Comparison between three types of stented pericardial aortic valves (Trivalve trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Patient-prosthesis mismatch and surgical aortic valve replacement outcomes: Retrospective analysis of single-center surgical data

BACKGROUND

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) has been identified as a risk factor for mortality and reoperation in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We present a retrospective analysis of risk factors for PPM and the effects of PPM on early postoperative outcomes after SAVR.

METHODS

Chart review was conducted for patients (N = 3003) undergoing SAVR. PPM was calculated from valve reference orifice areas and patient body surface area. Logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors for PPM and develop a risk score from these results. Regression was also conducted to identify associations between projected PPM status and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Risk factors for PPM included female sex, higher body mass index (BMI), and use of the St. Jude Epic valve. Patients receiving St. Jude trifecta valves or mechanical valves were less likely to have predicted PPM. We developed a risk score using BMI, sex, and valve type, and retrospectively predicted PPM in our cohort. Mild PPM (odds ratio [OR] = 2.267), severe PPM (OR = 2.869), male sex (OR = 2.091), and younger age (OR = 0.940) were all predictors of SAVR reoperation, while aortic root replacement was associated with reduced reoperation rates (OR = 0.122). Severe PPM carried a risk of in-hospital mortality (OR = 3.599), and moderate PPM carried a smaller but significant risk (OR = 1.920). Other factors increasing postoperative morbidity and mortality included older age, renal failure, and diabetes.

CONCLUSION

PPM could be retrospectively predicted in our cohort using a risk calculation from sex, BMI and valve type. We conclude that all degrees of PPM carry risk for mortality and reoperation.

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients: A case-control study

Introduction: Aortic valve stenosis is the most frequent cardiac valve pathology in the western world. In high-risk patients, conventional aortic valve replacement (C-AVR) carries high rates of morbidity and mortality. In the last few years, rapid-deployment valves (RDV) have been developed to reduce the surgical risks. In this work, we aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes of rapid-deployment AVR (RD-AVR) with those of the C-AVR in high-risk patients.

Methods: This retrospective case-control study identified 23 high-risk patients who underwent RD-AVR between 12/2015 to 01/2018. The study group was compared with a control group of 46 patients who were retrospectively selected from a database of 687 C-AVR patients from 2016 to 2017 which matched with the study group for age and Euro SCORE II.

Results: RD-AVR group presented more cardiovascular risk factors. Euro SCORE II was higher in the RD-AVR group (P =0.06). In the RD-AVR group, we observed significantly higher mean prosthetic size (P <0.001). In-hospital mortality was zero in RD-AVR group versus 2 deaths in C-AVR group. Hospital stay was longer in the RD-AVR group with statistical significance (P =0.03). In the group AVR with associated cardiac procedures, while comparing subgroups RD-AVR versus C-AVR, early mean gradient was lower in the first cited (P =0.02). The overall mean follow-up was 10.9 ± 4.3 months.

Conclusion: The RD-AVR technique is reliable and lead to positive outcomes. This procedure provides a much larger size with certainly better flow through the aortic root. It is an alternative to C-AVR in patients recognized to be surgically fragile.

Bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve do not have the same ascending aorta morphology

Bicuspid aortic valves are associated with histopathological abnormalities of the aorta. Their diameters have been measured in several studies, but the literature concerning changes in the overall anatomy of the ascending aorta is limited. We wanted to know whether the anatomy of the valve, bicuspid or tricuspid, is associated with anatomical differences. We prospectively included patients requiring aortic valve surgery. The protocol included a chest CT scan before the operation to determine the angulations and straight lengths of aortic segments 0 and 1. All of the patients underwent surgery to assess their aortic valve morphology. We included 107 patients, 25 (23%) with bicuspid diagnostic valves and 82 (77%) with tricuspid ones. Most angulations were similar between the groups. However, the angle between the ring and the plane of the top of the commissures of the semilunar cusps was lower in bicuspid than tricuspid aortic valves. The straight lengths in the aortic root did not differ significantly, but the lengths separating these planes from the BCAT plane were consistently greater in the bicuspid group. The angle between the ring plane and the patient's vertical axis was lower in the bicuspid, the plane of the ring being verticalized in this group. In conclusion, we were able to confirm significant morphological differences in addition to the diameters. However, this study does not establish causal relationships among valve morphology, ascending aortic morphology, histology, and possibly associated pathologies. An extremely large cohort will be required indicate such causal connections. Clin. Anat. 31:693-697, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.