Long-Term Results of Aortic Valve Replacement

Left Ventricular Mechanics Differ in Subtypes of Aortic Stenosis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Left ventricular (LV) mechanics are impaired in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We hypothesized that there would be differences in myocardial mechanics, measured by global longitudinal strain (GLS) recovery in patients with four subtypes of severe AS after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), stratified based upon flow and gradient.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 204 patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR and were followed post-TAVR at our institution for clinical outcomes. Speckle-tracking transthoracic echocardiography was performed pre- and post-TAVR. Patients were classified as: (1) normal-flow and high-gradient, (2) normal-flow and high-gradient with reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF), (3) classical low-flow and low-gradient, or (4) paradoxical low-flow and low-gradient.

Results

Both GLS (−13.9 ± 4.3 to −14.8 ± 4.3, P < 0.0001) and LVEF (55 ± 15 to 57 ± 14%, P = 0.0001) improved immediately post-TAVR. Patients with low-flow AS had similar improvements in LVEF (+2.6 ± 9%) and aortic valve mean gradient (−23.95 ± 8.34 mmHg) as patients with normal-flow AS. GLS was significantly improved in patients with normal-flow (−0.93 ± 3.10, P = 0.0004) compared to low-flow AS. Across all types of AS, improvement in GLS was associated with a survival benefit, with GLS recovery in alive patients (mean GLS improvement of −1.07 ± 3.10, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

LV mechanics are abnormal in all patients with subtypes of severe AS and improve immediately post-TAVR. Recovery of GLS was associated with a survival benefit. Patients with both types of low-flow AS showed significantly improved, but still impaired, GLS post-TAVR, suggesting underlying myopathy that does not correct post-TAVR.

Current Perspective on Aortic Valve Repair and Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement

Aortic valve repair and valve-sparing aortic root replacement are attractive concepts because they offer the possibility of valve competence without structural deterioration due to nonviability and they preclude the need for anticoagulation. Enthusiasm for aortic valve repair has waxed and waned over the past 45 years due in part to the inherent technical difficulties and poor mid-term results. Renewed interest in the concept of aortic valve repair has paralleled the development of valve-sparing aortic root replacement over the last 20 years. A current perspective on aortic valve repair and valve-sparing aortic root replacement is presented in the following review. Historical background, indications for repair, technical considerations, and outcomes data are discussed.

Mortality and need for reoperation in patients with mild-to-moderate asymptomatic aortic valve disease undergoing coronary artery bypass graft alone

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery may have concurrent asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) or aortic insufficiency (AI). This retrospective study was performed to evaluate outcomes in patients with aortic valve disease undergoing CABG with or without aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

Study groups included 414 patients undergoing combined AVR and CABG (AVR-CABG group) and 62 patients with asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS, AI, or both undergoing CABG but not AVR (CABG group). End points included 30-day mortality rate, time to cardiac mortality, time to all-cause mortality, and time to aortic valve reoperation. Reoperation refers to surgery for replacement of the native aortic valve in the CABG group or replacement of the prosthetic aortic valve in the AVR-CABG group. Important patient characteristics affecting outcomes were determined by using Cox proportional-hazard analysis. These variables were then included in multivariable analyses by using logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional-hazard modeling to compare outcomes between each patient group.

RESULTS

No difference was seen in any of the mortality end points between the CABG group and the AVR-CABG group after controlling for significant differences between the groups. However, the need for reoperation for AVR was significantly higher for the CABG group than the AVR-CABG group. For patients followed for up to 6 years, the estimated need for aortic valve reoperation was 24.3% in the CABG group versus 3% in the AVR-CABG group.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of these results, patients with asymptomatic AS or AI should be considered for AVR at the time of CABG.

