Gramicidin S-synthetase: on the structure of polyenzyme template in polypeptide synthesis.

H. Kleinkauf,H. Koischwitz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81503-4_17

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Under 50 Years: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Nav Warraich,Michel Pompeu Sá,Xander Jacquemyn,Danial Ahmad,Derek Serna-Gallegos,Ibrahim Sultan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.006

2024-09-15

Abstract:To compare the long-term outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged <50 years, we performed a study-level meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data including studies published by December of 2023. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included reoperation, major bleeding, and stroke. A total of 5 studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 4,245 patients (2,311 mechanical and 1,934 bioprosthetic). All studies were observational and the mean age of groups across the studies ranged from 38.2 to 43.0 years. The median follow-up time was 11.4 years (interquartile range 6.9 to 15.0). Bioprosthetic AVR was associated with reduced overall survival and higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.170 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.002 to 1.364, p = 0.046), increased risk of reoperation over time (HR 2.581, 95% CI 2.102 to 3.168, p <0.001), decreased risk of major bleeding (HR 0.500, 95% CI 0.367 to 0.682, p <0.001), and decreased risk of stroke (HR 0.751, 95% C, 0.565 to 0.998, p = 0.049) compared with mechanical AVR in patients aged <50 years. In conclusion, for patients aged <50 years, bioprosthetic AVR is associated with increased mortality and risk of reoperation compared with mechanical valves. In contrast, mechanical AVR is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events and stroke. These aspects should be carefully considered during the selection of valve type in this age group; however, we should keep in mind that the statistically significant differences in the risk of all-cause death and stroke might not be clinically relevant (because of marginal statistical significance).
Long-Term Outcomes of Bioprosthetic and Mechanical Valve Replacement for Patients Aged between 50 and 70 Years

Wei Zhao,Zhongli Chen,Sipeng Chen,Junzhe Du,Heng Zhang,Yan Zhao,Li He,Wei Feng,Hansong Sun,Zhe Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2409253

2023-09-18

Abstract:Background: The choice between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves for aortic valve replacement (AVR) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) among patients aged 50-70 years is controversial. We compared the long-term outcomes of patients using bioprosthetic or mechanical valves to provide clinical evidence for valve selection. Methods: From 2002 to 2007, patients aged 50-70 years who underwent isolated AVR or MVR at the Fuwai Hospital were enrolled. After inverse probability-weighted (IPW) propensity balancing, we evaluated long-term mortality, stroke, and bleeding events between patients receiving mechanical and biological prostheses for MVR or AVR. Results: A total of 1639 patients were included in the study, including 1181 patients undergoing MVR (median follow-up: 11.6 years) and 458 patients undergoing AVR (median follow-up: 11.4 years). After IPW adjustment, there was no significant difference in long-term mortality and stroke rate between patients using bioprosthetic and mechanical valves for MVR [mortality: log-rank p = 0.802; stroke: log-rank p = 0.983] and AVR [mortality: log-rank p = 0.815; stroke: log-rank p = 0.537]. Landmark analysis at 12.5 years yielded significantly lower mortality in the patients receiving mechanical valves compared with bioprosthetic valves in the MVR cohort (p = 0.028). Patients receiving mechanical aortic valves displayed an increased risk of bleeding compared with those who received bioprosthetic aortic valves [Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence interval): 2.51 (1.06-5.93) p = 0.036]. Conclusions: For patients aged 50-70, there was no significant difference in overall long-term mortality between mechanical and bioprosthetic valve recipients. Patients receiving mechanical valves for MVR displayed lower mortality after 12.5 years follow-up. For AVR, bioprosthetic valves were associated with a lower risk of bleeding.
Mechanical or biological prosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients aged 45 to 74 years

Daokun Sun,Hartzell V Schaff,Kevin L Greason,Ying Huang,Gabor Bagameri,Alberto Pochettino,Patrick A DeValeria,Joseph A Dearani,Richard C Daly,Kevin P Landolfo,Robert J Wiechmann,Sorin V Pislaru,Juan A Crestanello

