Operative risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement

Recent Outcomes of Surgical Redo Aortic Valve Replacement in Prosthetic Valve Failure

BACKGROUND

 As redo surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is relatively high risk, valve-in-valve transcatheter AVR has emerged as an alternative for failed prostheses. However, the majority of studies are outdated. This study assessed the current clinical outcomes of redo AVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

 This study enrolled 324 patients who underwent redo AVR due to prosthetic valve failure from 2010 to 2021 in four tertiary centers. The primary outcome was operative mortality. The secondary outcomes were overall survival, cardiac death, and aortic valve-related events. Logistic regression analysis, clustered Cox proportional hazards models, and competing risk analysis were used to evaluate the independent risk factors. Redo AVR was performed in 242 patients without endocarditis and 82 patients with endocarditis. Overall operative mortality was 4.6% (15 deaths). Excluding patients with endocarditis, the operative mortality of redo AVR decreased to 2.5%. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that endocarditis (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.990, p = 0.014), longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR: 1.006, p = 0.037), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR: 0.956, p = 0.034) were risk factors of operative mortality. Endocarditis and lower LVEF were independent predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

 The relatively high risk of redo AVR was due to reoperation for prosthetic valve endocarditis. The outcomes of redo AVR for nonendocarditis are excellent. Our findings suggest that patients without endocarditis, especially with acceptable LVEF, can be treated safely with redo AVR.

Treatment options for isolated aortic valve insufficiency: a review

Aortic insufficiency (AI) is a valvular disease with increasing prevalence in older patients. The modern era provides numerous options for the management of AI which is explored here. Traditional interventions included aortic valve replacement with either mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valves. While the former is known for its durability, it has grown out of favor due to the potential complications of anticoagulation. The preference for bioprosthetic valves is thus on the rise, especially with the advancements of transcatheter technology and the use of valve-in-valve therapy. Surgical options are also no longer limited to replacement but include complex techniques such as those required for aortic valve repair, Ozaki neocuspidization, Ross procedure and valve-sparring aortic root repair. Transcatheter options for the management of AI are not commercially available currently; however, preliminary data from ad-hoc trials, showed promising results and potential use of transcatheter technology in a variety of patients with pure AI.

Impact of explanted valve type on aortic valve reoperations: nationwide UK experience

OBJECTIVES

This nationwide retrospective cohort study assessed the impact of the explanted valve type on reoperative outcomes in aortic valve surgery within the UK over a 23-year period.

METHODS

Data were sourced from the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) database. All patients undergoing first-time isolated reoperative aortic valve replacement between 1996 and 2019 in the UK were included. Concomitant procedures, homograft implantation or aortic root enlargement were excluded. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare outcomes and risk factors for in-hospital mortality was evaluated through multivariable logistic regression. Final model selection was conducted using Akaike Information Criterion through bootstrapping. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality, and secondary end points included postoperative morbidities.

RESULTS

Out of 2371 patients, 24.9% had mechanical and 75% had bioprosthetic valves implanted during the primary procedure. Propensity matched groups of 324 patients each, were compared. In-hospital mortality for mechanical and bioprosthetic valve explants was 7.1% and 5.9%, respectively (P = 0.632). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, valve type was not a risk factor for mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-1.05; P = 0.1]. Age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05; P < 0.05), left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.08-2.42; P < 0.05), creatinine ≥ 200 mg/dl (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.17-4.04; P < 0.05) and endocarditis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71-4.14; P < 0.05) emerged as risk factors for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The type of valve initially implanted (mechanical or bioprosthetic) did not determine mortality. Instead, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, renal impairment and endocarditis were significant risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

Survival and Recurrence of Endocarditis following Mechanical vs. Biological Aortic Valve Replacement for Endocarditis in Patients Aged 40 to 65 Years: Data from the INFECT-Registry

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease, and in many cases, surgery is necessary. Whether the type of prosthesis implanted for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for IE impacts patient survival is a matter of debate. The aim of the present study is to quantify differences in long-term survival and recurrence of endocarditis AVR for IE according to prosthesis type among patients aged 40 to 65 years.

METHODS

This was an analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY. Trends in proportion to the use of mechanical prostheses versus biological ones over time were tested by applying the sieve bootstrapped t-test. Confounders were adjusted using the optimal full-matching propensity score. The difference in overall survival was compared using the Cox model, whereas the differences in recurrence of endocarditis were evaluated using the Gray test.

