Pregnancy outcomes in women with aortic valve substitutes

Young women who require aortic valve replacement need information on the potential cardiac and obstetric complications of pregnancy for the different valve substitutes available. We, therefore, assessed the pregnancy outcomes in women who had received an autograft, homograft, or mechanical valve in the aortic position. Women who were pregnant after surviving aortic valve replacement at our institution from 1987 to 2011 were included. Information on cardiac status and pregnancy outcome was obtained through the hospital medical records and by an extensive patient questionnaire. A total of 40 women experienced 67 pregnancies, of which 55 (82%) were completed pregnancies, 6 (9%) were miscarriages, and 6 (9%) were terminated. Of the 40 women, 18 (45%) had a pulmonary autograft, 13 (32%) a homograft, and 9 (23%) a mechanical valve. The mean age at the first pregnancy was 30.0 ± 5.7 years. No maternal mortality but 1 fetal death (1.8%) and 1 neonatal death (1.8%) occurred. Maternal cardiac complications developed in 13% and obstetric complications in 38% of the completed pregnancies. Heart failure (9%), arrhythmias (7%), hypertension-related disorders (7%), preterm delivery (24%), and small-for-gestational-age infants (15%) were most often encountered. Mechanical valve recipients had the greatest incidence of both cardiac and obstetric complications. In conclusion, pregnancy-associated complications after aortic valve replacement were common, and human tissue valves should be considered in the discussion for the optimal aortic valve substitute in a young woman. However, careful obstetric monitoring is mandatory.

Allografts in aortic position: Insights from a 27-year, single-center prospective study

OBJECTIVE

Over the past decades, the indication for allograft implantation in aortic position has evolved. The purpose of this study is to report long-term survival, allograft durability, and potential risk factors.

METHODS

Between 1987 and 2010, 353 patients underwent aortic valve replacements via allograft (92 subcoronary, 261 root replacement; 98% aortic allografts). Patient characteristics, survival, valve durability, and valve-related events were analyzed. Patients also were followed with standardized echocardiography. A joint modeling approach was used to detect the effect of (echocardiographic) variables on mortality and reoperation hazard.

RESULTS

Mean age was 45 years (range, 1 month to 84 years); 71% were males. The etiology was endocarditis in 32% (active 22%), congenital 31%, degenerative 9%, aneurysm/dissection 12%, rheumatic 6%, and prosthetic valve failure 10%. Hospital mortality was 5.9% (n = 21). During follow-up (mean 12 years, range, 0-24; 99% complete), 113 patients died. Twenty-year cumulative survival was 41% (95% confidence interval, 32-50). Valve-related reoperations occurred in 117 patients: 100 structural valve deterioration, 9 nonstructural valve deterioration, and 8 endocarditis. Competing-risk analysis predicted that at 20 years 31% died, and 30% were alive without reoperation. Younger patient age was associated with increased reoperation. During follow-up left ventricular dilatation and severe aortic regurgitation were associated with mortality (P = .006 and .005, respectively), and grade 3 or greater aortic regurgitation during follow-up was associated with risk of reoperation (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

After almost 3 decades of experience with allografts in aortic position, the indication for use has become selective, mainly because of progressive structural valve deterioration over time. In case of complex aortic root pathology and active endocarditis allografts may still be useful.

Functional and pathomorphological anatomy of the aortic valve and root for aortic valve sparing surgery in tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valves

The aortic valve (AV) is a three-dimensional structure, with leaflets that are suspended within the functional aortic annulus (FAA). These structures (AV and FAA) are therefore intrinsically connected and disease of just one component can independently lead to AV dysfunction. Hence, AV dysfunction can occur in the setting of entirely normal valve leaflets. However, as these structures are functionally inter-connected, disease of one component can lead to abnormalities of the other over time. Thus, AV dysfunction is often multifactorial. Valve-sparing root procedures require an in-depth understanding of these inter-relationships, and herein we are providing a detailed account of some of the most pertinent anatomical relationships.

The aortic root in acute Type A dissection: repair or replace?

