoagulation and may allow for annular growth when used in children. This technique is particularly suitable for patients with infective endocarditis because the amount of foreign material is minimized.