RESULTS

Overall, 4365 patients were diagnosed and operated on for IE from 2000 to 2021. Of these, 549, aged between 40 and 65 years, underwent AVR. A total of 268 (48.8%) received mechanical prostheses, and 281 (51.2%) received biological ones. A significant trend in the reduction of implantation of mechanical vs. biological prostheses was observed during the study period (p < 0.0001). Long-term survival was significantly higher among patients receiving a mechanical prosthesis than those receiving a biological prosthesis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.546, 95% CI: 0.322-0.926, p = 0.025). Mechanical prostheses were associated with significantly less recurrent endocarditis after AVR than biological prostheses (HR 0.268, 95%CI: 0.077-0.933, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY shows increased survival and reduced recurrence of endocarditis after a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis implant for IE in middle-aged patients.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Reoperative Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Mortality after reoperative aortic valve surgery continues to decline but remains high compared with primary isolated replacement. We sought to examine temporal trends, morbidity, and mortality among patients undergoing isolated first-time reoperative aortic valve surgery.

METHODS

The study included all patients undergoing reoperative aortic valve surgery in the United Kingdom between January 2007 and March 2019. Patients undergoing isolated reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) were compared with a propensity matched cohort of patients undergoing isolated primary AVR. Outcomes measured included inhospital mortality, neurologic dysfunction, postoperative dialysis, deep sternal wound infections, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

During the study period, 40,858 primary isolated AVRs and 3015 first-time isolated reoperative AVRs were carried out in the United Kingdom. In the propensity matched reoperative group, median age of participants was 69.8 years (60.8-76.2) with median duration between the initial surgery and the reoperation being 7.69 years. Overall mortality was 3.1% (94) for reoperative AVR compared with 1.9% (56) for primary AVR. Mortality of both primary and reoperative AVR declined during the study period. Reoperation, age, New York Heart Association class, and chronic kidney disease were independently associated with early mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperative isolated AVR can be performed with acceptable inhospital mortality and provides a benchmark against which alternative strategies should be compared.

The decreasing risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement: Implications for valve choice and transcatheter therapy

OBJECTIVE

Increasing use of bioprostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in younger patients, together with wider use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, necessitates understanding risks associated with surgical valve reintervention. Therefore, we sought to identify risks of reoperative SAVR compared with those of primary isolated SAVR.

METHODS

From January 1980 to July 2017, 7037 patients underwent nonemergency isolated SAVR, with 753 reoperations and 6284 primary isolated operations. These 2 groups were propensity score-matched on 46 preoperative variables, yielding 581 patient pairs for comparing outcomes.

RESULTS

Among propensity score-matched patients, aortic clamp time (median 63 vs 52 minutes; P < .0001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (median 88 vs 67 minutes; P < .0001), and postoperative stay (median 7.1 vs 6.9 days; P = .003) were longer for reoperative SAVR than primary isolated SAVR. Hospital mortality after reoperative SAVR decreased from 3.4% in 1985 to 1.3% in 2011, similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Occurrence of stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and new renal dialysis was similar. Blood transfusion (67% vs 36%; P < .0001) and reoperations for bleeding/tamponade (6.4% vs 3.1%; P = .009) were more common after reoperative SAVR. Survival at 1, 5, 10, and 20 years was 94%, 82%, 64%, and 33% after reoperative SAVR and 95%, 86%, 72%, and 46% after elective primary isolated SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of mortality and morbidity after reoperative SAVR has declined and is now similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Decisions regarding prosthesis choice and SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement should be made in the context of lifelong disease management rather than avoidance of reoperation.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 65 years

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to compare rates of mortality and reoperations for patients aged younger than 65 years who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). AVR with a bioprosthetic valve (BV) is increasing among younger patients, however evidence to inform the choice between BV or mechanical valve is limited.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using linked hospital and mortality data from Australia, for 3969 AVR patients between 2003 and 2018. We compared outcomes for valves in inverse probability of treatment-weighted cohorts, stratified according to age (18-54 years; 55-64 years). We used weighted Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and weighted cumulative incidence function for subdistribution hazards, for follow-up intervals: 0 to 10 and >10 to 15 years.

RESULTS

Among patients aged 55 to 64 years, there was no difference in mortality at 0 to 10 years. However, at >10 to 15 years, mortality was higher among BV recipients (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01-2.42). There was no difference among patients aged 18 to 54 years. Reoperation rates for patients aged 55 to 64 years did not differ according to valve type at 0 to 10 years, but were higher for BV than mechanical valve at >10 to 15 years (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.69-4.86). For patients aged 18 to 54 years, reoperation rates were consistently higher for BV at both time intervals (HR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.03-6.25] and HR, 4.48 [95% CI, 2.15-9.32], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged 55 to 64 years who received a BV had a higher risk of mortality beyond 10 years. Rates of reoperations were higher among patients implanted with a BV in the entire cohort. Further investigation of long-term outcomes among patients with a BV is necessary. Continuous long-term monitoring of BV technologies will ensure evidence-based decision-making and regulation.

Biological versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Long-term real-world outcomes are critical for informing decisions about biological (Bio) or mechanical (Mech) prostheses for aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients aged between 50 and 65 years. The objective was to compare long-term survival and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (ie, stroke, reoperation, and major bleeding) within this population.