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.06.029

2024-07-02

Abstract:Objective: The selection of valve prostheses for patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement remains controversial. In this study, we compared the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with biological or mechanical aortic valve prostheses. Methods: We evaluated late results among 5762 patients aged 45 to 74 years who underwent biological or mechanical aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass from 1989 to 2019 at 4 medical centers. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare late survival; the age-dependent effect of prosthesis type on long-term survival was evaluated by an interaction term between age and prosthesis type. Incidences of stroke, major bleeding, and reoperation on the aortic valve after the index procedure were compared between prosthesis groups. Results: Overall, 61% (n = 3508) of patients received a bioprosthesis. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.7% (n = 58) in the bioprosthesis group and 1.5% (n = 34) in the mechanical group (P = .75). During a mean follow-up of 9.0 years, the adjusted risk of mortality was higher in the bioprosthesis group (hazard ratio, 1.30, P < .001). The long-term survival benefit associated with mechanical prosthesis persisted until 70 years of age. Bioprosthesis (vs mechanical prosthesis) was associated with a similar risk of stroke (P = .20), lower risk of major bleeding (P < .001), and higher risk of reoperation (P < .001). Conclusions: Compared with bioprostheses, mechanical aortic valves are associated with a lower adjusted risk of long-term mortality in patients aged 70 years or less. Patients aged less than 70 years undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement should be informed of the potential survival benefit of mechanical valve substitutes.
Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves

Eishan Ashwat,Danial Ahmad,Michel Pompeu Sá,Derek-Serna Gallegos,Yisi Wang,Floyd Thoma,James A Brown,Pyongsoo Yoon,Johannes Bonatti,David Kaczorowski,David West,Danny Chu,Ibrahim Sultan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.004

2024-09-01

Abstract:Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (<65 years, 65 to 75 years, >75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or previous aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2023. A total of 1,452 patients (78.6%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were aged <65 years, 627 (43.2%) were 65 to 75 years, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75 years. For patients who received mechanical valves, 308 (78.0%) were aged <65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65 and 75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were >75 years. The median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 (2.6 to 8.9) years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan-Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, the cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients aged under 65 years who received bioprosthetic than those who received mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of aortic valve reintervention (hazard ratio 3.35, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 6.49, p <0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly, in patients aged <65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.
Tissue versus mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50-70: a propensity-matched analysis

Nicholas M Fialka,Abeline R Watkins,Abrar Alam,Ryaan El-Andari,Jimmy J H Kang,Yongzhe Hong,Sabin J Bozso,Michael C Moon,Jeevan Nagendran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae283

2024-08-02

Abstract:Objectives: There remains debate over the optimal mitral valve replacement (MVR) option for patients aged 50-70 years. The objective of this study was to retrospectively compare the long-term outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic MVR in this patient population. Methods: Data from patients undergoing MVR between 2004 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included perioperative and late morbidity. Results: Two hundred and eight-six propensity-matched patients (n = 143 mechanical; n = 143 bioprosthetic) aged 50-70 years were included in the final analysis. Maximum follow-up was 15.8 years. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the groups at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, and at the longest follow-up. Patients who underwent mechanical MVR experienced significantly lower rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of sepsis, acute kidney injury, superficial and deep sternal wound infection, mediastinal bleeding, and permanent pacemaker implantation. At the longest follow-up, there were no differences in myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or overall rehospitalization. At the same time point, there was an increased rate of MVR in patients receiving a bioprosthetic valve (P = 0.015). Conclusions: Survival following mechanical and bioprosthetic MVR in patients 50-70 years of age is similar to up to 15 years of follow-up. Bioprosthetic MVR is associated with an increased risk of repeat MVR. Mechanical MVR is not associated with an increased risk of stroke. Valve selection in this patient population requires diligent consideration of structural valve deterioration and subsequent reoperation risk as well as bleeding and thromboembolic risk.
Long-term outcomes of isolated mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in different age groups of propensity-matched patients

