Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Risk Patients: Preliminary Results From a Prospective Multicenter Registry

Reliability of EuroSCORE II on Prediction of Thirty-Day Mortality and Long-Term Results in Patients Treated with Sutureless Valves

Background: EuroSCORE II (ES2) is a reliable tool for preoperative cardiac surgery mortality risk prediction; however, a patient's age, a surgical procedure's weight and the new devices available may cause its accuracy to drift. We sought to investigate ES2 performance related to the surgical risk and late mortality estimation in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless valves. Methods: Between 2012 and 2021, a total of 1126 patients with isolated aortic stenosis who underwent surgical AVR by means of sutureless valves were retrospectively collected from six European centers. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the EuroSCORE II risk classes (ES2 < 4%, ES2 4-8% and ES2 > 8%). The accuracy of ES2 in estimating mortality risk was assessed using the standardized mortality ratio (O/E ratio), ROC curves (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) test for goodness-of-fit. Results: The overall observed mortality was 3.0% (predicted mortality ES2: 5.39%) with an observed/expected (O/E) ratio of 0.64 (confidential interval (CI): 0.49-0.89). In our population, ES2 showed a moderate discriminating power (AUC 0.65, 95%CI 0.56-0.72, p < 0.001; HL p = 0.798). Good accuracy was found in patients with ES2 < 4% (O/E ratio 0.54, 95%CI 0.23-1.20, AUC 0.75, p < 0.001, HL p = 0.999) and for patients with an age < 75 years (O/E ratio 0.98, 95%CI 0.45-1.96, AUC 0.76, p = 0.004, HL p = 0.762). Moderate discrimination was observed for ES2 in the estimation of long-term risk of mortality (AUC 0.64, 95%CI: 0.60-0.68, p < 0.001). Conclusions: EuroSCORE II showed good accuracy in patients with an age < 75 years and patients with ES2 < 4%, while overestimating risk in the other subgroups. A recalibration of the model should be taken into account based on the complexity of actual patients and impact of new technologies.

Multicentre experience of sutureless prostheses inside degenerated stentless aortic valves and bioroots

OBJECTIVES

Patients with failed stentless aortic prostheses are a challenging population to treat, as reoperative procedures may be complex and catheter-based treatments are associated with a high rate of procedural events. Reoperative surgery using sutureless valves may be an alternative.

METHODS

In this multicentre experience, we assess outcomes of 17 patients who underwent reoperative surgery using the Perceval valve (Corcym UK Limited, London, UK) inside Freestyle prosthesis (Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland) or bioroots from 2018 to 2023.

RESULTS

Mean age was 71.1 ±  standard deviation 15.1 years and mean EuroSCORE II was 13.5 ± 15.8%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score was 5.9 ± 11.7%. Mean transvalvular gradient at baseline was 25.3 ± 19.9 mmHg and left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.5 ±  standard deviation 8.5%. In 70.6% (12/17), moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was present. Implant success was 100%. Aortic cross-clamp time was 44.5 ±  standard deviation 23.6 min. No patient needed a pacemaker and no mild paravalvular regurgitation occurred. Mean gradient was 12.5 ± 4.7 mmHg; 30-day mortality was 5.9% (1/17).

CONCLUSIONS

Rate of mortality was lower than predicted by EuroSCORE II in these high-risk patients and haemodynamic outcomes were favourable. Heart teams should consider this treatment concept when discussing patients with failed stentless valves or bioroots.

Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Current Status in Korea

BACKGROUND

In the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, this study was conducted to investigate the current trend of aortic valve procedures in Korea and to evaluate the early and mid-term outcomes of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using bioprosthetic valves in contemporary Korea.

METHODS

Contemporary outcomes of isolated bioprosthetic SAVR in Korea were analyzed using the datasets on a multicenter basis. Patients who underwent isolated SAVR using bioprostheses from June 2015 to May 2019 were included, and those with concomitant cardiac procedures, SAVR with mechanical valve, or SAVR for infective endocarditis were excluded. A total of 456 patients from 4 large-volume centers were enrolled in this study. Median follow-up duration was 43.4 months. Early postoperative outcomes, mid-term clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean age of the patients was 73.1 ± 7.3 years, and EuroSCORE II was 2.23 ± 2.09. The cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp times were median 106 and 76 minutes, respectively. SAVR was performed with full median sternotomy (81.8%), right thoracotomy (14.7%), or partial sternotomy (3.5%). Operative mortality was 1.8%. The incidences of stroke and permanent pacemaker implantation were 1.1% and 1.1%, respectively. Paravalvular regurgitation ≥ mild was detected in 2.6% of the patients. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality at 5 years was 13.0%. Cumulative incidences of cardiovascular mortality and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction at 5 years were 7.6% and 6.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The most recent data for isolated SAVR using bioprostheses in Korea resulted in excellent early and mid-term outcomes in a multicenter study.