METHODS

This was a multicenter observational study including all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent an aortic valve replacement because of severe isolated aortic stenosis between the years 2000 and 2018. A total of 5215 patients from 27 Spanish hospitals were registered with a follow-up of 15 years. Multivariable analyses, including a 2:1 propensity score matching (1822 Mech and 911 Bio) and competing risks analyses were applied.

RESULTS

Bio prostheses were implanted in 19% of patients (n = 992). No significant differences were observed between matched groups in long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.47; P = .33). Stroke rates were higher for Mech prostheses, but not significant (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50-1.03; P = .07). Finally, higher rates of major bleeding were found in the Mech group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among the Bio group (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.80-5.14; P < .001). Bio prostheses increased from 13% in the period from 2000 to 2008 to 24% in 2009 to 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival was comparable among groups in patients between 50 and 65 years of age. Mech prostheses were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, whereas Bio prostheses entailed higher reoperation rates. Bio prostheses seem a reasonable choice for patients between 50 and 65 years in Spain.

Comparison of modes of failure and clinical outcomes between explanted porcine and bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valves

OBJECTIVE

To compare pathological and hemodynamic modes of failure and operative outcomes between explanted porcine and bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valves.

METHODS

Patients who underwent explantation of their bioprosthetic valves at Toronto General Hospital from 2007 to 2019 were identified. Retrospective chart review was conducted to attain demographic information, operative outcomes, and echocardiography and pathology reports.

RESULTS

A total of 278 patients underwent explantation of their porcine (n=183) or bovine pericardial (n=95) valves. A greater proportion of the porcine group had severe regurgitation, compared to the bovine group (45.3% vs. 19.8%, p<.001). Porcine valves had higher rates of cusp flail (19.4% vs. 3.3%, p<.001). The rates of moderate or worse stenosis were higher among bovine pericardial valves (37.9% vs. 15.8%, p<.001). On pathologic examination, the porcine valves exhibited more cusp tears (67.6% vs. 50.5%, p=.006), while higher incidences of calcification were found in the bovine group (p<.001). Rate of stroke was higher during the explantation procedure of the bovine valves (5.3% vs. 0.5%, p=.040).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary mode of failure was regurgitation in porcine valves due to cusp tears and stenosis in bovine valves due to calcification. Establishing a clear understanding of failure modes based on valve material may improve design and guide valve selection at the time of surgery.

Management Challenges in Patients Younger Than 65 Years With Severe Aortic Valve Disease

Importance

The management of aortic valve disease, including aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation (AR), in younger adult patients (age &amp;lt;65 years) is complex, and the optimal strategy is often unclear, contingent on multiple anatomic and holistic factors.

Observations

Traditional surgical approaches carry significant considerations, including compulsory lifelong anticoagulation for patients who receive a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the risk of structural valvular deterioration and need for subsequent valve intervention in those who receive a bioprosthetic AVR. These factors are magnified in young adults who are considering pregnancy, for whom issues of anticoagulation and valve longevity are heightened. The Ross procedure has emerged as a promising alternative; however, its adoption is limited to highly specialized centers. Valve repair is an option for selected patients with AR. These treatment options offer varying degrees of durability and are associated with different risks and complications, especially for younger adult patients. Patient-centered care from a multidisciplinary valve team allows for discussion of the optimal timing of intervention and the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment options.

Conclusions and Relevance

The management of severe aortic valve disease in adults younger than 65 years is complex, and there are numerous considerations with each management decision. While mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR have historically been the standards of care, other options are emerging for selected patients but are not yet generalizable beyond specialized surgical centers. A detailed discussion by members of the multidisciplinary heart team and the patient is an integral part of the shared decision-making process.

Looking Back to Look Forward: What to Expect in a Redo Surgery for a Bioprosthesis Replacement

Redo surgeries are becoming more common because of an increased rate of bioprosthesis implantation. We performed a retrospective study on patients who underwent redo replacement of an aortic and/or mitral bioprosthesis between 2005 and 2018 to evaluate intra-hospital mortality and morbidity. Univariate analysis was performed on the propensity score variables to determine predictors of mortality. A total of 180 patients were enrolled in the study: Group A (replacement of aortic bioprosthesis) with 136 patients (75.56%) and group B (replacement of mitral bioprosthesis ± aortic bioprosthesis) with 44 patients (24.44%). NYHA class ≥ 3 and female sex were significantly more common in group B. Cardiopulmonary-bypass time and aortic cross-clamping time in group A and group B were, respectively, 154.95 ± 74.35 and 190.25 ± 77.44 (p = 0.0005) and 115.99 ± 53.54 and 144.91 ± 52.53 (p = 0.0004). Overall mortality was 8.89%. After propensity score adjustment, Group B was confirmed to have an increased risk of death (OR 3.32 CI 95% 1.02−10.88 p < 0.0001), gastrointestinal complications (OR 7.784 CI 95% 1.005−60.282 p < 0.0002) and pulmonary complications (OR 2.381 CI 95% 1.038−5.46 p < 0.0001). At the univariate analysis, endocarditis, cardiopulmonary-bypass and aortic cross clamping time, NYHA class ≥ 3 and urgency setting were significantly associated to death. Intra-hospital outcomes were acceptable regarding mortality and complications. Patients who need redo surgery on mitral bioprosthesis have an increased risk of post-operative pulmonary and gastrointestinal complications and mortality. Therefore the choice of mitral bioprosthesis at time of first surgery should be carefully evaluated.