Sorush Rokui,Byron Gottschalk,Defen Peng,Rosalind Groenewoud,Jian Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae245

IF: 4.534

2024-06-27

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:Abstract OBJECTIVES Prothesis choice in isolated mitral valve replacement for patients aged 75 years or younger remains debated as most studies comparing prothesis type have included large proportions of combined operations and benefits are influenced by concomitant procedures. This study compared long-term outcomes of isolated mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valves in different age groups of propensity-matched populations. METHODS This is a retrospective, multicentre, propensity-matched observational study. Baseline characteristics, operative details and long-term outcomes (mortality and freedom from surgical/transcatheter reintervention) were collected. RESULTS Totally, 1536 isolated mitral valve replacements (806 mechanical, 730 bioprosthetic) were performed between 2000 and 2017. Over 90% of eligible patients successfully underwent propensity matching, yielding 226 each of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in patients aged <65 years and 171 each of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients aged 65–75 years with median follow-up of 13 years (maximum 20 years). In matched patients <65 years, 10-year survival was superior with mechanical valves versus bioprosthetic valves (78.2% vs 69.8%, P = 0.029), as was 10-year freedom from reintervention (96.2% vs 81.3%, P < 0.001). For matched patients between 65 and 75 years, there were no differences between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in 10-year survival (64.6% vs 60.8%, P = 0.86) or 10-year freedom from reintervention (94.0% vs 97.2%, P = 0.23). Rates of post-operative stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, renal failure and permanent pacemaker insertion were similar. CONCLUSIONS In patients requiring isolated mitral valve replacement, mechanical valves confer significantly better long-term survival and freedom from reintervention for patients <65 years, while no benefit is observed at age 65–75 years compared to bioprosthetic valves.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic‐Valve and Mitral‐Valve Replacement

P. Chiu,M. Baiocchi,B. Lingala,A. Goldstone,W. Patrick,M. Fischbein,J. Woo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792

IF: 158.5

2017-11-08

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND In patients undergoing aortic‐valve or mitral‐valve replacement, either a mechanical or biologic prosthesis is used. Biologic prostheses have been increasingly favored despite limited evidence supporting this practice. METHODS We compared long‐term mortality and rates of reoperation, stroke, and bleeding between inverse‐probability‐weighted cohorts of patients who underwent primary aortic‐valve replacement or mitral‐valve replacement with a mechanical or biologic prosthesis in California in the period from 1996 through 2013. Patients were stratified into different age groups on the basis of valve position (aortic vs. mitral valve). RESULTS From 1996 through 2013, the use of biologic prostheses increased substantially for aortic‐valve and mitral‐valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic‐valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral‐valve replacement. Among patients who underwent aortic‐valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15‐year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral‐valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01). The incidence of reoperation was significantly higher among recipients of a biologic prosthesis than among recipients of a mechanical prosthesis. Patients who received mechanical valves had a higher cumulative incidence of bleeding and, in some age groups, stroke than did recipients of a biologic prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS The long‐term mortality benefit that was associated with a mechanical prosthesis, as compared with a biologic prosthesis, persisted until 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral‐valve replacement and until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic‐valve replacement. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.)

Medicine
Durability of biological valves implanted in aortic or mitral positions: A nationwide cohort study

Chun-Yu Chen,Chia-Pin Lin,Kuo-Chun Hung,Yi-Hsin Chan,Victor Chien-Chia Wu,Yu-Ting Cheng,Jih-Kai Yeh,Pao-Hsien Chu,An-Hsun Chou,Shao-Wei Chen,Yi‐Hsin Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.05.038

