Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Worsens Long-Term Survival: Insights From the FinnValve Registry

Sex Differences in Aortic Stenosis: From the Pathophysiology to the Intervention, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives

Calcific aortic stenosis (AS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in high-income countries. AS presents sex-specific features impacting pathophysiology, outcomes, and management strategies. In women, AS often manifests with a high valvular fibrotic burden, small valvular annuli, concentric left ventricular (LV) remodeling/hypertrophy, and, frequently, supernormal LV ejection fraction coupled with diastolic dysfunction. Paradoxical low-flow low-gradient AS epitomizes these traits, posing significant challenges post-aortic valve replacement due to limited positive remodeling and significant risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Conversely, men present more commonly with LV dilatation and dysfunction, indicating the phenotype of classical low-flow low-gradient AS, i.e., with decreased LV ejection fraction. However, these distinctions have not been fully incorporated into guidelines for AS management. The only treatment for AS is aortic valve replacement; women are frequently referred late, leading to increased heart damage caused by AS. Therefore, it is important to reassess surgical planning and timing to minimize irreversible cardiac damage in women. The integrity and the consideration of sex differences in the management of AS is critical. Further research, including sufficient representation of women, is needed to investigate these differences and to develop individualized, sex-specific management strategies.

Hemodynamic Comparison of the On-X and Top Hat Mechanical Aortic Valve Prostheses

BACKGROUND

There are limited data comparing hemodynamic valve function in mechanical aortic valve prostheses. This study compared the hemodynamic function of 2 commonly used mechanical aortic valve (AV) prostheses, the On-X (Artivion) and Top Hat (CarboMedics Inc) valves.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 512 patients who underwent AV replacement with the On-X (n = 252; 49%) or Top Hat (n = 260; 51%) mechanical valves between 2011 and 2019. Patients were matched on the basis of selected variables. Echocardiographic data were collected preoperatively and postoperatively over a median follow-up of 1.39 years.

RESULTS

A total of 320 patients were matched, 160 patients in each group. Despite being matched for left ventricular outflow tract diameter, patients in the Top Hat group received a greater prevalence of smaller tissue annulus diameter valves (≤21 mm) (83% vs 38%; P < .001). Patients in the On-X group had longer aortic cross-clamp times (78 minutes vs 64 minutes; P < .001) during isolated aortic valve replacement. Discharge echocardiography showed no difference in the AV area index between both groups (1.00 cm2/m2 vs 1.02 cm2/m2; P = .377). During longer-term echocardiographic follow-up, the AV area index remained stable for both valves within their respective tissue annulus diameter groups (P = .060).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference between the 2 valves with respect to the AV area index at discharge, and hemodynamic function was stable during longer-term follow-up. The longer aortic cross-clamp time observed in the On-X group may indicate increased complexity of implantation compared with the Top Hat group.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Third-Generation Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve with Reverse Parachute Sealing Cuff in Patients with Aortic Valve Disease

BACKGROUND

The Navitor (Abbott Inc, IL, USA) transcatheter heart valve is a novel third-generation self-expanding bioprosthesis with specific features to mitigate paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Owing to its novelty, there is a paucity of data on its application in clinical practice.

METHODS

Consecutive cohort analysis of the use of the Navitor system in an as-treated clinical setting at a quaternary heart hospital.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive non-clinical trial patients treated with Navitor were identified. All patients underwent a successful procedure. The mean age was 79.3 years (±SD 7.82), 56.67% (n=34) were female, and the mean STS score was 4.87 (±SD 5.70). At 30 days post-procedure, all patients were alive with no readmissions for heart failure. One patient had a major vascular complication (1.7%). Four patients (7.14% of patients without a pre-existing pacemaker) received a new permanent pacemaker. Two patients (3.4%) had a non-disabling stroke. PVR at 30 days was trivial or none in 75% of patients, and no patient had worse than mild PVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The Navitor system in this as-treated cohort was associated with favourable clinical, haemodynamic, and safety outcomes.

Aortic root enlargement in patients undergoing mitral and aortic replacement: early outcomes in a sub-Saharan population

Introduction

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) is often required to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in young patients undergoing aortic surgery, including those undergoing combined mitral and aortic valve replacement (double valve replacement, DVR). Adding ARE to DVR may increase the operative risk by extending the surgical time. Herein, we review our experience with ARE in patients who underwent DVR.

Materials and methods

The medical records of 69 patients who underwent DVR at our institution between February 2008 and November 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ARE procedure (ARE-DVR: 25 patients; DVR: 44 patients). Descriptive and comparative analyses of demographic, clinical, and surgical data were performed.

Results

Among the 69 patients who underwent DVR, 35 were women (sex ratio, 0.97). The mean age at surgery was 26.7  ±  13.9 years (range: 7-62 years). Among the 47 patients aged ≤30 years, 40.4% (19/47) were aged between 10 and 20 years, and 6.3% (3/47) were aged <10 years. Patients in the ARE-DVR group were younger (23.3 ± 12.9 years vs. 28.5 ± 14.2 years, p < 0.05). The New York Heart Association Class ≥III dyspnea was the most common symptom (89.9%), with no differences between the two groups. Of all the patients, 84.1% had sinus rhythm. Rheumatic disease was the most common etiology in the entire cohort (91.3%). The mean aortic annulus diameter was 20.54 mm, with smaller sizes found in the ARE-DVR group (18.00 ± 1.47 mm vs. 22.50 ± 2.35 mm, p < 0.05). The aortic cross-clamping duration was greater in the ARE-DVR group (177.6 ± 37.9 min vs. 148.3 ± 66.3 min, p = 0.047). The operative mortality rate was 5.6% for the entire cohort (ARE-DVR: 8% vs. DVR: 4.5%, p = 0.46). Among the patients who underwent echocardiographic control at follow-up, the mean aortic gradient was 19.6 ± 7.2 mmHg (range: 6.14-33 mmHg), with no differences among the groups.

Conclusion

The association between ARE and DVR did not significantly affect operative mortality. ARE can be safely used whenever indications arise to reduce the occurrence of PPM, especially in young patients with growth potential.

Why Does the NOTION Trial Show Poorer Than Expected Outcomes in the Surgical Arm?

The NOTION trial compares transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Looking carefully at the outcomes of this trial, there is no doubt that the transcatheter aortic valve implantation results were outstanding. The same thing cannot be said for the results of the surgery. We tried to understand the reason for that.

Commentary: Another layer to the "PPM conundrum"

How do manufacturer estimates of valve performance match up to reality and stress testing? We are reviewing a manuscript by Porterie et al. in the Journal of Cardiac Surgery detailing a single-center, assessment of Avalus™ bioprosthetic valve hemodynamics during stress echocardiography. At maximal stress, they found that indexed effective orifice area had better alignment with manufacturer estimates than measurements at rest. In addition, they found a significant difference between EOA and flow rates at rest versus maximal exertion and quantified it as the "opening reserve." Patients without patient prosthetic mismatch had much higher opening reserves. This interesting study helps us to understand how estimates align with reality and draws attention to the concept of the opening reserve. Could differences in opening flow impact the durability or longevity of prosthetics?