Principlist approach to multiple heart valve replacements for patients with intravenous drug use-induced endocarditis

Medical professionals often deny patients who inject opioids a second or third heart valve replacement, even if such a surgery is medically indicated. However, such a position is not well defended. As this paper demonstrates, the ethical literature on the topic too often fails to develop and apply an ethical lens to analyse the issue of multiple valve replacements. This paper addresses this lacuna by analysing the case of Mr Walsh, a composite case which protects the identity of any one patient, through the principlist approach of Beauchamp and Childress. It argues that the hospital should offer Mr Walsh, a second valve replacement because the procedure is: medically indicated, autonomously requested, non-maleficent, beneficent and does not violate a formal account of justice. The paper concludes with clinical ethical guidelines for valve surgery for patients with opioid use disorder.

Isolated aortic valve replacement with bio-prostheses in patients age 50 to 65 years: a decade of statewide data on cost and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for choice of replacement valve-mechanical versus bio-prosthetic, are well established for patients aged <50 and >65 years. We studied the trends and implications of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve in patients aged 50 to 65 years.

METHODS

STS and cost database of 17 centers for isolated AVR surgery were analyzed by dividing them into bioprosthetic valve (BV) or mechanical valve (MV) groups.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2011, 3,690 patients had AVR, 18.6% with MV and 81.4% with BV. Use of BV for all ages increased from 71.5% in 2002 to 87% in 2011. There were 1127 (30.5%) patients in the age group 50-65 years. Use of BV in this group almost doubled, 39.6% in 2002 to 76.8% in 2011. Mean age of patients in BV group was higher (59.2±4.2 years vs. 56.7±4.3 years, P≤0.0001). Preoperative renal failure, heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease favored use of BV, whereas preoperative atrial fibrillation favored AVR with MV. Mortality (MV 2.2% vs. BV 2.36%) and other postoperative outcomes between the groups were similar. Cost of valve replacement increased for both groups (MV $26,191 in 2002 to $42,592 in 2011; BV $27,404 in 2002 to $44,257 in 2011).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of bioprostheses for AVR has increased; this change is more pronounced in patients aged 50-65 years. Specific preoperative risk factors influence the choice of valve for AVR. Postoperative outcomes between the two groups were similar. Long-term implications of this changing practice, in particular, reoperation for bioprosthetic valve degeneration should be examined.

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement-Age-Dependent Choice of Prosthesis Type

Background: Recently, the use of surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses has been favoured in younger patients. We aimed to analyse the long-term survival and postoperative MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebral Event) rates in patients after isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods: We conducted a single-centre observational retrospective study, including all consecutive patients with isolated aortic valve replacement. 1:1 propensity score matching of the preoperative baseline characteristics was performed. Results: A total of 2172 patients were enrolled in the study. After propensity score matching the study included 428 patients: 214 biological vs. 214 mechanical prostheses, divided into two subgroups: group A < 60 years and group B > 60 years. The mean follow-up time was 7.6 ± 3.9 years. Estimated survival was 97 ± 1.9% and 89 ± 3.4% at 10 years for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively in group A (p = 0.06). In group B the survival at 10 years was 79.1 ± 5.8% and 69.8 ± 4.4% for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively (p = 0.83). In group A, patients with a bioprosthesis exhibited a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with a mechanical prosthesis, p = 0.83 (bio 7.3 ± 5.3% vs. mech 4.6 ± 2.2% at 10 years). In group B, patients with a mechanical prosthesis showed a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with bioprosthesis, p = 0.86 (bio 4.3 ± 3.1% vs. mech 9.1 ± 3.1% at 10 years). Conclusions: Long-term survival after surgical aortic valve replacement is similar in patients with a biological and mechanical prosthesis, independent of the patients’ age. Moreover, younger patients (<60 years) with bioprosthesis showed a survival benefit, compared to patients with mechanical prosthesis in this age group.

Aortic Valve Replacement Rates in Australia from 2004 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Several surgical and percutaneous treatments are available for patients with aortic valve disease.

AIM

Our aim is to establish whether trends in aortic valve replacements (AVR) in Australia reflect recent evidence.

METHODS

Using Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, this study counted all AVR and balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) procedures conducted in all Australian hospitals from 2004 to 2019. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine whether age-adjusted rates had changed over the study period.

