Long-term results of patients undergoing the Ross procedure after a previous aortic valve surgery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing a Ross procedure in the context of a redo aortic valve (AV) surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data in all consecutive adults who underwent a Ross procedure were analyzed to compare the Ross procedure performed as a first surgery (RF) or as a redo surgery (RP).

RESULTS

Between 1990 and 2021, 395 Ross procedures were performed at our center (RF, n = 345; RP, n = 50). A 2:1 propensity score matching was performed (RF, n = 100; RP, n = 50). The overall median follow-up was 11.6 years (interquartile range, 5.0-21.8 years) and 100% complete. Mean survival at 20 years was 87 ± 12% in the RF group and 87 ± 8% in the RP group (P = .30). The cumulative incidence of autograft reintervention at 10 years and 20 years was 6 ± 3% and 21 ± 6%, respectively, in the RF group and 9 ± 5% and 25 ± 8%, respectively, in the RP group (P = .74). The AV gradient remained stable up to 20 years in both groups (P = .42). The size of the sinuses of Valsalva tended to increase over time in the RF group but remained stable in the RP group (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

The ross procedure after a previous sternotomy for AV surgery is safe and offers good long-term results. Patients undergoing redo AV intervention have similar results as patients undergoing a primary Ross procedure, perhaps with a lower risk of autograft dilatation.

Ross procedure or mechanical aortic valve, which is the best lifetime option for an 18-year-old? A decision analysis

Objectives

Identifying the optimal solution for young adults requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) is challenging, given the variety of options and their lifetime complication risks, impacts on quality of life, and costs. Decision analytic techniques make comparisons incorporating these measures. We evaluated lifetime valve-related outcomes of mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) versus the Ross procedure (Ross) using decision tree microsimulations modeling.

Methods

Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs derived from published reports were entered into a Markov model decision tree to explore progression between health states for hypothetical 18-year-old patients. In total, 20,000 Monte Carlo microsimulations were performed to model mortality, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), and health care costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses was performed to identify transition probabilities at which the preferred strategy switched from baseline.

Results

From modeling, average 20-year mortality was 16.3% and 23.2% for Ross and mAVR, respectively. Average 20-year freedom from stroke and major bleeding was 98.6% and 94.6% for Ross, and 90.0% and 82.2% for mAVR, respectively. Average individual lifetime (60 postoperative years) utility (28.3 vs 23.5 QALYs) and cost ($54,233 vs $507,240) favored Ross over mAVR. The average ICER demonstrated that each QALY would cost $95,345 more for mAVR. Sensitivity analysis revealed late annual probabilities of autograft/left ventricular outflow tract disease and homograft/right ventricular outflow tract disease after Ross, and late death after mAVR, to be important ICER determinants.

Conclusions

Our modeling suggests that Ross is preferred to mAVR, with superior freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortality, and improved cost-utility for young adults requiring aortic valve surgery.

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of bioprosthetic (BV) versus mechanical valves (MV) on long-term outcomes in 50- to 70-year-old aortic stenosis (AS) patients. A literature search for articles published until April 2023 yielded 13 eligible studies, with 15,320 patients divided into BV (n = 7,320) and MV (n = 8,000) cohorts. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42021278777). MV demonstrated a favorable hazard ratio (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.25, I2 = 60%) and higher survival rates at 5 (OR:1.13, 95% CI: 1.02-1.25, I2 = 42%) and 10 years (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.23, I2 = 0%). At 15 years, stroke incidence was comparable (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.98-1.27, I2 = 4%). BV showed lower bleeding events (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.18-2.46, I2 = 88%), but MV replacement showed lower reoperation incidence (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.42, I2 = 85%). MV appears favorable for the long-term approach in AS management compared to BV.

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.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo aortic valve replacement: which procedure for which patient?

INTRODUCTION

Bioprosthetic aortic valves are increasingly being utilized in a younger population due to improved durability and possibility for future valve-in-valve replacement. This has resulted in a larger population of patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Despite no head-to-head comparisons between redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR), observational studies suggest a comparable long-term risk between which led to the incorporation of ViV TAVR to current guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the comparative performance of redo SAVR versus ViV TAVR in patients with bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and provides a guide to better understand which procedure is best for which patient.

EXPERT OPINION

With the rising use of TAVR, we will be confronted with more bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration requiring re-intervention. Based on the available evidence and expert consensus, we propose that patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration be treated with ViV TAVR if they have a history of radiation heart disease, prohibitive surgical risk, and multiple sternotomies; while patients with small prostheses, history of infective endocarditis, those at high risk for coronary obstruction, and those with need for other cardiac surgery will be managed with redo SAVR.

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.

Repeat aortic valve surgery: contemporary outcomes and risk stratification

OBJECTIVES

Redo aortic valve surgery (rAVS) is performed with increasing frequency, but operative mortality is usually higher compared to that associated with primary aortic valve surgery. We analysed our patients who had rAVS to determine the current outcomes of rAVS as a surgical benchmark in view of the growing interest in transcatheter valve techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 148 consecutive patients [median age 67.7 years (interquartile range 54.9-77.6); 68.2% men] who underwent rAVS following aortic valve replacement (81.6%), aortic root replacement (15%) or aortic valve repair (3.4%) between 2000 and 2018.

RESULTS

Indications for rAVS were structural valve dysfunction (42.7%), endocarditis (37.8%), non-structural valve dysfunction (17.7%) and aortic aneurysm (2.1%). Valve replacement was performed in 69.7%, and 34 new root procedures were necessary in 23%. Early mortality was 9.5% (n = 14). Female gender [odds ratio (OR) 6.16], coronary disease (OR 4.26) and lower creatinine clearance (OR 0.95) were independent predictors of early mortality. Follow-up was 98.6% complete [median 5.9 (interquartile range 1.7-10.9) years]. Survival was 74.1 ± 3.7%, 57.9 ± 5.1% and 43.8 ± 6.1% at 5, 10 and 14 years, respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed female gender [hazard ratio (HR) 1.73], diabetes (HR 1.73), coronary disease (HR 1.62) and peripheral vascular disease (HR 1.98) as independent determinants of late survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite many urgent situations and advanced New York Heart Association functional class at presentation, rAVS could be performed with acceptable early and late outcomes. Risk factors for survival were female gender, coronary disease and urgency. In this all-comers patient cohort needing rAVS, only a minority would eventually qualify for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures.