Redo-aortic valve replacement in prior stentless prosthetic aortic valves: Transcatheter versus surgical approach

Right anterior mini thoracotomy for redo cardiac surgery: case series from North America and Europe

Background

Right anterior mini thoracotomy (RAMT) for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a minimally invasive procedure that avoids sternotomy. Herein, we report the outcomes of patients who underwent redo-cardiac via a RAMT approach for AVR.

Methods

This case series reports the clinical outcomes of 14 consecutive redo operations, done in Calgary (Canada) and Gdansk (Poland) between 2020 and 2023. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and disabling stroke. Secondary outcomes included surgical times, hemodynamics, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM), length of ICU and hospital stay, new post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF), post-operative blood transfusion, incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), rate of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and/or dialysis, and chest tube output in the first 12-hours after surgery.

Results

Nine patients were male, and the mean age was 64.36 years. There were no deaths, while one patient had a disabling stroke postoperatively. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp-times were 136 min and 90 min, respectively. Three patients needed a PPM, 3 patients needed blood transfusions, and 2 developed new onset POAF. Median lengths of ICU and hospital stays were 2 and 12 days, respectively. There was no incidence of paravalvular leak greater than trace and the average transvalvular mean gradient was 12.23 mmHg.

Conclusion

The number of patients requiring redo-AVR is increasing. Redo-sternotomy may not be feasible for many patients. This study suggests that the RAMT approach is a safe alternative to redo-sternotomy for patients that require an AVR.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for older patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Multicentre experience of sutureless prostheses inside degenerated stentless aortic valves and bioroots

OBJECTIVES

Patients with failed stentless aortic prostheses are a challenging population to treat, as reoperative procedures may be complex and catheter-based treatments are associated with a high rate of procedural events. Reoperative surgery using sutureless valves may be an alternative.

METHODS

In this multicentre experience, we assess outcomes of 17 patients who underwent reoperative surgery using the Perceval valve (Corcym UK Limited, London, UK) inside Freestyle prosthesis (Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland) or bioroots from 2018 to 2023.

RESULTS

Mean age was 71.1 ±  standard deviation 15.1 years and mean EuroSCORE II was 13.5 ± 15.8%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score was 5.9 ± 11.7%. Mean transvalvular gradient at baseline was 25.3 ± 19.9 mmHg and left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.5 ±  standard deviation 8.5%. In 70.6% (12/17), moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was present. Implant success was 100%. Aortic cross-clamp time was 44.5 ±  standard deviation 23.6 min. No patient needed a pacemaker and no mild paravalvular regurgitation occurred. Mean gradient was 12.5 ± 4.7 mmHg; 30-day mortality was 5.9% (1/17).

CONCLUSIONS

Rate of mortality was lower than predicted by EuroSCORE II in these high-risk patients and haemodynamic outcomes were favourable. Heart teams should consider this treatment concept when discussing patients with failed stentless valves or bioroots.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%).

CONCLUSION

Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.