Selection of prosthetic aortic valve and root replacement in patients younger than age 30 years

Midterm Outcomes of Stented Versus Stentless Bioprosthetic Valves After Aortic Root Replacement

To determine the impact of aortic root replacement (ARR) with a stentless bioprosthetic valve on midterm outcomes compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve-graft conduit. This was an observational study of aortic root operations from 2010 to 2018. All patients with a complete ARR for nonendocarditis reasons were included, while patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacements or primary aortic valve replacement or repair were excluded. Of the patients with a complete ARR, bioprosthetic valve implants were included, while mechanical valve implants were excluded. Patients were dichotomized into the stented ARR group and the stentless ARR group. A total of 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity matching was employed to assess the association of stentless valves with short-term and midterm outcomes. A total of 455 patients underwent a complete ARR with a bioprosthetic valve implant for nonendocarditis reasons, of which 212 (46.6%) received a stented valve, while 243 (53.4%) received a stentless valve. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar across each group (P > 0.05), including operative mortality and adverse neurologic events. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 4.41 years (95% CI: 4.01, 4.95). At 1 year follow-up, aortic regurgitation ≥ 2+ and ejection fraction were similar across each group (P > 0.05); however, the stentless valve group had lower aortic valve velocity and transvalvular pressure gradient. Finally, reoperations and survival were similar for each group over the study's follow-up (P > 0.05). Stentless valves may provide hemodynamic benefits after ARR; however, the clinical impact of those benefits for survival and reoperation may not yet be evident in the midterm.

Aortic valve replacement in sheep with a novel trileaflet mechanical heart valve prosthesis without anticoagulation

Background

Even after decades of intensive research, an ideal heart valve prosthesis remains elusive. Shortcomings of conventional devices include reduced durability of bioprostheses and the thrombogenicity of mechanical substitutes, necessitating anticoagulation and resulting in imperfect hemodynamics. Here we present in vivo results of a novel mechanical heart valve prosthesis aiming for freedom from anticoagulation.

Methods

Four female sheep had their aortic valves replaced using the novel mechanical heart valve (size 21 mm), with no postoperative anticoagulation treatment. This trileaflet heart valve was designed with the pivots in the systolic central flow. Hemodynamics, biochemistry, hematology, and macroscopy and microscopy were studied at 90 days in 2 sheep and at 1 year in the other 2 sheep.

Results

Mean (<6 mm Hg) and peak (<10 mm Hg) aortic transvalvular gradients remained low during the study period. Aortic regurgitation was trivial, and central traces were only rarely observed. The rate of thrombotic events was very low, with none macroscopically and microscopically visible thrombotic material on the device. Biochemistry and hemotology were unchanged without hemolysis. In 3 sheep, the fibrous pannus and mitral leaflet were partially folded over the edge of the annular body. Apart from organic/inorganic deposits on the leaflets after 1 year, the ultrastructurally evaluated leaflets were similar to those of nonimplanted controls.

Conclusions

The preliminary in vivo results of this novel anticoagulation-free aortic mechanical heart valve are promising with excellent hemodynamics and a very low risk of thrombotic events.

Increased utilization of bioprosthetic aortic valve technology:Trends, drivers, controversies and future directions

Introduction: Bioprosthetic valves (BPV) implanted surgically or by transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) comprise an overwhelming majority of substitute aortic valves implanted worldwide.Areas Covered: Prominent drivers of this trend are: 1) BPV patients have generally better outcomes than those with a mechanical valve, and remain largely free of anticoagulation and its consequences; 2) BPV durability has improved over the years; and 3) the expanding use of TAVI and valve-in-valve (VIV) procedures permitting interventional management of structural valve degeneration (SVD). Nevertheless, key controversies exist: 1) optimal anticoagulation regimens for surgical and TAVI BPVs; 2) the incidence, mechanisms and mitigation strategies for SVD; 3) the use of VIV for treatment of SVD, and 4) valve selection recommendations for difficult cohorts, (e.g. patients 50-70 years, patients <50, childbearing age women). This communication reviews trends in and drivers of BPV utilization, current controversies, and future directions affecting BPV use.Expert Opinion: Long-term data are needed in several areas related to aortic BPV use, including anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy, especially following TAVI. TAVI and especially VIV durability and optimal use warrant will benefit greatly from long-term data. Certain populations may benefit from such high-quality data on multi-year outcomes, particularly younger patients.

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.

Clinical Outcome of Reoperation for Mechanical Prosthesis at Aortic Position

AIM

Redo aortic valve surgery is usually associated with a high risk of mortality and complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of reoperation after prior mechanical prosthesis implantation at the aortic position.

METHOD

The clinical data of 146 consecutive patients who underwent reoperation at the aortic position between 2003 and 2019 were analysed.

RESULTS

Mean age was 51.5±12.7 years and 69 (47.3%) were female. The median interval from prior surgery to redo aortic valve surgery was 6 years. The aetiologies were pannus formation with prosthetic aortic stenosis in 62 cases (42.5%), prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) in five (3.4%), PVE with perivalvular leakage (PVL) in 16 (11.0%), PVL in 45 (30.8%), thrombosis in seven (4.8%), and aortic disease in 11 (7.5%). As for surgical procedure, aortic valve replacement was performed in 81 cases (55.5%), Bentall in 34 (23.3%), PVL repair in six (4.1%), and pannus debridement in 25 (17.1%). Fourteen (14) (9.6%) patients expired perioperatively. Prolonged ventilation time and postoperative renal failure were proved to be significant independent predictors of mortality according to multivariate analysis. Overall survival was 87.8%±7.4% and 76.4%±15.1% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Survival was 87.7%±13.7% and 84.2%±15.6% in the pannus group, and 84.5%±12.6% and 74.6%±19.4% in the non-pannus group at 5 and 10 years, respectively (p=0.951). Survival was 87.5%±14.2% and 75.8%±22.7% in the PVL group and 84.7%±11.9% and 81.6%±13.5% in the non-PVL group at 5 and 10 years, respectively (p=0.365).

CONCLUSIONS

Pannus formation and PVL are two major indications for reoperation of mechanical prosthesis at the aortic position. Redo aortic valve surgery has a satisfactory outcome but with a high risk of complications. Long-term survival of patients seems not to be related to the aetiology. Final decision-making of redo aortic valve surgery should be based on aetiology.