Results of bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in <50 Years Old Patients - Where is the Evidence?

Aortic valve disease is one of the most common valvular heart diseases in the cardiovascular category. Surgical replacement of the diseased aortic valve remains the definitive intervention for most diseases.

There is a clear consensus that in young patients who require aortic valve replacement, a mechanical prosthesis is the preferred choice due to its durable prosthesis without fear of wear and tear over time. However, this comes at the expense of increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events; in addition, there is a lack of strict evidence in using bioprosthesis in patients younger than 50 years. The objective of this review article is to assess the current evidence behind using bioprosthetic aortic valve in this young cohort.

Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the utilization and in-hospital outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in Spain (2001-2015)

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to examine trends in the incidence and in-hospital outcomes of SAVR among T2DM patients from 2001 to 2015, to compare clinical variables among T2DM patients and matched non-T2DM patients hospitalized for SAVR and to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality (IHM) among T2DM patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study using the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database, 2001-2015. We included patients who had SAVR as the procedure in their discharge report. For each T2DM patient, we selected a sex-, age-, implanted valve type- and year-matched nondiabetic patient.

RESULTS

We identified 78,223 patients who underwent SAVR (23.49% with T2DM). The prevalence of T2DM increased significantly (p < 0.001) from 16.7% in 2001-2003 to 23.5% in 2012-2015. The incidence of SAVR increased significantly from 28.99 cases in 2001 to 65.79 cases in 2015 per 100,000 individuals in the T2DM population. Using Poisson regression models, we found that the incidence of SAVR was 2.60 times higher among patients with T2DM than among those without diabetes (IRR 2.60; 95% CI 2.56-2.65). The incidence of mechanical SAVR among T2DM patients remained stable from 2001 to 2015, and bioprosthetic SAVR rose from 8.29 to 41.74 cases per 100,000 individuals in the T2DM patient population (p < 0.001). We matched 8835 and 9543 patients who underwent mechanical and bioprosthetic SAVR, respectively. IHM decreased over time in T2DM patients and non-T2DM patients (from 8.89% and 7.81% to 3.88% and 5.07%, respectively). IHM was significantly lower in T2DM patients than in nondiabetic subjects who underwent bioprosthetic SAVR (4.77% vs. 6.04%, p < 0.001), with similar results obtained for mechanical valves (7.11% and 7.77%).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of SAVR was higher in T2DM patients, and the incidence of bioprosthetic SAVR increased significantly among T2DM subjects. IHM decreased over time, regardless of the existence or absence of T2DM and the valve type. IHM was significantly lower in T2DM patients than in nondiabetic patients who underwent bioprosthetic SAVR.

Calcification and Oxidative Modifications Are Associated With Progressive Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Dysfunction

Background

Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs), fabricated from glutaraldehyde‐pretreated bovine pericardium or porcine aortic valves, are widely used for the surgical or interventional treatment of heart valve disease. Reoperation becomes increasingly necessary over time because of BHV dysfunction.

Methods and Results

Forty‐seven explanted BHV aortic valve replacements were retrieved at reoperation for clinically severe BHV dysfunction over the period 2010–2016. Clinical explant analyses of BHV leaflets for calcium (atomic absorption spectroscopy) and oxidized amino acids, per mass spectroscopy, were primary end points. Comorbidities for earlier BHV explant included diabetes mellitus and coronary artery bypass grafting. Mean calcium levels in BHV leaflets were significantly increased compared with unimplanted BHV (P<0.001); however, time to reoperation did not differ comparing calcified and noncalcified BHV. BHV dityrosine, an oxidized amino acid cross‐link, was significantly increased in the explants (227.55±33.27 μmol/mol [dityrosine/tyrosine]) but was undetectable in unimplanted leaflets (P<0.001). BHV regional analyses revealed that dityrosine, ranging from 57.5 to 227.8 μmol/mol (dityrosine/tyrosine), was detectable only in the midleaflet samples, indicating the site‐specific nature of dityrosine formation. 3‐Chlorotyrosine, an oxidized amino acid formed by myeloperoxidase‐catalyzed chlorinating oxidants, correlated with BHV calcium content in leaflet explant analyses from coronary artery bypass graft patients (r=0.62, P=0.01) but was not significantly correlated with calcification in non–coronary artery bypass graft explanted BHV.

Conclusions

Both increased BHV leaflet calcium levels and elevated oxidized amino acids were associated with bioprosthesis dysfunction necessitating reoperation; however, BHV calcium levels were not a determinant of implant duration, indicating a potentially important role for oxidized amino acid formation in BHV dysfunction.