RESULTS

There were 80,883 AVRs performed. 66% were men and 64% were over aged 70. Absolute rates of AVR increased from 3,631 to 7,277 with a significant 22% age-adjusted rise seen (1.9% increase per year (+0.26 per 100,000 per year, 95% CI 0.19 - 0.34); p < 0.001). This trend was more pronounced in men than women and in over 80 year-olds (+0.23 per 100,000 per year, p < 0.001). Proportion of mechanical AVRs implanted fell from 38.4% to 8.6% (p<0.001). 2,683 transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures were performed in 2019, representing a 52% annual increase from 2014. BAV increased from 66 procedures in 2004 to 862 in 2019.

CONCLUSION

Rates of AVR have increased significantly over the past 16 years, particularly in the elderly. Despite international guideline recommendations, fewer mechanical AVRs are being used in younger cohorts. The uptake in TAVI rates might reflect evidence that suggests it is a safe alternative, at least in the medium term. BAV has also seen a resurgence during this time period. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Propensity matched long-term analysis of mechanical versus stentless aortic valve replacement in the younger patient

OBJECTIVES

The choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in younger patients remains controversial. Stentless AVR was introduced 3 decades ago, with the aim of better haemodynamics and durability than stented xenografts. The objective of this analysis was to compare the long-term outcomes to mechanical prostheses in younger patients (age ≤60 years).

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent AVR due to aortic valve stenosis and/or insufficiency between 1993 and 2002 were identified. After the exclusion of patients with congenital heart defects, aortic dissections and Ross-procedures, 158 patients with stentless valves and 226 patients with bi-leaflet mechanical valves were finally included in this analysis. Sixty-six patient pairs could be included in a propensity matched analysis. Mortality and morbidity including stroke, bleeding, endocarditis and reoperation were analysed.

RESULTS

Group baseline characteristics and operative data did not differ significantly after propensity matching. Hospital mortality was 0.0% in the stentless and 1.5% in the mechanical group. Total patient years/median follow-up was 2029.1/15.4 years (completeness: 100.0%, range: 0-25 years). After 20 years, actuarial survival was 47.0 ± 6.4% in the stentless and 53.3 ± 6.6% in mechanical group (P = 0.69). Bleeding, endocarditis and stroke occurred rarely and did not differ significantly between groups. After 20 years, actuarial overall freedom-from-reoperation was 45.1 ± 8.2% in the stentless group and 90.4 ± 4.1% in the mechanical group (P < 0.001). Hospital mortality while reoperation was 7.4% in the stentless group and 0% in the mechanical group (P = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term morbidity and mortality of stentless and mechanical aortic valves were statistically not different besides a significantly higher reoperation rate after stentless AVR combined with a probably higher risk of in-hospital mortality. Thus, mechanical AVR should remain the procedure of choice in younger patients.

Redo aortic valve replacement due to early structural valve deterioration in a trifecta valve: A case report

Introduction and importance

While the number of SAVR cases has been increasing for patients below their sixties due to the improvement of bioprosthetic valves, some early structural valve deterioration (SVD) in Trifecta valves has been reported.

Case presentation

We present a case of a female who presented with sudden shortness of breath. Ultrasonography diagnosed SVD. We performed redo aortic valve replacement due to SVD in Trifecta valve. With our surgical technique we could remove the bioprosthetic valve easily.

Clinical discussion

We could easily remove the mounted prosthetic valve along with the titanium band. These cases may emerge with acute heart failure due to sudden massive aortic regurgitation, not like the gradual progression of stenosis due to calcification.

Conclusion

The postoperative course in Trifecta recipients must be followed carefully.

•

Early structural valve deterioration with Trifecta valve

•

Postoperative patients using Trifecta valve should be carefully followed up.

•

Mounted Trifecta valve could easily be removed along with titanium band.

Ross operation after failure of aortic valve repair

Background

Repair failure remains one of the most important complications of aortic valve reconstruction. Young patients might benefit from a Ross procedure in such a scenario, provided it can be performed safely and with adequate durability. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and clinical outcomes of a Ross operation following a failed repair.

Methods

Between 1996 and 2019, 80 patients (male, 76%; mean age, 31±13 years) underwent a Ross procedure after a median of 6.6 (1.7-15.9) years following an initial aortic valve repair. The previous valve repair was performed for unicuspid (53%), bicuspid (39%), tricuspid (7%), and quadricuspid morphology (1%). Median follow-up after the Ross operation was 2.8 (0.964-13.25) years, mean 5±5 years (92% complete).

Results

Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 144 [106-154] minutes and 98 [79-113] minutes, respectively. Thirty-two patients (40%) required a concomitant procedure, most commonly, an ascending aortic replacement (n=23). There were no peri-operative deaths, myocardial infarctions, or neurological complications. There was one late death from a non-cardiac cause. At 10 years, overall survival was 99%±1%, similar to that of an age- and gender-matched population. Nine patients required re-intervention after their Ross procedure (five on the autograft and four on the pulmonary conduit). The autograft re-interventions were valve-sparing procedures in all patients. The cumulative incidence of re-intervention on the autograft at 8 years was 5.1%±3.1%.

