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 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.     

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.     

Sleeve gastrectomy to aortic valve replacement: safe?

BackgroundBariatric surgery has favorable results on cardiac structure and function, but there is minimal research on its utility in the cardiac comorbid population.ObjectivesTo determine if laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is safe in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS).SettingCommunity hospital/bariatric center of excellence in Pennsylvania.MethodsRetrospective single center review of 18 patients with morbid obesity and clinically significant AS. All SGs were performed between June 2016 and June 2020. Outcomes including hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality in the study population (n = 18) were compared with 100 patients without AS who underwent SG at the same institution during the same time.ResultsThere were no perioperative deaths. Mean hospital stay in the study group was 1.78 days compared with 1.3 days in the noncardiac group (P = .1154). Two of 18 patients (11.1%) required readmission within 30 days, both for clinically significant bleeding, compared with 2 of 100 noncardiac patients (2.0%) (P = .1097). Seventeen of 18 study patients went on to have definitive aortic valve replacement surgery.ConclusionSG appears safe in patients with clinically significant AS. Although the AS group did have a higher rate of complications, these were manageable and did not increase mortality or LOS. Further studies are required to determine if outcomes of definitive aortic valve replacement are improved after bariatric surgery.     

Do patients want minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?

Objective: Access to aortic valve can be performed through small incisions. However, a considerable advantage of this approach has not been proven by randomized studies so far. We wanted to elucidate the opinion of patients when they are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive approach prior to operation. Methods: This prospective study was performed with 27 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. These patients were informed prior to operation by the same resident concerning objective data. A photograph was shown illustrating a patient with postoperative wound after a standard- and a mini-incision, respectively. After the interview the patient could decide between full and partial sternotomy. Results: After the interview 21/27 (78%) patients preferred to have a full sternotomy (group F) and 6/27 (22%) patients (group P) decided to have a partial sternotomy. Comments of group F: surgeon should have best exposure (n=15); cosmetics aspects unimportant (n=14); operation time as short as possible (n=7). Group P: cosmetic aspects important (n=6). Significant differences between groups (group F vs. group P): age (years), 69.1±1.5 vs. 49.2±7.3 (P=0.024); operation time (min), 142±7 vs. 189±15 (P=0.002); CK (IU/l), 111±11 vs. 374±114 (P=0.0007); CKMB (IU/l), 17±2 vs. 45±17 (P=0.006); ICU-stay (days), 2.6±0.2 vs. 3.2±0.2 (P=0.044). Pericardial effusion requiring drainage was observed in two patients of group P. One patient of group P suffered myocardial infarction. Conclusion: When patients are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimal invasive aortic valve surgery only a smaller number decides to have a mini incision. The patients preferring short incisions are significantly younger since cosmetic aspects are more important. Longer duration of operation may be due to longer hemostasis based on limited exposure. Air bubbles due to inadequate de-airing might be responsible for higher CK and CK-MB levels in group P.     

Do statins slow the progression of aortic valve stenosis?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether therapy with statins significantly slows the progression of aortic valve stenosis. Altogether 226 papers were found using the reported search, of which twelve represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The results of the reported studies provided conflicting results. There are twelve studies. Ten retrospective studies and one prospective had been promising with a slower rate of hemodynamic progression in patients taking statins. One retrospective and one randomized controlled trial did not halt the progression of calcific aortic stenosis or induce its regression. The data are discrepant as to whether this effect is related to serum lipid levels or to other effects of statins. While the data are not yet strong enough to change clinical practice, two large randomized controlled trials (ASTRONOMER and SEAS) which have recruited 272 and 1873 patients, respectively, will provide important new evidence in this area in the near future.     

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.     

Optimal timing of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis--are we operating late?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adherence to current guidelines for surgery in patients with aortic valve stenosis. DESIGN: From 1 January 1997 to 31 May 1999, 99 patients were accepted for aortic valve surgery with preserved left ventricular function and normal coronary angiogram. On admission for operation, 20 patients were evaluated regarding symptoms, exercise capacity, and left ventricular morphology and function. RESULTS: There were 14 men and 6 women, mean age 64.3 years. Years from symptom onset varied from 2.1 to 3.2. Dyspnoea was the most common limiting symptom. Thirty per cent of the patients were classified as NYHA IIIB. Physical capacity was reduced to 79% of the expected. Left ventricular hypertrophy was present in 14/20 patients. Left ventricular systolic function was reduced with mean ejection fraction of 0.46. Diastolic dysfunction (E/A ratio <1) was present in 12 patients. CONCLUSION: Many patients accepted for aortic valve replacement due to aortic stenosis show advanced disease and are referred for surgery later in the disease process than is recommended in the current guidelines.     

Is routine computed tomography angiography justified in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve disease?

Background

Role of Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) in patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV) undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) needs assessment.

Patients and Methods

After echocardiography, 54 patients with BAV were referred for AVR. CTA was performed routinely. Pre-operative characteristics, echocardiographic and CTA findings, and details of surgery were obtained.

Results

The study population had 54 subjects (48 males). Median age was 35.5 years (range 7 to 78 years), and median weight was 57.5 Kg (range 14 to 83 kg). On echocardiography, aortic sinus diameter ranged from 13 to 38 mm (median 28 mm). In none of the patients, ascending aorta was reported to be dilated. On CT angiography, the sinus diameter ranged from 16 to 46 mm (median 35 mm). Sinus diameter was ≥40 mm in 13 patients. The sinus diameter on echocardiography was within the range of 0 to 2 mm of CT angiographic estimates in 31 patients, within 2.1 to 5 mm in 22 patients, and more than 5 mm in one patient. The ascending aortic diameter ranged from 19 to 70 mm (median 43 mm). In 26 patients, ascending aortic diameter was ≥45 mm. In 12 patients, the proximal arch diameter was ≥40 mm. In two patients, the distal ascending aorta and proximal arch were aneurysmally dilated (48 mm and 57 mm). In 12 patients, the ascending aorta was dilated (≥ 45 mm) without any sinus dilatation. In one patient, the distal ascending aorta and proximal arch were aneurysmally dilated (57 mm) without any proximal dilatation. Based on CT angiographic findings, 25 patients (46.3 %) underwent additional aortic replacement in the form of Bentall’s procedure (n?=?7), Bentall’s + Hemiarch replacement (n?=?6), aortoplasty (n?=?5), Wheat procedure (n?=?6) and Wheat procedure?+?Hemiarch replacement (n?=?1).

Conclusion

CT angiography is justified as a routine pre-operative evaluation tool in all patients with BAV who are undergoing open heart surgery for significant aortic valve dysfunction.