Ten years outcome of Chitra heart valves

Aortic valve replacement in small aortic root- Bi-leaflet mechanical valve is superior to a Mono-leaflet mechanical valve

Background

Patient prosthetic mismatch is a serious but avoidable complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) complicated by a small aortic annulus. This study aims to compare early and midterm outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a mono-leaflet (ML) valve and a bi-leaflet (BL) valve in a small aortic root.

Methods and selection

From January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2019, 98 patients diagnosed with small aortic root underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with either TTK Chitra valve (Mono-leaflet/ ML group) or St. Jude medical valve (Bi-leaflet/ BL group) of size 17/ 19 mm. Echocardiography was analyzed from medical records and telephonic follow-up.

Results

Baseline parameters were comparable. The ML group had 42 patients and the BL group had 56 patients. Aortic cross-clamp time, the incidence of severe patient prosthetic mismatch (p = 0.002) and mean, peak pressure gradients were high in the ML group. Duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, the incidence of stroke, need for intra-aortic balloon pump, permanent pacemaker, dialysis, and left ventricular mass index in echocardiography were comparable between the two groups postoperatively. There was no early mortality in both group. Survival at the end of 5 years was 57 ± 14.4% in the ML group; 91.8 ± 4% in the BL group (p = 0.005). Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed elderly age as a risk factor for mortality.

Conclusion

We conclude that aortic valve replacement without any root widening procedure, using a small-sized mechanical valve provides acceptable early outcomes. Bi-leaflet mechanical valves provide better hemodynamics and survival percentage.

Long-term evaluation of TTK Chitra™ heart valve prosthesis - a retrospective-prospective cohort study

Purpose

The TTK Chitra™ heart valve has more than 1,40,000 implantations so far, but no long-term data has been published. This study aims to provide long-term results of the valve.

Methodology

A cohort of 476 patients with implantations from January 2006 to December 2018 were followed up prospectively consisting of 104 aortic valve replacement (AVR), 87 double valve replacement (DVR), and 285 mitral valve replacement (MVR) patients. Total follow-up was 4079 patient-years (py) (AVR = 983, MVR = 2392, DVR = 704), being 96% complete.

Results

The results showed that actuarial survival at 15 years was 82.3% for AVR, 60.7% for MVR, and 52.2% for DVR. Freedom from all valve-related mortality and morbidity at 15 years was 73.8%, 64.8%, and 61.9% for AVR, MVR, and DVR, respectively. There was one instance of structural failure of valve disc leading to severe valvar regurgitation. Valve thrombosis incidence was 1 in AVR (0.1%/py), 6 in MVR (0.25%/py), and 1 in DVR (0.14%/py). Thrombo-embolic episodes occurred in 50 patients (AVR = 7 patients at 0.7%/py; MVR = 36 patients at 1.5%/py; DVR = 7 patients at 0.99%/py) and major hemorrhage (bleeding) in 24 patients (AVR = 0.61%/py; MVR = 0.5%/py; and DVR = 0.85%/py). The linearized rates of adverse events in this study were found to be lower than earlier published results.

Conclusion

The results highlight the continued safety and performance of the TTK Chitra™ heart valve (TTKCHV) in the long term at 15 years.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-022-01437-9.

Follow-up and management of valvular heart disease patients with prosthetic valve: a clinical practice guideline for Indian scenario

PURPOSE

Valvular heart disease (VHD) patients after prosthetic valve implantation are at risk of thromboembolic events. Follow-up care of patients with prosthetic valve has a paramount role in reducing the morbidity and mortality. Currently, in India, there is quintessential need to stream line the follow-up care of prosthetic valve patients. This mandates the development of a consensus guideline for the antithrombotic therapy in VHD patients post prosthetic valve implantation.

METHODS

A national level panel was constituted comprising 13 leading cardio care experts in India who thoroughly reviewed the up to date literature, formulated the recommendations, and developed the consensus document. Later on, extensive discussions were held on this draft and the recommendations in 8 regional meetings involving 79 additional experts from the cardio care in India, to arrive at a consensus. The final consensus document is developed relying on the available evidence and/or majority consensus from all the meetings.

RESULTS

The panel recommended vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy with individualized target international normalized ratio (INR) in VHD patients after prosthetic valve implantation. The panel opined that management of prosthetic valve complications should be personalized on the basis of type of complications. In addition, the panel recommends to distinguish individuals with various co-morbidities and attend them appropriately.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant therapy with VKA seems to be an effective option post prosthetic valve implantation in VHD patients. However, the role for non-VKA oral therapy in prosthetic valve patients and the safety and efficacy of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with bioprosthetic valve need to be studied extensively.