Conclusions

The stepwise strategy of an initial valve repair followed by Ross operation represents a safe and valid option for failed aortic valve repair. It is associated with low peri-operative morbidity. Mid-term survival is excellent, similar to that of a matched general population. The probability of re-intervention after the Ross procedure appears similar to that of a primary Ross operation, deeming it a warranted consideration in cases of failed aortic valve repair.

The First 100 Cases of Two Innovations Combined: Video-Assisted Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy Using a Novel Aortic Prosthesis

Introduction

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) is less traumatic than via other surgical routes; using a novel aortic valve may confer long-term resistance against valve deterioration, and thus be useful in younger, more active patients. Here we aim to validate using the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve with minimally invasive RAMT.

Methods

Between April 2017 and June 2019, 100 patients underwent video-assisted minimally invasive AVR by RAMT, using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. Cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was through femoral vessels. Clinical data were prospectively entered into our institutional database.

Results

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping times were 79 ± 38 and 41 ± 17 min. Surgical access was successful in 100% of cases. There were no cases of intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular events, rethoracotomy for bleeding, valve-related reoperation, right internal mammary artery injury, or conversion to sternotomy. Intensive care and hospital stays were 2 ± 1 and 6 ± 3 days, respectively. One patient had a pacemaker fitted. Postoperative dialysis was necessary in one patient. Trace to mild aortic valve regurgitation occurred in two patients. No structural valve deterioration (SVD) and paravalvular leak were seen. At 1-year follow-up mean effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.8 ± 0.1 cm², peak gradient was 22.1 ± 3.1 mmHg, and mean gradient was 11.5 ± 2.3 mmHg.

Conclusion

Our preliminary experience suggests that RAMT for AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve is safe, effective, and reproducible. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and durability of this new valve.

Long-term outcomes of aortic root replacement for endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Infective endocarditis (IE) involving the aortic valve and root is associated with high risk requiring thoughtful surgical decision-making. The impact of valve and conduit choices and patient factors on long-term outcomes in this patient population is poorly documented.

METHODS

From January 1976 to December 2013, 485 patients underwent aortic root and valve replacement at a single institution. Cox's proportional hazard model identified predictors of long-term survival and cumulative incidence functions were compared to assess need for reoperation with death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Median age at time of operation was 56.6 years (interquartile range: 23.1) with the indication for operation being endocarditis in 14.6% (n = 71). Stentless root replacement was used in 70% IE versus 34% non-IE (p < .001). Endocarditis at time of root replacement did not have a significant impact on survival through 15 years (IE: 37.3% vs. non-IE: 42.5%; log-rank; p = .13). After multivariable adjustment, survival was similar between patients with and without endocarditis (hazard ratio: 1.1; 95% confidence interval: [0.77, 1.62]; p = .57). Freedom from reoperation at 15 years did not vary significantly by endocarditis status (IE: 95.9% vs. non-IE: 73.6%; p = .07). Among endocarditis patients, freedom from reoperation at 10 years was similar between homograft and stentless bioprosthetic conduits (95.3% vs. 88.5%; log-rank; K-sample; p = .46).

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample with frequent use of stentless prostheses, aortic root replacement for infective endocarditis had acceptable risk and long-term survival similar to root replacement for other indications. In the setting of endocarditis, root replacement with homograft or stentless bioprosthetic root has excellent durability through 15 years.

Similar long-term survival after isolated bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement: A propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Improved durability and preference to avoid anticoagulation have led to increasing use of bioprostheses in younger patients despite the need for eventual reoperation. Therefore, we compared in-hospital complications, reoperation, and survival after bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

From January 1990 to January 2020, 6143 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at Cleveland Clinic; 637 patients received a mechanical prosthesis and 5506 a bioprosthesis. Propensity matching identified 527 well-matched pairs (83% of possible matches) for comparison of perioperative outcomes. The average age of patients was 54 years in the bioprosthesis group and 55 years in the mechanical prosthesis group. Random Forest machine-learning analysis was performed to compare survival using the entire cohort of 6143 patients.

RESULTS

Among matched patients, major in-hospital complications, including stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding, were similar, as was in-hospital mortality (2 in the bioprosthesis group [0.38%] vs 3 in the mechanical prosthesis group [0.57%]; P > .9). Patients receiving a bioprosthesis had shorter hospital stays (median 6 vs 7 days, P < .0001). Fifty-one patients (32% at 14 years) in the bioprosthesis group and 17 patients in the mechanical prosthesis group (8% at 14 years) underwent reoperation (P [log-rank] < .0001); 5-year survival after reoperation was 85% versus 82% (P = .6). Risk-adjusted Random Forest prediction of 18-year survival was 60% in the bioprosthetic group and 58% in the mechanical prosthesis group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve bioprostheses are associated with excellent short-term outcomes and 18-year survival similar to that of patients receiving mechanical valves. Reoperation does not adversely affect survival. These results suggest that risk for reoperation alone should not deter the use of bioprostheses in younger patients.