IF: 5.113

2023-06-01

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Biologic prostheses are being increasingly used for aortic and mitral valve replacement (AVR and MVR). This study evaluated the long-term durability of bioprosthetic valves in the mitral and aortic positions, as no well-designed population-based studies have addressed this issue before.METHODS: Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we compared biologic valve durability in the mitral and aortic positions in patients hospitalized between 2001 and 2017, with reoperation as the primary outcome. Both between-subject and within-subject designs were used, and the propensity score matching cohort (1:1 ratio) was created for the former.RESULTS: We identified a total of 10,308 patients, 5462 of whom received AVR, 3901 received MVR, and 945 received double valve replacement. Both AVR and MVR cohorts had 2259 patients after matching. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 1 day to 17.9 years), the reoperation rate in the MVR cohort (3.5%) was higher than that in the AVR cohort (2.6%) (hazard ratio 1.41; 95% CI, 1.01-1.98). A higher risk of all-cause death was observed in the MVR cohort (36.5%) than in the AVR cohort (32.6%) (hazard ratio 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.34). Among patients receiving double valve replacement with the same prosthesis type, valves implanted in the aortic position were considerably less likely to require reimplantation.CONCLUSIONS: Bioprosthetic valve placement in the aortic position is associated with superior outcomes in terms of durability, long-term mortality, and perioperative morbidity. Developing novel interventions and enhancing valve durability would expand bioprosthesis use for valve replacement.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
The Impact of Bicuspid Aortic Valve on Long-term Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement

Alexander Makkinejad,Divyaam Satija,Katelyn Monaghan,Karen Kim,Shinichi Fukuhara,Himanshu J Patel,Bo Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.07.006

2024-07-20

Abstract:Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of aortic valve replacement surgery between patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology. Methods: From January 2000 to June 2022, 1122 patients with TAV (n = 562) or BAV (n = 560) underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the same type of bovine pericardial stented bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching identified 350 pairs by matching for age, sex, operative status, chronic lung disease, prior stroke, diabetes, ejection fraction, renal failure on dialysis, coronary artery disease, prior cardiac surgery, and concomitant procedures. The primary end points were long-term survival and reoperation. Results: Perioperative outcomes, including reoperation for bleeding, atrial fibrillation, heart block requiring pacemaker, stroke, need for dialysis, and operative mortality, were similar between the matched groups. Survival at 10 years was 67% (95% CI, 59%-74%) in the BAV group and 54% (95% CI, 46%-61%) in the TAV group (P = .001). BAV valve was a significant protective factor for late mortality, with a hazard ratio of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.81; P < .001). Risk factors for late mortality included age, chronic lung disease, low ejection fraction, and renal failure on dialysis. Cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention at 10 years was similar between the groups at 10% in the BAV group and 4.9% in the TAV group (P = .55). Conclusions: Patients with BAV likely could not be considered the same as patients with TAV when deciding on the approach of aortic valve intervention.
Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

Jan Hlavicka,Larissa Gettwart,Julian Landgraf,Razan Salem,Florian Hecker,Enis Salihi,Arnaud Van Linden,Thomas Walther,Tomas Holubec