The stentless porcine valve

Recognition of the long-term results of homografts has brought about a renewed interest in stentless valves. This has been matched by the introduction of several glutaraldehyde preserved porcine stentless prostheses. The early experience indicates that these valves are technically somewhat simpler to insert than homografts and are associated with satisfactory early and immediate-term results. In particular, they appear to offer an earlier and more complete resolution of left ventricular hypertrophy. Correct insertion of a stentless porcine valve needs meticulous attention to detail and awareness of the precise anatomical features of the aortic root, which is a complex structure. Although the myocardial ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times are longer for the more complex insertion of this prosthesis, our studies indicate that this has no serious disadvantage to the patient and is more than matched by an improved hemodynamic performance associated with more stable left ventricular function. The theoretical advantages of a stentless valve substitute in the aortic position seem clear. Further detailed prospective studies are needed to report on the long-term performance of this valve.

Results of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with relatively low transvalvular pressure gradients

Fifty-two patients with low gradient critical aortic stenosis who underwent aortic valve replacement were found to have a perioperative mortality of 11% and an 8-year actuarial survival of only 29%. No hemodynamic variables, including valvular resistance, predicted long-term outcome, and the only clinical variable that predicted long-term survival was the absence of coronary artery disease.

Late survival after valve operation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular dysfunction is a predictor of hospital mortality after cardiac valve operation. We evaluated late survival in a large cohort of these patients.

METHODS

From 1980 to 1993, 257 patients with a preoperative ejection fraction of 0.40 or less underwent aortic (n = 177), mitral (n = 72), or combined (n = 8) valve operation, with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality was 12.5%. Follow-up was 98% complete. Logistic regression analysis showed that an ejection fraction of less than 0.30, mitral regurgitation, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, emergency operation, and reoperation were independent correlates of hospital mortality (all at p < 0.05). Kaplan-Meier survival curves of the 220 hospital survivors showed a 65% 5-year survival. Multivariate analysis revealed preoperative use of diuretics, male sex, reoperation, age exceeding 60 years, and aortic regurgitation to be independent predictors of poor late outcome (all at p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The liability of left ventricular dysfunction with regard to diminished long-term survival is not completely reversed by valve operation. If operation is not performed before left ventricular dysfunction develops, postoperative medical treatment of these dilated, remodeled ventricles should be considered.

Thirty years experience with heart valve surgery: isolated aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Thirty years have elapsed since the commencement of open-heart surgery in South Australia. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate mortality and complication rates and to identify factors associated with poor outcomes in all patients who underwent prosthetic aortic valve replacement during this period.

METHODS

Questionnaires and personal contact have been used to generate a combined database of pre-operative and post-operative information and long-term follow-up on 1322 patients who underwent isolated prosthetic aortic valve replacement at the Cardio-Thoracic Surgical Unit of the Royal Adelaide Hospital between 1963 and 1992.

RESULTS

Complete survival follow-up data were obtained for 94% (1241) of the patients. The Bjork-Shiley valve was used in 66% (875) of the patients, a Starr-Edwards prosthesis in 31% (412), a St Jude prosthesis in 2% (26), and only 0.7% (9) bioprosthetic valves were inserted. The hospital mortality rate for the 30-year period was 2.9%. Progressively older and less fit patients have undergone surgery in recent years. The long-term survival of patients with aortic stenosis and aortic incompetence was not significantly different. Long-term survival was significantly shorter for patients with higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classifications, and for patients in pre-operative atrial fibrillation. Pre-operative dyspnoea was significantly improved following aortic valve replacement. The rates of postoperative haemorrhagic and embolic complications were low by comparison with other published series.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement can be performed with low hospital mortality and complication rates, and significant symptomatic improvement can be expected. Aortic valve recipients have a favourable prognostic outcome compared with an age- and sex-matched population, and risk factors that determine long-term survival can be identified pre-operatively.

Left ventricular performance improves late after aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction

EF in patients with aortic stenosis and reduced EF who underwent aortic valve replacement did not improve by 1 week postoperatively despite rectification of afterload mismatch. By 6 months, however, EF significantly improved without any further change in ventricular loading conditions. This implies that the benefit from aortic valve replacement (when measured by LV ejection performance) may not be evident until late postoperatively.