A management framework for left sided endocarditis: a narrative review

Left sided endocarditis (LSE) can include the entirety or portion of mitral and/or aortic valve and the structures in their anatomical contiguity and represent a significant portion of emergency surgical activity. Literature and guidelines on the management of LSE relies mainly on observational studies given the difficulty in designing randomized trials in emergency settings. Heart teams (HT) are often called in to difficult decisions on the most appropriate strategy to adopted in case of LSE. Decision-making should take into account the localization and the extension of the infection, patient preoperative status and comorbidities, presence of a previous valve prosthesis and best timing for surgery. Despite evidence suggests that early surgery may improve survival in patients with complicated infective endocarditis (IE), an increased risk of recurrence and postoperative valvular dysfunctions has been reported. The most important factors associated with long-term outcomes are preoperative multiorgan failure, prosthetic mechanical valve IE, vegetation size ≥15 mm, and timing of surgical treatment. Importantly, up to one third of potential candidates do not undergo surgery and these patients experience extremely high mortality rates. Another important point regards the choice of the optimal valve substitute to be used according to the different clinical situation. The lack of RCT in this field and the difficulty to design this type of studies in the case of non-elective conditions further complicates the possibility to achieve a univocal consensus on the best strategy to be adopted in each form of LSE and further validation studies are needed. On the basis of the current evidences a decisional algorithm is proposed summarizing all the crucial aspects in the management of LSE.

Outcomes of tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients 50 to 70 years of age

BACKGROUND

Societal guidelines suggest that aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients age 50 to 70 years can be performed with either bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. This study reviewed outcomes between these valve types among patients aged 50 to 70 years undergoing AVR.

METHODS

We examined adult patients 50 to 70 years undergoing isolated AVR with a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve at a single institution between 2010 and 2018. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate longitudinal survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used for risk adjustment. A propensity-matched analysis was performed as well.

RESULTS

A total of 723 patients underwent isolated AVR with 467 (64.6%) receiving a bioprosthetic valve. At baseline, patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR were older (median 65 vs 60 years; P < .001). One-year survival was comparable, however, survival at 5 years was significantly higher among patients undergoing mechanical AVR (95.5% vs 82.6%; P = .010). Among the 196 matched pairs, bioprosthetic AVR was associated with an increased adjusted hazard for death (hazards ratio, 3.29; P < .001). Additionally, 5-year freedom from stroke and bleeding were similar following matching, though mechanical AVR was associated with a greater freedom from repeat valve intervention (97.5% vs 92.9%; P = .020).

CONCLUSION

In patients age 50 to 70, mechanical AVR is associated with improved long-term survival and freedom from repeat aortic valve intervention. Further large cohort studies should be performed to explore the potential benefits of mechanical valve replacement in this age range.

How to treat severe symptomatic structural valve deterioration of aortic surgical bioprosthesis: transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation or redo valve surgery?

The optimal management of aortic surgical bioprosthesis presenting with severe symptomatic structural valve deterioration is currently a matter of debate. Over the past 20 years, the number of implanted bioprostheses worldwide has been rapidly increasing at the expense of mechanical prostheses. A large proportion of patients, however, will require intervention for bioprosthesis structural valve deterioration. Current options for older patients who often have severe comorbidities include either transcatheter valve-in-valve (TVIV) implantation or redo valve surgery. The emergence of TVIV implantation, which is perceived to be less invasive than redo valve surgery, offers an effective alternative to surgery for these patients with proven safety and efficacy in high-risk patient groups including elderly and frail patients. A potential caveat to this strategy is that results of long-term follow-up after TVIV implantation are limited. Redo surgery is sometimes preferable, especially for young patients with a smaller-sized aortic bioprosthesis. With the emergence of TVIV implantation and the long experience of redo valve surgery, we currently have 2 complementary treatment modalities, allowing a tailor-made and patient-orientated intervention. In the heart team, the decision-making should be based on several factors including type of bioprosthesis failure, age, comorbidities, operative risk, anatomical factors, anticipated risks and benefits of each alternative, patient's choice and local experience. The aim of this review is to provide a framework for individualized optimal treatment strategies in patients with failed aortic surgical bioprosthesis.