BACKGROUND

The effect of an "aggressive" approach on the aortic root in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) remains insufficiently explored.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a single-center, prospective cohort of consecutive patients diagnosed with ATAAD aged ≥ 18 years, between 1992 and 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups: aortic root replacement (ARR; prosthetic or valve-sparing root replacement; N=141) and conservative root approach (CRA; root sparing of (partially) dissected root, N=90, and supracoronary ascending replacement (SCAR) in non-dissected root, N=68). Inverse probability weighting was used to compare patients with different pre-operative characteristics. Mean follow-up was 5.1 (0-21) in ARR and 7.1 (0-25) years in CRA.

RESULTS

The frequency of aortic root replacement increased over the years, with 19% and 78% of patients undergoing ARR in the earliest and most recent periods, respectively. Early mortality decreased over the years, despite more aggressive approach, and remained lower in ARR. CRA was associated with higher hazard of late mortality (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12 - 1.68; P = 0.001) and reintervention (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.44 - 3.56; P = 0.001). Following CRA, new-onset aortic valve insufficiency was a common cause of reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the years, there was a gradual increase in root replacement approach in ATAAD. Root replacement was associated with better long-term survival and less reinterventions compared to the conservative approach, while the in-hospital mortality decreased during these years. Hence, "aggressive" root replacement is safe and could be applied in ATAAD with good long-term clinical results, without increased hospital mortality.

Valve-sparing operations after Ross procedure: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The Ross procedure has demonstrated excellent long-term results, with restoration of life-expectancy in patients with severe aortic valve dysfunction. However, reintervention after Ross can occur, and herein we describe our center's experience with redo surgery after previous Ross procedures.

METHODS

We searched our prospective database for aortic valve-repair and recruited all adult (≥18 years) patients who have undergone valve-sparing root replacements (VSRRs) and/or aortic valve-repair after Ross procedure between July 2001 and July 2022. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables affecting early mortality. Survival, freedom-from-valve-reintervention and freedom-from-aortic regurgitation (AR) grade ≥3 were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were recruited for this study. Indication for reoperation after Ross was aortic aneurysm without AR in 17 (27%), aortic aneurysm with AR in 27 (43%), and isolated AR in 19 (30%) patients. Median follow-up time was 7.82 years. The majority of patients (76%) had undergone the free root technique during their index Ross operation. Cumulative survival, after redo surgery following Ross, was 98.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.3-99.8%] at 1 year, 96.3% (95% CI: 88.2-98.3%) at 5 years, and 92.4% (95% CI: 87.1-98.0%) at 10 years. Freedom-from-reoperation on the aortic valve at 1 year was 98.4% (95% CI: 97.0-99.8%), at 5 years was 96.7% (95% CI: 87.6-99.0%), and 79.7% (95% CI: 71.1-88.3%) at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival after redo surgery following the Ross operation is excellent. The data support our aggressive valve-sparing approach after Ross.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement: A pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data

Objective

The hemodynamic effect and early and late survival impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement remains insufficiently explored.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English language original publications. The search yielded 791 potentially relevant studies. The final review and analysis included 19 studies compromising 11,675 patients.

Results

Prosthetic effective orifice area was calculated with the continuity equation method in 7 (37%), pressure half‐time method in 2 (10%), and partially or fully obtained from referenced values in 10 (53%) studies. Risk factors for PPM included gender (male), diabetes mellitus, chronic renal disease, and the use of bioprostheses. When pooling unadjusted data, PPM was associated with higher perioperative (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32–2.10; p < .001) and late mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.21–1.77; p < .001). Moreover, PPM was associated with higher late mortality when Cox proportional‐hazards regression (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.57–2.47; p < .001) and propensity score (HR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.34–2.95; p < .001) adjusted data were pooled. Contrarily, moderate (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.84–1.22; p = .88) or severe (HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.89–1.58; p = .24) PPM were not related to higher late mortality when adjusted data were pooled individually. PPM was associated with higher systolic pulmonary pressures (mean difference: 7.88 mmHg; 95% CI: 4.72–11.05; p < .001) and less pulmonary hypertension regression (OR: 5.78; 95% CI: 3.33–10.05; p < .001) late after surgery.

Conclusions

Mitral valve PPM is associated with higher postoperative pulmonary artery pressure and might impair perioperative and overall survival. The relation should be further assessed in properly designed studies.

