Incidence and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after reoperative aortic valve replacement: a retrospective single-center study

Background

Reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) is associated with increased mortality compared with initial surgery, and a smaller valve might be implanted during repeat AVR (re-AVR; AVR after prior AVR). We describe the clinical outcomes and incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatches (PPM) after reoperative AVR.

Methods

Among 113 patients who underwent reoperative AVR between 2007 and 2018, 44 underwent re-AVR and 69 underwent a first replacement of a diseased natural valve after any cardiac surgery except AVR (primary AVR). We then compared early and late outcomes, the impact of re-AVR on the effective orifice areas (EOA), and the incidence and influence of PPM on reoperative AVR.

Results

Hospital mortality was 2.7%, and the overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 95, 91 and 86%, respectively. The reference EOA of the newly implanted valve was smaller than that of the previous valve (1.4 ± 0.3 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3 cm², p < 0.01). The mean pressure gradient was greater (15.2 ± 6.4 vs. 12.7 ± 6.2 mmHg, p = 0.04) and indexed EOA was smaller (0.92 ± 0.26 vs. 1.06 ± 0.36 cm²/m², p = 0.04) during re-AVR than primary AVR, whereas the incidence of PPM was similar (38.7% vs. 34.8%, p = 0.87) between the groups.

Conclusions

The clinical outcomes of reoperative AVR were acceptable. Although the reference EOA of new implanted valves was smaller than that of previous valves, re-AVR did not increase the incidence of PPM. These findings might serve as a guide for future decisions regarding the surgical approach to treating degenerated prosthetic valves.

Minimally Invasive Redo Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From a Multicentric Registry (SURD-IR)

BACKGROUND

Reoperation for aortic valve replacement can be challenging and is usually associated with an increased risk for complications and mortality. The study aim was to report the results of a multicenter cohort of patients who underwent minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2018 data from 3651 patients were retrospectively collected from the Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry. Of them, 63 patients who had previously undergone cardiac surgery represented the study population. In-hospital clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean age of the selected 63 patients was 75.3 ± 7.8 years and logistic EuroSCORE 10.1. Surgery was performed by ministernotomy in 43 patients (68.3%) and by anterior right thoracotomy in 20 (31.7%); 31 patients (49.2%) received the Perceval valve (Livanova PLC, London, UK) and 32 (50.8%) the Intuity valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Mean cross-clamp time was 57.8 ± 23.2 minutes and cardiopulmonary bypass time 95.0 ± 34.3 minutes. Neither conversion to full sternotomy nor in-hospital deaths occurred. Postoperative events were ischemic cerebral events in 3 patients (4.8%), need for pacemaker implantation in 2 (3.6%), bleeding requiring reoperation in 5 (8.9%), and dialysis in 1 (1.6%). Median intensive care unit stay was 1 day, and median length of hospital stay was 10 days. On echocardiographic evaluation 1 patient showed a significant postoperative aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis is a safe and feasible treatment strategy, resulting in fast recovery and improved postoperative outcome with no mortality and an acceptable complication rate.