Contemporary outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses and allografts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Many observational studies have reported outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), but there are no recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses including all available bioprostheses and allografts. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported in the last 15 years. We conducted a systematic literature review (PROSPERO register: CRD42015017041) of studies published between 2000–15. Inclusion criteria were observational studies or randomized controlled trials reporting on outcomes of AVR with bioprostheses (stented or stentless) or allografts, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve repair procedure, with study population size n ≥ 30 and mean follow-up length ≥5 years. Fifty-four bioprosthesis studies and 14 allograft studies were included, encompassing 55 712 and 3872 patients and 349 840 and 32 419 patient-years, respectively. We pooled early mortality risk and linearized occurrence rates of valve-related events, reintervention and late mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influence of outliers on the pooled estimates and to explore sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plots were used to investigate publication bias. Pooled early mortality risks for bioprostheses and allografts were 4.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.44–5.62) and 5.03% (95% CI, 3.61–7.01), respectively. The late mortality rate was 5.70%/patient-year (95% CI, 4.99–5.62) for bioprostheses and 1.68%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.23–2.28) for allografts. Pooled reintervention rates for bioprostheses and allografts were 0.75%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.61–0.91) and 1.87%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.52–2.31), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity in most outcomes. Meta-regression analyses identified covariates that could explain the heterogeneity: implantation period, valve type, patient age, gender, pre-intervention New York Heart Association class III/IV, concomitant CABG, study design and follow-up length. There is possible publication bias in all outcomes. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported during the last 15 years. The results of this study can support patients and doctors in the prosthetic valve choice and can be used in microsimulation models to predict patient outcomes and estimate the cost-effectiveness of AVR with bioprostheses or allografts compared with current and future heart valve prostheses.

Impact of Preoperative Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction on Long-Term Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

Background—

The survival of patients who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis with reduced preoperative ejection fractions (EFs) is not well described in the literature.

Methods and Results—

Patients undergoing AVR for severe aortic stenosis were analyzed using the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group surgical registry. Patients were stratified by preoperative EF (≥50%, 40%–49%, and <40%) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Crude and adjusted survival across strata of EF was estimated for patients up to 8 years beyond their index admission. A total of 5277 patients underwent AVR for severe aortic stenosis between 1992 and 2008. There were 727 (14%) patients with preoperative EF <40%. Preoperative EF had minimal effect on postoperative morbidity. There was no difference in 30-day mortality across EF strata among the isolated AVR cohort. Preserved EF conferred 30-day survival benefit among the AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting population (EF≥50%, 96%; EF<40%, 91%; P =0.003). Patients with preserved EF had significantly improved 6-month and 8-year survival compared with their reduced EF counterparts.

Conclusions—

Survival after AVR or AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting was most favorable among patients with preoperative preserved EF. However, patients with mild to moderately depressed EF experienced a substantial survival benefit compared with the natural history of medically treated patients. Furthermore, minor reductions of EF carried equivalent increased risk to those with more compromised function suggesting patients are best served when an AVR is performed before even minor reductions in myocardial function.

Coronary artery bypass grafting associated to aortic valve replacement in the elderly: survival and quality of life

Myocardial ischemia is often associated to aortic valve stenosis in the elderly. Aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on survival and quality of life of CABG associated to aortic valve replacement in the septuagenarians and octogenarians.

Between January 1991 and January 2010, 520 patients ageing > 70 years underwent aortic valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis in two Institutions. They were divided into 2 groups: Group A included 406 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement; Group B 114 patients receiving aortic valve replacement and CABG. A comparative analysis of long-term survival and quality of life (SF-36 test) was performed.

Mean age was 74.2 ± 3.6 years (74.3 ± 3.6 in Group A, 74 ± 3.3 in Group B; p = 0.33). Hospital mortality was 9.5% (46 patients). Twenty-nine (7.8%) in Group A and 17 in Group B (15.2%)(p = 0.019). Actuarial survival was 88.5% ± 0.015 at 1 year, 81.9% ± 0.02 at 5 years, 76.6% ± 0.032 at 10 and 57.3 ± 0.1 at 15 years. Ten-year survival was 77% ± 0.034 in Group A and 77.8% ± 0.045 in Group B (p = 0.2). Multivariate analysis did not reveal associated CABG as a predictor of long term mortality. The scores obtained in the SF-36 test were similar in the two groups and significantly higher than those of the general population matched for country, age and sex (p < 0.001 in all domains).

Associated CABG determines a significant increase of hospital mortality in the elderly undergoing aortic valve replacement. Survivors did not show differences in long-term outcome and quality of life according to the presence of associated CABG.

Aortic Valve Replacement in the Elderly

Background—

Few data exist on long-term outcomes of elderly patients after aortic valve replacement. We evaluated latest follow-up information for patients ≥70 years of age after aortic valve replacement.

Methods and Results—

Late overall survival of 2890 consecutive patients ≥70 years of age who underwent aortic valve replacement between January 1993 and December 2007 was reviewed retrospectively, analyzed, and stratified by preoperative and intraoperative variables. Observed 5-, 10-, and 15-year late postoperative survival was lower than generally expected (68%, 34%, and 8% versus 70%, 42%, and 20%, respectively; P <0.001). Independent predictors of late death included older age, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, stroke, myocardial infarction, immunosuppression, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, implanted pacemaker, lower ejection fraction, hypertension, and New York Heart Association class III or IV. After stratification by age–comorbidity risk score, 10-year survival for the lowest-risk group (n=946 [33%]) was similar to expected survival (55% versus 55%; P =0.50), but for the highest-risk group (n=564 [20%]), survival was significantly lower than expected (9% versus 26%; P <0.001). For 229 pairs of propensity-matched patients with mechanical or biological prostheses, survival was not significantly different (67%, 40%, and 19% versus 71%, 45%, and 7% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively; P =0.81). Structural deterioration of bioprostheses occurred in 64 patients (2.4%).

Conclusions—

Survival of elderly patients after aortic valve replacement is influenced by age and preoperative comorbidities; 33% at lowest risk had overall survival similar to that of an age- and sex-matched general population. There was no sufficient evidence that valve type affected survival. Structural deterioration of aortic bioprostheses was rare.

The impact of gender on in-hospital mortality and morbidity after isolated aortic valve replacement

The objective of our retrospective investigation was to examine the influence of gender on in-hospital mortality and morbidity after isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). Between January 1993 and June 2002, 2212 patients (782 females, 1430 males) underwent AVR. Propensity matching was used to adjust for numerous differences in baseline characteristics and perioperative variables between groups. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher in females (27 [3.5%] females versus 23 [1.6%] males; P = 0.005). An analysis using 1:1 matching by propensity score did not find a significant difference in in-hospital mortality [OR (95% confidence intervals), 1.0 [0.4, 2.6]; P = 0.99) or overall morbidity (1.4 [0.7, 2.5]; P = 0.29) between groups. Further analyses, including classification of women and men into quintile groups by propensity scores and logistic regression models with propensity score adjustment, found that females were at increased risk for cardiac morbidity [OR (95% CI), 3.4 [1.1, 10.8]; P = 0.038), but not mortality (0.9 [0.3, 2.5]; P = 0.88) nor other morbidities. These results suggest that there is no greater than a 2.5-fold increase in risk for females compared with males undergoing AVR. Female gender, however, may impart increased risk for cardiac morbidity after AVR.

Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Choice of a mechanical or biologic valve in aortic valve replacement remains controversial and rotates around different complications with different time-related incidence rates. Because serious complications will always "spill over" into mortality, our aim was to perform a meta-analysis on overall mortality after aortic valve replacement from series with a maximum follow-up of at least 10 years to determine the age- and risk factor-corrected impact of currently available mechanical versus stented bioprosthetic valves.

METHODS

Following a formal study protocol, we performed a dedicated literature search of publications during 1989 to 2004 and included articles on adult aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or stented bioprosthetic valve if age, mortality statistics, and prevalences of well-known risk factors could be extracted. We used standard and robust regression analyses of the case series data with valve type as a fixed variable.

RESULTS

We could include 32 articles with 15 mechanical and 23 biologic valve series totaling 17,439 patients and 101,819 patient-years. The mechanical and biologic valve series differed in regard to mean age (58 vs 69 years), mean follow-up (6.4 vs 5.3 years), coronary artery bypass grafting (16% vs 34%), endocarditis (7% vs 2%), and overall death rate (3.99 vs 6.33 %/patient-year). Mean age of the valve series was directly related to death rate with no interaction with valve type. Death rate corrected for age, New York Heart Association classes III and IV, aortic regurgitation, and coronary artery bypass grafting left valve type with no effect. Included articles that abided by current guidelines and compared a mechanical and biologic valve found no differences in rates of thromboembolism.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in risk factor-corrected overall death rate between mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valves irrespective of age. Choice of prosthetic valve should therefore not be rigorously based on age alone. Risk of bioprosthetic valve degeneration in young and middle-aged patients and in the elderly and old with a long life expectancy would be an important factor because risk of stroke may primarily be related to patient factors.

Mid term outcome and quality of life after aortic valve replacement in elderly people: mechanical versus stentless biological valves

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefit for patients older than 65 years of aortic valve replacement with stentless biological heart valves in comparison with mechanical valves.

DESIGN

Multiple regression analysis of a retrospective follow up study.

SETTING

Single cardiothoracic centre.