Prosthetic Valve Removal Technique Using Ultrasonic Scalpel

Prosthetic valve removal for reoperative valve replacement is time consuming and has a risk of damage to the heart because of severe adhesions. Prosthetic valves can be removed quickly, easily, and safely by using an ultrasonic scalpel (Harmonic Scalpel, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH). The space between the prosthesis and the native annulus was carefully dissected using Harmonic Synergy blades connected to an Ethicon Gen11 Generator at energy level 5. The average time for prosthetic valve removal using an ultrasonic scalpel was 6 minutes 11 seconds. No patient required new permanent pacemaker implantation.

Previous Cardiac Surgery: a Predictor of Mortality in Aortic Valve Replacement?

Introduction

Previous cardiac surgery (PCS) is a risk factor for operative mortality in pa-tients undergoing reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) and may be influenced by the volume of patients in each center. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of AVR in patients with previous cardiac surgery in a low volume cardiac center (400 cases per year).

Methods

Between January 2006 and December 2016, 854 patients underwent isolated AVR surgery at our institution. Of these, 70 had PCS. Propensity match (PM) was per-formed to balance basal covariates. Operative mortality and survival were the primary outcomes.

Results

The PCS and first-time surgery (FTS) groups had significant differences in base-line characteristics (PCS group were older, higher incidence of hypertension, endocarditis, NYHA III/IV, lower LVEF, higher creatinine and higher EuroSCORE). In the unmatched population, patients with PCS had higher operative mortality (17.1% vs. 4.6%, P=0.001). In the PM groups, this difference was not significant (12.5% and 3.6%, P=0.08). The only independent predictors for operative mortality found in the PCS group were age and fe-male gender. Age and diabetes were identified as the only independent predictors of sur-vival.

Conclusion

PCS was not a predictor for operative mortality nor long-term survival in pa-tients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement.

Reoperations on Thoracic Aorta and Aortic Root: Surgical Technique and Pitfalls

Repeat operations involving the aortic root, ascending aorta, and arch (proximal aorta) are technically challenging. These procedures are associated with higher operative mortality and morbidity. A dedicated surgical team with special skill set is essential to manage these complex patients. Redo root and proximal aortic procedures can be done with acceptable risk in most patients with attention to details involving the surgical procedure, patient selection, and perioperative management.

Risk of reoperation in bioprosthetic valve patients with indication for long-term anticoagulation. Results from the observational retrospective multicentre PLECTRUM study

Objective

Several factors should be considered when a prosthetic heart valve, bioprosthetic valve (BV) or mechanical valve is to be implanted: thrombogenicity, life expectancy and the risk of reoperation.

Methods

We conducted an observational retrospective multicentre study among Italian Thrombosis Centers on patients with BV on long-term vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment to evaluate the risk of reoperation and the rate of bleeding and thrombotic events.

Results

We analysed 612 patients (median age 71.8 years) with BV on long-term VKA treatment for the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) (78.4%) or other indications (21.6%). Thirty-four major bleeding events (rate 1.1×100 patient-years) and 29 thromboembolic events (rate 0.9×100 patient-years) were recorded, and 46 patients (rate 1.5×100 patient-years) underwent reoperation. The rate of reoperation was higher among younger patients: 32.9% in patients <60 years and 3.9% in patients ≥60 years (relative risk (RR) 3.8, 95% CI 2.1 to 7.2; p=0.0001). When patients were analysed according to age <65 or ≥65 years and <75 or ≥70 years, younger patients still were at higher risk for reoperation (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.0 and 3.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 8.6, respectively).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the threshold of 65 years for implanting a BV should be carefully evaluated, considering the high risk for reoperation and the high risk of AF occurrence with persisting need for long-term anticoagulation. The high risk for reoperation of young patients implanted with BV and the availability of a safer and easier way to conduct VKA treatment, such as the use of point-of-care devices, should be considered when the type of valve must be chosen.

Short- and long-term outcomes following redo valvular surgery

AIM

We reviewed our experience in redo valvular surgery to evaluate trends in short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 414 patients (mean age, 62.8 ± 13.6 years) who underwent redo valvular surgery in the past 25 years. A total of 301 patients (54.2%) underwent first-time redo valvular surgeries; 178 (32.1%) were second redos, 60 (10.8%) were third redos, and 16 were fourth redos (2.9%). The mean follow-up period was 6.8 ± 6.3 years.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was 5.8%. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV (P = 0.0007, odds ratio = 4.403) and hemodialysis (P = 0.0383, odds ratio = 7.196) were risk factors for hospital death. Long-term survival rates at 15 and 20 years were 64.7% ± 4.3% and 59.1% ± 5.0%, respectively. Predictors of late death were first time redo (P = 0.0076, hazard ratio = 0.422) and age younger than 61 years (P = 0.0005, hazard ratio = 0.229). There were significant differences in long-term survival between NYHA classes I/II and III/IV (log-rank test, P = 0.0419) and between the time from redo surgery (log-rank test, P = 0.0189) and age (log-rank test, P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The hospital mortality rate for redo valve surgery has improved. Early referral for redo surgery can contribute to improving early and late outcomes.