Aortic root enlargement: When and how

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch and Aortic Root Enlargement: Indications, Techniques and Outcomes

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined as implanting a prosthetic that is insufficiently sized for the patient receiving it. PPM leads to high residual transvalvular gradients post-aortic valve replacement and consequently results in left ventricular dysfunction, morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term. Younger patients and patients with poor preoperative left ventricular function are more vulnerable to increased mortality secondary to PPM. There is debate over the measurement of valvular effective orifice area (EOA) and variation exists in how manufacturers report the EOA. The most reliable technique is using in vivo echocardiographic measurements to create tables of predicted EOAs for different valve sizes. PPM can be prevented surgically in patients at risk through aortic root enlargement (ARE). Established techniques include the posterior enlargement through Nicks and Manouguian procedures, and aortico-ventriculoplasty with the Konno-Rastan procedure, which allows for a greater enlargement but carries increased surgical risk. A contemporary development is the Yang procedure, which uses a Y-shaped incision created through the non- and left-coronary cusp commissure, undermining the nadirs of the non- and left-coronary cusps. Early results are promising and demonstrate an ability to safely increase the aortic root by up to two to three sizes. Aortic root enlargement thus remains a valuable and safe tool in addressing PPM, and should be considered during surgical planning.

Ozaki Procedure Plus Aortic Annular Enlargement in an Extremely Narrow Aortic Annulus: A Surgical Challenge

We report a 19-year-old woman with a history of percutaneous aortic valve (AV) balloon valvuloplasty 3 years ago. She was admitted with severe symptomatic AV stenosis with narrow aortic annulus. We decided to perform AV reconstruction with autologous pericardium. However, surgical findings revealed a very narrow AV annulus with a unicuspid valve; therefore, an AV enlargement was added.

Successful aortic root enlargement procedure in low resource setting: Two rare cases

BACKGROUND

Small aortic root is an unexpected incident during surgical aortic valve replacement in which the prosthesis valve size does not match the case being treated.

CASE PRESENTATION

Two patient-prosthesis mismatches with aortic valve problems underwent surgical aortic valve replacement. Based on calculating the body surface area (BSA) and effective orifice area (iEOA), the selection of prosthesis valve size was determined. When minor aortic root surgery was performed, it was discovered that the procedure of aortic root enlargement had to be conducted. The surgery went smoothly, but both patients had different outputs. The first patient was dead, while the second patient had a better quality of life.

DISCUSSION

Every surgical aortic valve replacement preparation of aortic root enlargement procedure needs to be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

CONCLUSION

Aortic root enlargement procedure must be anticipated in aortic valve replacement, especially for the patients with small aortic roots, both isolated and with concomitant valve procedure.

Patient Prosthesis Mismatch After SAVR and TAVR

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) remains one out of many factors to be considered during decision-making for the treatment of aortic valve pathologies. The idea of adequate sizing of a prosthetic heart valve was established by Rahimtoola already in 1978. In this article, the author described the phenomenon that the orifice area of a prosthetic heart valve may be too small for the individual patient. PPM is assessed by measurement or projection of the prosthetic effective orifice area indexed to body surface area (iEOA), while it is recommended to use different cut point values for non-obese and obese patients for the categorization of moderate and severe PPM. Several factors influence the accuracy of both the projected and the measured iEOA for PPM assessment, which leads to a certain number of false assignments to the PPM or no PPM group. Despite divergent findings on the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes, there is consensus that PPM should be avoided to prevent sequelae of increased prosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement. To prevent PPM, it is required to anticipate the iEOA of the prosthesis prior to the procedure. The use of adequate reference tables, derived from echocardiographically measured mean effective orifice area (EOA) values from preferably large numbers of patients, is most appropriate to predict the iEOA. Such tables should be used also for transcatheter heart valves in the future. During the decision-making process, all available options should be taken into account for the individual patient. If the predicted size and type of a surgical prosthesis cannot be implanted, additional surgical procedures, such as annular enlargement with the Manougian technique, or alternative procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can prevent PPM. PPM prevention for TAVI patients is a new field of interest and includes anticipation of the iEOA, prosthesis selection, and procedural strategies.