Aortic root anatomy: insights into annular and root enlargement techniques

The introduction of the Y(ang)-technique for aortic root enlargement has sparked a renewed interest in annular and root enlargement procedures world-wide. In order to execute these procedures proficiently however, it's important to understand the complex three-dimensional structure of the aortic root and left ventricular outflow tract, and also be familiar with the different enlargement techniques. Herein, we are providing a description of the aortic root anatomy and the most commonly utilized root enlargement procedures. This should facilitate clinical decision making and guidance of patients towards the most appropriate procedure, which should not only treat the patients' acute symptoms, but should also set the patient up for potentially needed future procedures and respective life-time management of aortic valve disease.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement in bicuspid aortic valves-the reimplantation technique: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

Reported outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) are scarce. This study aims to evaluate outcomes in patients with BAV using the reimplantation (David) technique.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients with BAV, aortic root aneurysm, and/or aortic valve insufficiency (AI) undergoing VSRR (reimplantation) were included from 5 centers experienced in reimplantation procedures. Patients were subcategorized into 2 groups with different primary indications for operation: (1) aneurysm, and (2) isolated AI. Exclusion criteria included acute aortic dissection, endocarditis, and valvular-stenosis.

RESULTS

In total, 498 patients were included. Mean age was 45.4 years (±11.8 years); median follow-up was 5.4 years (interquartile range, 2.3-8.7 years). Group 1 included aneurysm (n = 144) and group 2 included AI (n = 354). There was 1 in-hospital death. Survival (overall) was 93.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92-97%) at 10 years, with no difference between groups (P = .93) observed. Freedom from reintervention at 1 year was 99.1% (95% CI, 99%-100%), at 5 years 95.4% (95% CI, 93%-97%), and at 10 years 89.2% (95% CI, 86%-93%) for patients with aneurysm 100% at 1 year and 95.4% (95% CI, 92%-98%) at 10 years; and for AI 98.9% (95% CI, 98%-99%) at 1 year and 86.4% (95% CI, 83%-91%) at 10 years. Cusp fenestrations (P = .01), prolapse (P = .04), and isolated AI (0.03) were associated with greater hazard of reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter study shows excellent results after VSRR reimplantation procedure in patients with BAV and aortic aneurysm and/or valve insufficiency. Isolated AI and cusp abnormalities are associated with greater reintervention rates and may reflect more advanced leaflet disease. The reimplantation technique, when performed in expert centers, appears to be an excellent treatment strategy in BAV.

Continuous or interrupted pledgeted suture technique in stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a comparison of in-hospital outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is ambiguity in the literature regarding the continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR). At our center, there has been a gradual shift towards CST over the interrupted pledgeted technique (IPT). This study aims at comparing outcomes for both techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center study of patients undergoing AVR between January 2011 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Continuous suture technique and interrupted pledget-reinforced sutures. The pre-operative and In-hospital clinical characteristics and echocardiographic hemodynamics (i.e. transvalvular gradients and paravalvular leakage) were compared between CST and IPT.

RESULTS

We compared 791 patients with CST to 568 patients with IPT (median age: 73 and 74 years, respectively, p = 0.02). In CST there were 35% concomitant procedure vs. 31% in IPT (p = 0.16). Early mortality was 3.2% in CST versus 4.8% in IPT (p = 0.15), and a second cross-clamp due to a paravalvular-leak in 0.5% vs. 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.22). The CST was not associated with new-onset conduction-blocks mandating pacemaker implants(OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.14; P = 0.85). The postoperative gradients on echocardiography were lower in CST compared to IPT, especially in smaller annuli (peak gradients: 15.7mmHg vs. 20.5mmHg, in valve size < 23 mm, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The continuous suture technique was associated with lower postoperative gradients and shorter cross-clamp time compared to interrupted pledgeted technique. Differences in paravalvular leaks were non-significant, although slightly less in the continuous suture technique. There were no further differences in valve-related complications. Hence, continues suture technique is safe, with better hemodynamics compared to the interrupted pledgeted technique. This may be of clinical importance, especially in smaller size annular size.

