Long-Term Outcome and Quality of Life After Biological Aortic Valve Replacement in Nonelderly Adults

The Ozaki Procedure: Standardized Protocol Adoption of a Complex Innovative Procedure

Background

The Ozaki procedure using autologous pericardium is an interesting but complex alternative for aortic valve replacement. We present a standardized approach to minimize the learning curve and confirm reproducibility.

Methods

After careful preparation, from May 2015 to February 2021, an Ozaki procedure was performed on 46 patients age 51 ± 14 years. Seven had unicuspid (15%), 29 bicuspid (63%), and 10 tricuspid (22%) aortic valves, and 2 patients had endocarditis. Endpoints were operative learning curves, perioperative outcomes, intermediate-term valve hemodynamics, reintervention, health-related quality of life (MacNew Heart Disease Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire), and mortality.

Results

Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamp times decreased from 145 to 125 ​minutes and 120 to 100 ​minutes, respectively, over the first 20 cases, reflecting the learning curve. There was no major perioperative morbidity or mortality. Median postoperative stay was 6.9 days. Aortic regurgitation was mild or less in all but 2 patients who developed moderate aortic regurgitation. Mean aortic valve gradient was 7.9 mmHg postoperatively, 9.2 mmHg by 6 months, and constant thereafter. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 58% preoperatively, 60% at 6 months, and remained stable thereafter. One patient developed infective endocarditis 7 months postoperatively, failed medical management, and underwent valve replacement at 14 months. Two-year survival was 96%, with 1 noncardiac death at 16 months. Health-related quality of life in mental, physical, and emotional domains was better than matched norms, global 6.2 vs. 5.0 (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Using a well-prepared standardized approach, the Ozaki procedure is reproducible with a short learning curve, excellent hemodynamic performance, and good quality of life.

Quality of Life Measures in Aortic Stenosis Research: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with aortic stenosis (AS) not only have a reduced life expectancy but also a reduced quality of life (QoL). The benefits of an AS intervention may be considered a balance between a good QoL and a reasonably extended life. However, the different questionnaires being used to determine the QoL were generally not developed for the specific situation of patients with AS and come with strengths and considerable weaknesses. The objective of this article was to provide an overview of the available QoL instruments in AS research, describe their strengths and weaknesses, and provide our assessment of the utility of the available scoring instruments for QoL measurements in AS.

SUMMARY

We identified and reviewed the following instruments that are used in AS research: Short Form Health Survey (SF-36/SF-12), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS), the HeartQoL, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), the MacNew Questionnaire, and the Toronto Aortic Stenosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (TASQ).

KEY MESSAGES

There is no standardized assessment of QoL in patients with AS. Many different questionnaires are being used, but they are rarely specific for AS. There is a need for AS-specific research into the QoL of patients as life prolongation may compete for an improved QoL in this elderly patient group.

Physical and Mental Recovery after Aortic Valve Surgery in Non-Elderly Patients: Native Valve-Preserving Surgery vs. Prosthetic Valve Replacement

Background: Exercise capacity and patient-reported outcomes are increasingly considered crucial following aortic valve (AV) surgery in non-elderly adults. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the effect of native valve preservation compared with prosthetic valve replacement. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 100 consecutive non-elderly patients undergoing surgery for severe AV disease were included. Exercise capacity and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated upon admission, and 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Results: In total, 72 patients underwent native valve-preserving procedures (AV repair or Ross procedure, NV group), and 28 patients, prosthetic valve replacement (PV group). Native valve preservation was associated with an increased risk of reoperation (weighted hazard ratio: 10.57 (95% CI: 1.24-90.01), p = 0.031). The estimated average treatment effect on six-minute walking distance in NV patients at 1 year was positive, but not significant (35.64 m; 95% CI: -17.03-88.30, adj. p = 0.554). The postoperative physical and mental quality of life was comparable in both groups. Peak oxygen consumption and work rate were better at all assessment time points in NV patients. Marked longitudinal improvements in walking distance (NV, +47 m (adj. p < 0.001); PV, +25 m (adj. p = 0.004)) and physical (NV, +7 points (adj. p = 0.023); PV, +10 points (adj. p = 0.005)) and mental quality of life (NV, +7 points (adj. p < 0.001); PV, +5 points (adj. p = 0.058)) from the preoperative period to the 1-year follow-up were observed. At 1 year, there was a tendency of more NV patients reaching reference values of walking distance. Conclusions: Despite the increased risk of reoperation, physical and mental performance markedly improved after native valve-preserving surgery and was comparable to that after prosthetic aortic valve replacement.

Shared Decision-Making and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Valvular Heart Disease

Patient-centered health care emphasizes shared decision-making (SDM), incorporating both clinical evidence and patient preferences and values. SDM is important in heart valve disease, both because there might be more than one treatment option and due to the importance of adherence after intervention. We aimed to describe patient information and involvement in decision-making about care and recording of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in valve interventions. The opinion piece and recommendations are based upon literature review and our own experience from specialist valve clinics. Before a valve intervention, adequate patient information, discussion of the various treatment options and exploring patient preferences, in line with the concept of SDM, may improve post-intervention quality of life. After intervention, patients with prosthetic heart valves require adequate counseling and close follow-up to make them more confident and competent to manage their own health, as well as to maintain the efficacy of treatment provided. PROMs inform SDM before and improve care after valve intervention, focusing on outcomes beyond mortality and morbidity. SDM may improve post-intervention quality of life. Formal PROMs questionnaires inform SDM, quantify patient centered changes and should be used more often in clinical practice and research. A thorough assessment of baseline frailty status in patients scheduled for valve intervention is essential and may affect postoperative outcome.