Post-operative Quality of Life after Full-sternotomy and Mini-sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Few longitudinal data exist comparing quality of life (QoL) after full sternotomy aortic valve replacement (fsAVR) vs mini-sternotomy AVR (msAVR) METHODS: 1844 consecutive AVR prospectively enrolled in a European multicentre Registry were dichotomized according to surgical access. A non-parsimonious propensity-score matching selected 187 pairs of fsAVR or msAVR with comparable baseline characteristics. Hospital outcome was compared in the two groups. QoL was assessed with Short Form-36, further detailed in its Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS). QoL was investigated at hospital admission, discharge, 1 month, 6 months and 1 year thereafter.

RESULTS

There were 1654 fsAVR and 190 msAVR in the entire population. fsAVR showed a worse preoperative risk-profile, a longer ICU length of stay (59.7 hours vs 38.8, p=0.002), and a higher life-threatening/disabling bleeding (4.1% vs. 0%; p=0.011); msAVR reported a higher early reintervention for failed index intervention (2.1% vs. 0.5%, p=0.001). QoL showed better PCS and MCS at 1 month after fsAVR, but no temporal-trend differences (PCS group-time p=0.202; MCS group-time p=0.141). Propensity-matched pairs showed comparable baseline characteristics and hospital outcome (p=NS for all endpoints), and comparable improvements of PCS and MCS over time, but no between-group differences over time (PCS group-time p=0.834; MCS group-time p=0.737).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with similar baseline profiles report comparable hospital outcome and comparable improvement of physical and mental health, up to 1 year after surgery, with both fsAVR and msAVR. As for QoL, mini-sternotomy does not seem to offer any advantage compared to the traditional approach.

Contemporary short-term outcomes of surgery for aortic stenosis: transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacements (TAVR and SAVR) in high-, intermediate-, and low-preoperative risk patients.

Methods

A total of 454 patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR were included. Patients were categorized into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk according to the Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score and clinical outcomes were compared between TAVR and SAVR groups.

Results

TAVR was less invasive, with less bleeding and transfusion (p < 0.001), less frequent new-onset atrial fibrillation (p < 0.001), and shorter intensive care unit stay (p < 0.001). Furthermore, transcatheter valves performed better than surgical valves, with lower peak velocity (p = 0.003) and pressure gradient (p < 0.001) and higher effective orifice area index (p < 0.001). The clinical outcomes of TAVR were comparable to or even superior to those of SAVR in high- and intermediate-risk patients. In low-risk patients, the 1- and 2-year mortality rates were 6.3% and 12.1%, respectively, in the TAVR group and 0% and 0.9%, respectively, in the SAVR group (p < 0.001). Mild or greater paravalvular leakage was a risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio 35.78; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

TAVR was superior to SAVR in the sense of less invasiveness and valvular function. However, the indication of TAVR in low-risk patients should be carefully discussed, because paravalvular leakage was a risk factor for short-term mortality.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11748-021-01672-8.

Aortic valve replacement in patients over 60: Real-world surgical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has come an expectation that there will be a decline in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This has been fueled by trials comparing outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in lower-risk patients. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes following SAVR in patients over the age of 60.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study observed 1005 patients ≥60 who underwent isolated primary SAVR from January 2015 to December 2018. The cohort was stratified by surgical risk, defined as European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II < 4 versus ≥4. The cohort was also divided by age (60-69, 70-79, ≥80) for additional comparisons. Outcomes included in-hospital complications and patient survival.

RESULTS

The median age and EuroSCORE II were 75 years and 1.6, respectively. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.7% and increased significantly with surgical risk (p = .007). The 30-day mortality of elective patients was 1.1%. Overall, 1- and 2-year survival rates were 94.3% and 91.7%, respectively, which significantly decreased with surgical risk (p < .001) and age (p = .002, p = .003). The rates of postoperative stroke and pacemaker implantations were 1.2% and 3.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR can be performed in patients ≥60 years old with excellent outcomes, which compare favorably with outcomes from TAVI trials, with their highly selected patient cohorts. SAVR remains a reliable, tried and tested, treatment option in these patients.