PATIENTS

Between 1996 and 2001, 392 patients with a mean age of 74 years underwent aortic valve replacement with stentless Freestyle bioprostheses or mechanical St Jude Medical prostheses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Operative mortality and morbidity, postoperative morbid events, mid term survival, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, and quality of life.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between patients receiving stentless biological valves and patients receiving mechanical prostheses. However, analysis of subgroups showed that patients older than 75 years with mechanical valves had an increased risk of major bleeding events (p = 0.007). Patients requiring anticoagulation by means of coumarin had a twofold increased risk of an impaired emotional reaction (p = 0.052). However, for patients who received a mechanical valve for severe combined aortic valve disease a survival advantage (p = 0.045) and a decreased risk of prolonged ventilation (p = 0.001) was observed. On the other hand, patients receiving a stentless bioprosthesis had an increased risk of a prolonged stay in intensive care (p = 0.04) and stroke (p = 0.01) if they had severely reduced cardiac function (NYHA class IV).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly people receiving stentless bioprostheses benefit emotionally because of the avoidance of coumarin. However, in patients with severe hypertrophied ventricles and extraordinary calcifications, stentless bioprostheses should be chosen with caution.

When is concomitant aortic valve replacement indicated in patients with mild to moderate stenosis undergoing coronary revascularization?

Mild to moderate aortic stenosis is a common finding in patients presenting for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and its management is controversial. However, review of available data suggests a surgical strategy for these patients. Recent data demonstrate that 1) progression of aortic stenosis is more rapid in those with leaflet calcification; 2) the addition of aortic valve replacement to CABG in patients with mild to moderate stenosis does not increase hospital mortality when compared with bypass surgery alone; 3) hospital mortality for aortic valve replacement after previous bypass surgery has declined in recent years; 4) aortic valve replacement places the patient at risk for prosthesis-related complications; 5) the limited 10-year survival (competing risk of death) leaves only a minority of individuals with mild aortic stenosis alive and eligible for aortic valve replacement 10 years after bypass surgery; and 6) combined aortic valve replacement and CABG confers a survival benefit in those with moderate aortic stenosis but not in those with mild aortic stenosis. Therefore, in the coronary artery bypass patient with moderate aortic stenosis, leaflet calcification, and life expectancy greater than 5 years, concomitant aortic valve replacement is advised. In contrast, aortic valve replacement is rarely indicated in those with mild aortic stenosis.

The Risks and Benefits of Reoperative Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Many patients are advised to have mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) because their expected longevity exceeds that of tissue prostheses. This strategy may avoid the risks of reoperation but exposes patients to the risks of long-term anticoagulation therapy. Which risk is greater?

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 1213 consecutive, unselected AVR patients, 60% of whom had concomitant procedures, who were treated from 1994 through 2002. Of these patients, 887 were first-time AVR patients, and 326 underwent reoperation. Of the reoperation patients, 134 had previously undergone AVR (redo). We constructed a risk model from these 1213 cases to assess the factors that predicted mortality and to examine the extent to which reoperation affected outcome.

RESULTS

Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that factors of reoperation and redo operation did not predict mortality. In fact, the mortality rate was 4.1% for all first AVR operations and 3.1% for all reoperation AVR ( P =.891). Significant predicting factors (with odds ratios) were reoperative dialysis (6.03), preoperative shock (3.68), New York Heart Association class IV (2.20), female sex (1.76), age (1.61), and cardiopulmonary bypass time (1.26).

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, the risk of reoperation AVR is comparable with the published risks of long-term warfarin sodium (Coumadin) administration after mechanical AVR. Any adult who requires AVR may be well advised to consider tissue prostheses.

Aortic valve replacement in patients with previous cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Whether minimally diseased aortic valves should be replaced during other necessary cardiac operations remains controversial. Part of the decision-making process in that issue revolves around the risks of subsequent aortic valve replacement. This study evaluated the results of aortic valve replacement in patients following prior cardiac surgery.

METHODS

From February, 1984 through December, 2001 first-time aortic valve replacement was performed in 132 consecutive patients who had previous cardiac surgery utilizing cardiopulmonary bypass. Of those patients 89 (67%) had aortic valve replacement at a mean of 8.3 years after prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and 43 (33%) had aortic valve replacement at a mean of 13.0 years after previous procedures other than myocardial revascularization. Hospital records of all patients were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Early complications included operative mortality in six (6.7%) of the patients with prior coronary grafting and no mortality in the group with other prior operations. Patients having prior coronary grafting had more nonfatal complications than those with other previous procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement in patients following previous cardiac surgery can be accomplished with acceptable mortality and morbidity. Routine replacement of aortic valves that are minimally diseased during coronary artery bypass grafting may not be warranted.