Aortic valve replacement in small aortic root- Bi-leaflet mechanical valve is superior to a Mono-leaflet mechanical valve

Background

Patient prosthetic mismatch is a serious but avoidable complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) complicated by a small aortic annulus. This study aims to compare early and midterm outcomes following aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a mono-leaflet (ML) valve and a bi-leaflet (BL) valve in a small aortic root.

Methods and selection

From January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2019, 98 patients diagnosed with small aortic root underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with either TTK Chitra valve (Mono-leaflet/ ML group) or St. Jude medical valve (Bi-leaflet/ BL group) of size 17/ 19 mm. Echocardiography was analyzed from medical records and telephonic follow-up.

Results

Baseline parameters were comparable. The ML group had 42 patients and the BL group had 56 patients. Aortic cross-clamp time, the incidence of severe patient prosthetic mismatch (p = 0.002) and mean, peak pressure gradients were high in the ML group. Duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, the incidence of stroke, need for intra-aortic balloon pump, permanent pacemaker, dialysis, and left ventricular mass index in echocardiography were comparable between the two groups postoperatively. There was no early mortality in both group. Survival at the end of 5 years was 57 ± 14.4% in the ML group; 91.8 ± 4% in the BL group (p = 0.005). Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed elderly age as a risk factor for mortality.

Conclusion

We conclude that aortic valve replacement without any root widening procedure, using a small-sized mechanical valve provides acceptable early outcomes. Bi-leaflet mechanical valves provide better hemodynamics and survival percentage.

A critical review of hemodynamic changes and left ventricular remodeling after surgical aortic valve replacement and percutaneous aortic valve replacement

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in clinical practice has widened options for symptomatic patients at high surgical risk; however, it is not known whether TAVR has equivalent or prolonged benefits in terms of left ventricular (LV) remodeling.

METHODS

To explore the relative hemodynamic benefits and postoperative LV remodeling associated with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed a critical review of the available literature. A total of 67 studies were included in this systematic review.

RESULTS

There is at least equivalent if not slightly superior hemodynamic performance of TAVR over SAVR, and TAVR showed lower prosthesis-patient mismatch compared with SAVR. However, LV mass appears to regress to a greater degree after SAVR compared with TAVR. Aortic regurgitation, paravalvular in particular, is more common after TAVR than SAVR, although it is rarely more than moderate in severity. Improvements in diastolic function and mitral regurgitation are reported in only a handful of studies each and could not be compared across prosthesis types.

CONCLUSIONS

The published data support the hemodynamic comparability of SAVR and TAVR, with the higher incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in SAVR offset by higher incidence of paravalvular leak in TAVR. These results highlight the need for further studies focusing on hemodynamic changes after valve therapy.

Seventeen-millimeter St. Jude Medical Regent valve in patients with small aortic annulus: dose moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch matter?

Background

The study was designed to evaluate the effects of moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch (defined as 0.65 cm²/m² < indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.85 cm²/m²) on midterm outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve in a large series of patients, and to determine if these effects are influenced by patient confounding variables.

Methods

One-hundred and six patients with and without moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch early after implantation of a 17-mm Regent valve at aortic position were included. Both clinical and echocardiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, at discharge and during follow-up period (mean follow-up time 52.6 ± 11.9 months).

Results

The prevalence of moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch was documented in 46 patients (43.4%) at discharge. During the follow-up period, no difference in the regression of left ventricular mass, decrease of transvalvular pressure gradients, mortality and prosthesis-related complications was observed between patients with and without moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch. After adjustment for several risk factors, moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with increased midterm mortality in patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% (HR: 1.80, p = 0.02), but with normal prognosis in those with preserved LV function. Younger age (cut off value = 65 years) was not an independent predictor of increased midterm mortality and valve-related complications in patients with moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Conclusions

Moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement with a small mechanical prosthesis is associated with increased mortality and adverse events in patients with pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction. Selected patients with small aortic annulus can experience satisfactory clinical improvements and midterm survival after aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm Regent valve.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may affect clinical outcomes in patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR). We retrospectively examined the PPM in patients with isolated AVR in the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database (JACVSD).

