Aortic valve replacement in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% performed via a minimally invasive right thoracotomy

A retrospective study: do patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤50% benefit from heart valve surgery?

Background

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an indicator of heart failure, and it is controversial whether patients with reduced preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction can benefit from heart valve surgery. We aimed to assess the differences in clinical characteristics after surgery in patients with different grades of reduced preoperative LVEF to guide clinical management.

Methods

A total of 100 heart valve disease patients with low LVEF (≤50%) who had undergone valve surgery in the Department of Cardiology. The patients were divided into three groups according to their LVEF measured by echocardiography before surgery, with LVEF ≤40% as group A, 40%< LVEF ≤45% as group B, and 45%< LVEF ≤50% as group C. Clinical characteristics such as postoperative LVEF values, oxygenation index, liver function and inflammatory index, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) utilization rate, and mortality were compared among the three groups of patients.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the preoperative baseline data between the three groups of patients (P>0.05). The clinical outcomes of patients in group A (n=28) were similar to those of patients in groups B (n=39) and C (n=33) (P>0.05). The vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), postoperative ventilator use time, length of stay in the care unit, IABP use rate, and mortality rate on the first postoperative day were higher in group A. By comparing the preoperative and postoperative (within 48 hours and 3 months after surgery) cardiac echocardiograms of the three groups, we learned that LVEF increased, LV end-systolic internal diameter and LV end-diastolic internal diameter decreased, and ventricular remodeling improved after surgery compared with the preoperative period (P<0.05). The postoperative improvement was more obvious in group A than in groups B and C. Three months after surgery, LVEF increased to 55%, the LV end-systolic internal diameter decreased to 39 mm, and the LV end-diastolic internal diameter decreased to about 55 mm in each group (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Patients with heart valve disease and low LVEF should be actively treated with heart valve surgery, which can significantly improve the patient's left ventricular reverse remodeling and cardiac function, thereby facilitating survival.

Surgical vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With a Low Ejection Fraction

Currently, there is no preference for surgical (SAVR) vs transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement in patients with low ejection fraction (EF). The present study retrospectively compared the outcomes of SAVR vs TAVR in patients with EF ≤40% (70 SAVR and 117 TAVR patients). Study outcomes were survival and the composite endpoint of stroke, aortic valve reintervention, and heart failure readmission. The patients who had TAVR were older (median: 75 (25-75th percentiles: 69-81) vs 51 (39-66) years old; P < .001) with higher EuroSCORE II (4.95 (2.99-9.85) vs 2 (1.5-3.25); P < .001). Postoperative renal impairment was more common with SAVR (8 (12.5%) vs 4 (3.42%); P = .03), and they had longer hospital stay [9 (7-15) vs 4 (2-8) days; P < .001). There was no difference between groups in stroke, reintervention, and readmission (Sub-distributional Hazard ratio: .95 (.37-2.45); P = .92). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 95% and 91% with SAVR and 89% and 63% with TAVR. Adjusted survival was comparable between groups. EF improved significantly (β: .28 (.23-.33); P < 0.001) with no difference between groups ( P = .85). In conclusion, TAVR could be as safe as SAVR in patients with low EF.

Cardiac Cachexia Associated With Valvular Heart Failure

Cardiac cachexia (CC) represents a serious complication of heart failure (HF). This condition could be directly related to mortality. The weight or muscle mass loss has to be monitored in our patients with HF to avoid potential complications.

We report a case of an elderly patient with a history of aortic stenosis (AS) who presented with progressive shortness of breath limiting his daily activities associated with weight loss. Signs of heart failure were evident on physical examination, and valvulopathy was also evident. His echocardiogram showed reduced ejection fraction (EF) with structural changes and severe aortic stenosis. He was not a candidate for cardiothoracic surgery, and a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed. After the procedure, his symptoms improved, and during the outpatient follow-up, his cardiac function and dry weight improved.

Cardiac cachexia could be caused by reversible cardiomyopathy. Early assessment and approach are critical for the outcome of our patients, impacting their quality of life and outcome in terms of morbidity and mortality consequences.

Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right mini-thoracotomy for hemodialysis patients

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive valve surgery has become increasingly accepted as an alternative to conventional median sternotomy in low-risk patients. However, there have been no reports regarding the outcomes of this procedure on high-risk hemodialysis patients. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) via right mini-thoracotomy (MIAVR) in hemodialysis patients compared with those of conventional AVR (CAVR) via full sternotomy.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy-four patients underwent isolated AVR for severe AS, and 42 hemodialysis patients were included in this study. MIAVR was performed in 17 cases and CAVR in 25 cases. We compared the short-term surgical outcome among the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the aortic cross-clamp or cardiopulmonary bypass time. However, the procedure time was significantly shorter in the MIAVR group. Patients in the MIAVR group had less bleeding and a smaller amount of transfused red blood cells. There were four hospital deaths (18.2%) in the CAVR group. For postoperative complications, there were 2 (9.1%) cerebrovascular incidents, 2 (9.1%) cases of respiratory failure, 1 (4.5%) re-exploration for bleeding in CAVR group. The postoperative ventilation time was significantly shorter in the MIAVR group. There was no difference in the length of postoperative intensive care unit stay or of postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The surgical outcomes of MIAVR in hemodialysis patients were acceptable, with a low incidence of morbidity, reasonable lengths of hospital stay, and no mortality among the patients studied.