A multicentre, propensity score matched analysis comparing a valve-sparing approach to valve replacement in aortic root aneurysm: Insight from the AVIATOR database

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to evaluate the outcome of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and to compare the outcomes to those of patients having composite valve-graft conduit aortic root replacement (CVG-ARR) in a cohort of patients with aortic root aneurysm ± valve insufficiency, without valvular stenosis. Although valve-sparing procedures are preferable in young patients, there is a lack of comparative data in comparable patients.

METHODS

The VSRR procedures were performed in 2005 patients, and 218 patients underwent a CVG-ARR procedure. Exclusion criteria included aortic dissection, endocarditis and valvular stenosis. Propensity score matching (3:1 ratio) was applied to compare VSRR (reimplantation 33% and remodelling 67%) and CVG-ARR.

RESULTS

We matched 218 patients with CVG-ARR to 654 patients with VSRR (median age, 56.0; median follow-up was 4 years in both groups; interquartile range 1-5 years). Early mortality was 1.1% of those who had VSRR versus 2.3% in those who had CVG-ARR. Survival was 95.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94-97%] at 5 years in patients who had VSRR versus 85.4% (95% CI 82-92%) in those who had CVG-ARR; P = 0.002. Freedom from reintervention at 5 years was 96.8% (95% CI 95-98%) with VSRR and 95.4% (95% CI 91-99%) with CVG-ARR (P = 0.98). Additionally, there were more thromboembolic, endocarditis and bleeding events in the patients who had CVG-ARR (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This multicentre study shows excellent results after valve-sparing root replacement in patients with an ascending aortic aneurysm with or without valve insufficiency. Compared to composite valve-graft aortic root replacement, survival is better and valve-related events are fewer. Consequently, valve-sparing procedures should be considered whenever a durable repair is feasible. We advocate a valve-sparing strategy even in more complex cases when performed in experienced centres.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement using the reimplantation (David) technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis on survival and clinical outcome

Background

Current guidelines recommend valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) procedures over valve replacement for the treatment of root aneurysm. The reimplantation technique seems to be the most widely used valve-sparing technique, with excellent outcomes in mostly single-center studies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to present a comprehensive overview of clinical outcomes after VSRR with the reimplantation technique, and potential differences for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) phenotype.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of papers reporting outcomes after VSRR that were published since 2010. Studies solely reporting on acute aortic syndromes or congenital patients were excluded. Baseline characteristics were summarized using sample size weighting. Late outcomes were pooled using inverse variance weighting. Pooled Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves for time-to-event outcomes were generated. Further, a microsimulation model was developed to estimate life expectancy and risks of valve-related morbidity after surgery.

Results

Forty-four studies, with 7,878 patients, matched the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Mean age at operation was 50 years and almost 80% of patients were male. Pooled early mortality was 1.6% and the most common perioperative complication was chest re-exploration for bleeding (5.4%). Mean follow-up was 4.8±2.8 years. Linearized occurrence rates for aortic valve (AV) related complications such as endocarditis and stroke were below 0.3% patient-year. Overall survival was 99% and 89% at 1- and 10-year respectively. Freedom from reoperation was 99% and 91% after 1 and 10 years, respectively, with no difference between tricuspid and BAVs.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis shows excellent short- and long-term results of valve-sparing root replacement with the reimplantation technique in terms of survival, freedom from reoperation, and valve related complications with no difference between tricuspid and BAVs.

Three decades of reimplantation of the aortic valve-the Brussels experience

Background

Over the last three decades, the importance of native valve preservation has increasingly become evident. Valve-sparing root replacement procedures, such as the reimplantation or remodeling technique, are therefore being progressively used for aortic root replacement and/or aortic valve repair. Herein, we are summarizing our single-center experience with the reimplantation technique.