METHODS

We examined all patients with isolated AVR between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The JACVSD data collection form has a total of 255 variables. We defined PPM as an effective orifice area index of ≤ 0.85 m(2)/cm(2).

RESULTS

PPM was observed in 306 of 3,609 cases analyzed, PPM rate was 8.5 %. Body surface area was larger and body mass index was higher in the PPM group than the non-PPM group (P < 0.001). Patients with PPM were older (P = 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of diabetes (P = 0.004), dyslipidemia (P < 0.001), hypertension (P < 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (P = 0.031), old myocardial infarction (P = 0.006), previous percutaneous coronary artery intervention (P = 0.001), coronary artery disease (P = 0.018), and aortic valve stenosis (P < 0.001). Perioperative blood transfusion (P < 0.001) and dialysis (P = 0.005) were more frequent in the PPM group. Postoperative ventilation (P = 0.004) and intensive care unit stay (P = 0.004) were significantly longer in the PPM group.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, aortic valve stenosis, dyslipidemia, hypertension, old myocardial infarction, previous percutaneous coronary artery intervention, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular disease, and high body mass index were the risk factors for PPM. PPM was not an independent risk factor for short-term mortality.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus

OBJECTIVES

Valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes among patients with a small aortic annulus who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) were examined.

BACKGROUND

The presence of a small aortic annulus may complicate the surgical management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). TAVI is an alternative to aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients, but few data exist on the results of TAVI in patients with a small aortic annulus.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2010, 35 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 9.4 years) with severe AS and an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm (mean 18.5 ± 0.9 mm) underwent TAVI with a 23-mm Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California). Echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed prior to discharge and at 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Procedural success was achieved in 34 patients (97.1%). There was 1 in-hospital death. Peak and mean transaortic gradients decreased from 76.3 ± 33.0 mm Hg and 45.2 ± 20.6 mm Hg at baseline to 21.8 ± 8.4 mm Hg and 11.7 ± 4.8 mm Hg post-procedure, respectively, both p < 0.0001. Mean indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) increased from 0.35 ± 0.10 cm(2)/m(2) at baseline to 0.90 ± 0.18 cm(2)/m(2) post-procedure, p < 0.0001. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (IEOA <0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) occurred in 2 patients (5.9%). At a mean follow-up of 14 ± 11 months, gradients remained low and 30 of the 31 remaining survivors were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-risk patients with severe AS and a small aortic annulus, TAVI is associated with good post-procedural valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes. TAVI may provide a reasonable alternative to conventional AVR in elderly patients with a small aortic annulus.

Outcomes and complications of transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a balloon expandable valve according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) guidelines

AIMS

There is heterogeneity in the reporting of procedural outcomes and complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Recently, new definitions have been proposed by the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) in an effort to standardise these outcomes and improve the quality of future clinical research. The aim of this study is to report the procedural outcomes and complication rates following TAVR in a large sequential patient cohort using a balloon expandable valve according to the new VARC definitions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred and ten consecutive patients undergoing TAVR were assessed, including patients forming our early historical series at the infancy of TAVR. All complication rates were re-evaluated according to VARC definitions. Mean age was 82.2 ± 8.1 years and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.4 ± 5.7%. Transfemoral 30-day mortality was 6.8% (3.8% in the second half of the cohort) and transapical 30-day mortality was 13.7% (9.4% in the second half of the cohort). Cardiovascular 30-day mortality was 7.4% and the composite safety endpoint at 30-days was 18.4%. Device success was 80% (post-procedural valve area ≤ 1.2 cm2 in 9.7%). Failure to deliver and deploy a valve occurred in only 3.5%, with 82% (nine cases) occurring in the first half of the experience. Of those who did not meet echocardiographic criteria for device success (valve area ≤ 1.2 cm2, transaortic gradient ≥ 20 mmHg or ≥ moderate aortic incompetence), 90% achieved a New York Heart Association class I/II. Life threatening bleeding complications occurred in 8.4%. In 7.7% of patients, red blood cell transfusions were given without evidence of overt bleeding. Major strokes occurred in 2.3% and acute kidney injury occurred in 6.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The VARC consensus guidelines provide a standardised reporting framework for clinical endpoints and complications post TAVR. We report the first series to our knowledge of 30-day outcomes using these definitions utilising a balloon expandable valve system.