Cardiac Operations after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

What determines outcomes in multivalve reoperations? Effect of patient and surgical complexity

OBJECTIVE

Patient characteristics, risks, and outcomes associated with reoperative multivalve cardiac surgery are poorly characterized. Effect of patient variables and surgical components of each reoperation were evaluated with regard to operative mortality.

METHODS

From January 2008 to January 2022, 2324 patients with previous cardiac surgery underwent 2352 reoperations involving repair or replacement of multiple cardiac valves at Cleveland Clinic. Mean age was 66 ± 14 years. Number of surgical components representing surgical complexity (valve procedures, aortic surgery, coronary artery bypass grafting, and atrial fibrillation procedures) ranged from 2 to 6. Random forest for imbalanced data was used to identify risk factors for operative mortality.

RESULTS

Surgery was elective in 1327 (56%), urgent in 1006 (43%), and emergency in 19 (0.8%). First-time reoperations were performed in 1796 (76%) and 556 (24%) had 2 or more previous operations. Isolated multivalve operations comprised 54% (1265) of cases; 1087 incorporated additional surgical components. Two valves were operated on in 80% (1889) of cases, 3 in 20% (461), and 4 in 0.09% (2). Operative mortality was 4.2% (98 out of 2352), with 1.7% (12 out of 704) for elective, isolated multivalve reoperations. For each added surgical component, operative mortality incrementally increased, from 2.4% for 2 components (24 out of 1009) to 17% for ≥5 (5 out of 30). Predictors of operative mortality included coronary artery bypass grafting, surgical urgency, cardiac, renal dysfunction, peripheral artery disease, New York Heart Association functional class, and anemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective, isolated reoperative multivalve surgery can be performed with low mortality. Surgical complexity coupled with key physiologic factors can be used to inform surgical risk and decision making.

All-cause procedural readmissions following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Objective

With expanding eligibility criteria, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is being performed on patients with longer life expectancy, and subsequent procedures after index transcatheter aortic valve replacement are inevitable. This study examines the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing subsequent procedural readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Methods

All patients who underwent index transcatheter aortic valve replacement and were discharged alive from January 2012 to December 2019 at a single institution were evaluated. Study end points were mortality and readmission for procedure with more than 1-day hospital stay. Effect on survival was evaluated by treating procedural readmission as a time-dependent variable by Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk analysis.

Results

A total of 1092 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up time of 34 months. A total of 218 patients (20.0%) had 244 subsequent procedural readmissions. During the 244 procedural readmissions, there were 260 procedures; 96 (36.9%) were cardiac (most commonly pacemaker implantation, percutaneous coronary interventions, and surgical aortic valve replacements), and 164 (63.1%) were noncardiac (most commonly orthopedic and gastrointestinal procedures). The overall procedural readmission rates were 32%, 39%, and 42%, and all-cause mortality was 27%, 44%, and 54% at 20, 40, and 60 months, respectively. Procedural readmissions were not associated with a survival penalty in any surgical risk group or on Cox regression (hazard ratio, 1.25; 0.91-1.64, P = .17).

Conclusions

After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, procedural interventions are seen frequently, with most procedures occurring within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, subsequent procedural readmissions do not appear to have a survival penalty for patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. After transcatheter aortic valve replacement with resolution of aortic stenosis, subsequent procedures can and should be pursued if they are needed.

Safety and Efficacy of the Transaxillary Access for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery

Background and Objectives: Transaxillary access is one of the latest innovations for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MICS-AVR). This study compares clinical performance in a large transaxillary MICS-AVR group to a propensity-matched sternotomy control group. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 908 patients undergoing isolated AVR with a mean age of 69.4 ± 18.0 years, logistic EuroSCORE of 4.0 ± 3.9%, and body mass index (BMI) of 27.3 ± 6.1 kg/m2. The treatment group comprised 454 consecutive transaxillary MICS-AVR patients. The control group was 1:1 propensity-matched out of 3115 consecutive sternotomy aortic valve surgeries. Endocarditis, redo, and combined procedures were excluded. The multivariate matching model included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, logistic EuroSCORE, pulmonary hypertension, coronary artery disease, chronic lung disease, and BMI. Results: Propensity-matching was successful with subsequent comparable clinical baselines in both groups. MICS-AVR had longer skin-to-skin time (120.0 ± 31.5 min vs. 114.2 ± 28.7 min; p < 0.001) and more frequent bleeding requiring chest reopening (5.0% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.010), but significantly less packed red blood cell transfusions (0.57 ± 1.6 vs. 0.82 ± 1.6; p = 0.040). In addition, MICS-AVR patients had fewer access site wound abnormalities (1.5% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.038), shorter intensive care unit stays (p < 0.001), shorter ventilation times (p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (7.0 ± 5.1 days vs. 11.1 ± 6.5; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in stroke > Rankin 2 (0.9% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.791), renal replacement therapy (1.5% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.4762), and hospital mortality (0.9% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.546). Conclusions: Transaxillary MICS-AVR is at least as safe as AVR by sternotomy and can be performed in the same time frame. Its advantages are fewer transfusions and quicker postoperative recovery with a significantly shorter hospital stay. The cosmetic result and unrestricted physical abilities due to the untouched sternum and ribs are unique advantages of transaxillary access.

Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Few studies have reported their experience in explantation of a transcatheter heart valve. We found 2,100 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) from 2013 through 2021. Of 2,100, a total of 17 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement after TAVI, including surgical bailout. The mean age was 78.3 years. Co-morbidities were very frequent, including coronary artery disease (70.6%), atrial fibrillation (52.9%), cerebrovascular disease (47.1%), and pulmonary hypertension (41.2%). A history of cardiac surgery was observed in 6 patients (35.3%). The mean predicted risk of mortality at the time of TAVI was 7.7%. Surgical bailout was the most common indication of valve explantation (n = 8, 47.1%), followed by infective endocarditis (n = 4, 23.5%) and paravalvular leak (n = 2, 11.8%). The valve-in-valve TAVI was not feasible because of endocarditis, paravalvular leak, and history of valve-in-valve TAVI. Overall, 13 (76.5%) were performed urgently or emergently, and 10 (58.9%) required aortic root reconstruction. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 158.5 minutes. In-hospital mortality was 41.2%. Transcatheter heart valve explantation continues to be rare; however, these data will continue to be informative as TAVI explantations will become more common with time.