Methods

We queried our prospective database for aortic valve repair and recruited all adult (≥18 years) patients who have undergone valve-sparing root replacement with the reimplantation technique between March 1998 and January 2022. We subcategorized the patients into three distinct groups: root aneurysm without aortic regurgitation (AR) (grade ≤1+), root aneurysm with AR (grade >1+) and isolated chronic AR (root <45 mm). Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables of interest, which were further analyzed by multivariable Cox-regression analysis. Survival, freedom from valve reintervention, and freedom from recurrent regurgitation, were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

A total of 652 patients were recruited for this study; 213 patients underwent reimplantation for aortic aneurysm without AR, 289 patients for aortic aneurysm with AR, and 150 patients with isolated AR. Cumulative survival was 95.4% (95% CI: 92.9-97.0%) after 5 years, 84.8% (80.0-88.5%) after 10 years, and 79.5% (73.3-84.5%) after 12 years, which was comparable to the age-matched Belgian population. Older age (HR 1.06, P≤0.001) and male gender (HR 2.1, P=0.02) were associated with late mortality. Freedom from reoperation on the aortic valve at 5 years was 96.2% (95% CI: 93.8-97.7%), and 90.4% (95% CI: 87.4-94.2%) at 12 years. Age (P=0.001) and preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (P=0.03) were associated with late reoperation.

Conclusions

Our long-term data supports our reimplantation approach as a viable option for aortic root aneurysms and/or aortic regurgitation, with long-term survival that mirrors that of the general population.

Outcome reporting for surgical treatment of degenerative mitral valve disease: a systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVES

Standardized outcome reporting is of critical importance for performance monitoring, improvement of existing techniques and introduction of novel technologies. Whether outcome reporting for surgical treatment of degenerative mitral valve disease complies with the guidelines has not been assessed to date.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was conducted for articles published between 1 January 2009 and 7 March 2016. Inclusion criteria were adult patient population (n ≥ 200) and surgical intervention for degenerative mitral valve disease. The quality of reported outcome was compared with the standard recommended by the guidelines on reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valve interventions.

RESULTS

Forty-two non-randomized clinical studies were included: 4 provided early and 38 provided early and late outcome data. Early echocardiographic outcome was reported in 49% of studies. Freedom from reintervention, the indication for reintervention and the follow-up echocardiographic outcome were reported in 97%, 59% and 79% of studies providing late outcome data, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess the freedom from recurrent mitral regurgitation in 60% (18/30) of studies, whereas 7% (2/30) of studies applied a longitudinal data analysis. Recurrent mitral regurgitation was most commonly defined as moderate (Grade 2+; 60%) or severe (Grade 4+; 37%) regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant discordance between the guidelines-based recommendations and actual reporting of outcome for surgical treatment of degenerative mitral valve disease. Better adherence to the guidelines would raise the quality and generalizability of clinical data reporting.

Aortic valve visualization and pressurization device: a novel device for intraoperative evaluation of aortic valve repair procedures

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve repair procedures are technically challenging, and current intraoperative evaluation methods often fail to predict the final echocardiographic result. We have developed a novel intraoperative aortic valve visualization and pressurization (AVP) device, enabling valve inspection under physiological conditions, and measuring aortic valve insufficiency (AI) during cardioplegic arrest.

METHODS

The AVP device is attached to the (neo)aorta, after any type of aortic valve repair, while the heart is arrested. The root is pressurized (60-80 mmHg) using a saline solution and an endoscope is introduced. The valve is inspected, and the amount of valvular leakage is measured. Postoperative 'gold standard' transesophageal echocardiogram measurements of AI are performed and compared against regurgitation volume measured.

RESULTS

In 24 patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacement, the AVP device was used. In 22 patients, postoperative echocardiographic AI was ≤ grade 1. The median leakage was 90 ml/min, IQR 60-120 ml/min. In 3 patients, additional adjustments after visual inspection was performed. In 2 patients, with complex anatomy, the valve was replaced. In one, after evaluation with the device, there was undesirable result visually and residual AI of 330 ml/min, and in another, 260 ml/min residual AI was measured and valve restriction on visual inspection.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel AVP device enables intraoperative evaluation of the valve under physiological conditions, while still on arrested heart, and allows for targeted adjustments. The AVP device can be an important aid for intraoperative evaluation of the aortic valve, during valve repair and valve-sparing procedures, thereby making the operative result more predictable and the operation more efficient.

Aortic root replacement with the stentless Freestyle bioprosthesis

In this video tutorial, the technical details for the implantation of the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis are outlined based on the case of a 76-year-old male patient with symptomatic stenosis of a bicuspid aortic valve and aortic root dilatation.