MitraClip and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Patient With Recurrent Heart Failure

Procedural selection strategy and clinical outcomes in mitral valve surgery with concomitant aortic valve replacement in elderly patients

Introduction

In the context of double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients involving both the aortic and mitral valves, a clinically significant problem has been that no clear criteria or surgical strategies have been reported for the selection of mitral valve plasty (MVP) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) for mitral valve disease management during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to achieve better clinical outcomes. This study investigated valve durability and survival using our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR in elderly patients.

Methods

Eighty-six patients aged > 65 years (mean 75 years) who underwent a double-valve procedure for mitral valve surgery with concomitant SAVR from 2010 to 2022 were reviewed. Our surgical strategy for mitral valve disease with concomitant SAVR for the elderly patients was as follows: MVP was selected for patients in whom mitral valve disease was expected to be controlled with simple surgical procedures (n = 47), otherwise MVR was selected (n = 39).

Results

The hospital mortality rate was 8% (n = 7). The mean follow-up was 4.9 (0-12.3) years. And the 10-year survival rate was 62%. The 10-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation rate was 95%. No mitral valve reintervention was performed during follow-up. Echocardiographic follow-up demonstrated freedom from at least moderate mitral regurgitation in 86% of cases at 10 years.

Conclusion

In double-valve surgery for elderly high-risk patients, appropriate selection of the mitral valve procedure with concomitant SAVR provided better early and long-term survival and valve durability. This surgical strategy may be beneficial in elderly patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease.

Influence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing non-cardiac surgery

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to clarify the influence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

Methods

Thirty-four patients with severe AS diagnosed by preoperative evaluation for non-cardiac surgery were reviewed and compared in two categories. First, patient profiles and surgical risk were compared before (pre-TAVR group; n = 10) and after (post-TAVR group; n = 24) the introduction of TAVR. Second, the completion rate of non-cardiac surgery and interval between the two cardiac and non-cardiac operations were compared between surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) patients before the introduction of TAVR (pre-AVR group (n = 10)), in AVR patients after the introduction of TAVR (post-AVR (n = 12)), and in TAVR patients (TAVR group (n = 12)).

Results

Age and Japan score were higher in the post-TAVR group than in the pre-TAVR group. Malignancy was the most common non-cardiac disease (80%) in the pre-TAVR group, whereas orthopedic disease was the most common (50%) in the post-TAVR group. Completion rate of non-cardiac operation in the pre-AVR, post-AVR and TAVR groups was 70, 33, and 75% (post-AVR vs. TAVR: p = 0.010), and the interval between the two operations was 129 ± 98 days, 87 ± 40 days and 27 ± 15 days, respectively (pre AVR vs. TAVR: p = 0.034 and post AVR vs. TAVR: p = 0.025). In the post-TAVR group, AVR was selected because of a lack of fitness for TAVR in 5 of 12 patients.

Conclusions

After the introduction of TAVR, more senile and high-risk patients became candidates for a two-stage operation, and orthopedic conditions became the most common non-cardiac disease. Innovation in transcatheter valvular interventions and expansion of indications for patients currently evaluated as “unfit for TAVR” might be crucial issues for non-cardiac surgery with severe AS.