OUP accepted manuscript

The progeroid syndrome includes a group of rare, severe genetic disorders clinically characterized by premature physical ageing. Severe aortic stenosis has been described in progeria patients, but no previous surgical aortic valve replacement was reported. We describe a successful surgical aortic valve replacement combined with coronary artery bypass grafting in a progeria patient with severe aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus.

Modified Manouguian technique for aortic root enlargement: A case series

BACKGROUND

Manouguian aortic root enlargement (ARE) has been a standard root enlargement procedure to assist in patients with a small annular size. We describe a modification to the Manouguian ARE similar to Yang et al. This approach could serve as an alternate technique for performing ARE; to date only case reports have defined this approach and no studies have evaluated its efficacy or safety.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was performed on patients who underwent ARE for surgical aortic valve replacement via the modified Manouguian procedure at a single institution. Thirteen patients were identified between 2015 and 2021, and all surgeries were performed by a single operator. Data were collected via the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and chart review. The primary outcome was difference in valve size after the procedure.

RESULTS

The most common indication for surgery was aortic stenosis (12, 92%), with the most common etiology being degenerative calcification (7, 54%). Congenital bicuspid or unicuspid valves were identified in five (38%) patients. The majority (10, 77%) of patients received a mechanical valve. This procedure was successfully performed in all 13 of the patients. Additionally, 13 of the 13 patients (100%) were upsized to a satisfactory valve size based on preoperative echocardiography sizing.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified Manouguian aortic enlargement technique can be safely and effectively used as an aortic enlargement procedure in a broad sample of patients.

Updates on the Latest Surgical Approach of the Aortic Stenosis

Over the last twenty years, we marked significant progresses in the field of tissue engineering and the development of new aortic valve structural and delivery systems. These continuous iterations on the field, have completely changed the surgical indications and approaches for AVR. Nowadays, therapeutic decisions are endorsed by international guidelines; however, new technical advances need a new integrated approach. The clinical scenarios issued from the interaction between the Guidelines and the newest approaches and technologies are regularly on debate by the Heart Team. We will present some of our most encountered situations and the pattern of our therapeutic decisions. To easily navigate through Guidelines and clinical scenarios, we reported in this review a simplified and easy to use Clinical decision-making algorithm that may be a valuable tool in our daily practice.

Aortic prosthetic size predictor in aortic valve replacement

Background

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a major concern in aortic valve replacement (AVR) and leads to perioperative morbidity and rehospitalization. Predicting aortic annulus diameter pre-procedurally is crucial to managing patients with high-risk of PPM.

Objectives

To compare preoperative measurements of aortic annulus from echocardiography and CT scan with surgical sizing and develop an imaging-based algorithm to predict PPM.

Methods

From January 2017 to December 2020, patients underwent AVR at a teaching hospital were examined. The relationship between imaging measurements with operative values was assesed using scatter plots and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Univariable linear regression was then used to build the predictive model.

Results

A total of 144 patients underwent AVR during the study period. Suture types and surgical approaches were not significantly associated with prosthesis size. CT scan-based measurements showed strong correlation with prosthesis size: mean diameter (R = 0.79), perimeter-derived diameter (R = 0.76), and area-derived diameter (R = 0.75). Mechanical valve and tissue valve shared similar correlation coefficients. Prosthesis size predictive models based on CT scan were 12.89 + 0.335 × d for mean diameter, 13.275 + 0.315 × d for perimeter-derived diameter and 13.626 + 0.309 × d for area-derived diameter.

Conclusions

Preoperative CT scan measurements are a reliable predictor of aortic prosthesis size. Transthoracic echocardiography is a possible alternative, though it is highly performer-dependent and unable to represent the aortic annulus fully. Together, these two imaging modalities can be used to quantitatively anticipate PPM preoperatively.

Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.