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11040112

2024-03-31

Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease

Abstract:Background: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) via upper ministernotomy (MiniAVR) is a standard alternative to full sternotomy access. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been proven to provide a number of benefits to patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after MiniAVR versus conventional AVR via full sternotomy (FS) using a biological prosthesis in an elderly higher-risk population. Methods: Between January 2006 and July 2009, 918 consecutive patients received AVR ± additional procedures with different prostheses at our center. Amongst them, 441 received isolated AVR using a biological prosthesis (median age of 74.5; range: 52–93 years; 50% females) and formed the study population (EuroSCORE II: 3.62 ± 5.5, range: 0.7–42). In total, 137 (31.1%) of the operations were carried out through FS, and 304 (68.9%) were carried out via MiniAVR. Follow-up was complete in 96% of the cases (median of 7.6 years, 6610 patient-years). Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in two groups of 68 patients with very similar baseline profiles. The primary endpoints were long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and endocarditis, and the secondary endpoints were early major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Results: FS led to shorter cardio-pulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp durations: 90 (47–194) vs. 100 (46–246) min (p = 0.039) and 57 (33–156) vs. 69 (32–118) min (p = 0.006), respectively. Perioperative stroke occurred in three patients (4.4%; FS) vs. one patient (1.5%; MiniAVR) (p = 0.506). The 30-day mortality was similar in both groups (2.9%, p = 1.000). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 94.1 ± 3% (FS and MiniAVR), 80.3 ± 5% vs. 75.7 ± 5%, and 45.3 ± 6% vs. 43.8 ± 6%, respectively (p = 0.767). There were two (2.9%) reoperations in each group and two thrombo-embolic events (2.9%) vs. one (1.5%) thrombo-embolic event in the MiniAVR and FS groups, respectively (p = 0.596). Conclusions: In comparison to FS, MiniAVR provided similar short- and long-term outcomes in a higher-risk elderly population receiving biological prostheses. In particular, long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and the incidence of endocarditis were comparable. These results clearly advocate for the routine use of MiniAVR as a standard procedure for AVR, even in a high-risk population.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Thirty-year outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation for mechanical aortic valve

Shintaro Sawa,Satoshi Saito,Kozo Morita,Shinka Miyamoto,Masashi Hattori,Atomu Hino,Yasuhito Okuzono,Yuji Shiozaki,Yuki Echie,Hiroshi Niinami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-024-02365-x

2024-02-24

Heart and Vessels

Abstract:The long-term safety, efficacy, and outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation for mechanical heart valves remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation therapy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a mechanical prosthesis. This retrospective cohort study consulted medical records and conducted a questionnaire to investigate 519 patients who underwent single AVR with the St. Jude Medical bileaflet valve and were in sinus rhythm. All patients were followed up with an international normalized ratio (INR) target of 1.6–2.5, and their INR values were checked throughout the follow-up period. The survival rate, incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and risk factors for cardiac death and MACCE were investigated. The total follow-up was 9793 patient-years, and the follow-up periods were 19.9 (standard deviation [SD]: 7.9) years. The mean INR was 2.03 (SD: 0.54). Survival rates from cardiac death were 93.6% in 20 years and 85.2% in 30 years. Advanced age ≥ 70 years was the only significant risk factor for cardiac death and MACCE, and the INR < 2.0 was not significant risk factor for MACCE including thromboembolism or bleeding events. Low-intensity anticoagulation with an INR of 1.6–2.5 for patients with sinus rhythm after AVR with a bileaflet mechanical valve is safe and effective, even over 30 years.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

Johann Auer,Pavla Krotka,Berthold Reichardt,Denise Traxler,Ralph Wendt,Michael Mildner,Hendrik Jan Ankersmit,Alexandra Graf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae214

IF: 4.534

2024-06-14

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:Abstract OBJECTIVES Limited data are available from randomized trials comparing outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgery in patients with different risks and with follow-up of at least 4 years or longer. In this large, population-based cohort study, long-term mortality and morbidity were investigated in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis using a surgically implanted bioprosthesis (surgical/biological aortic valve replacement; sB-AVR) or TAVR. METHODS Individual data from the Austrian Insurance Funds from 2010 through 2020 were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed in the overall and propensity score-matched populations. Secondary outcomes included reoperation and cardiovascular events. RESULTS From January 2010 through December 2020, a total of 18 882 patients underwent sB-AVR (n = 11 749; 62.2%) or TAVR (n = 7133; 37.8%); median follow-up was 5.8 (95% CI 5.7–5.9) years (maximum 12.3 years). The risk of all-cause mortality was higher with TAVR compared with sB-AVR: hazard ratio 1.552, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.469–1.640, P < 0.001; propensity score-matched hazard ratio 1.510, 1.403–1.625, P < 0.001. Estimated median survival was 8.8 years (95% CI 8.6–9.1) with sB-AVR versus 5 years (4.9–5.2) with TAVR. Estimated 5-year survival probability was 0.664 (0.664–0.686) with sB-AVR versus 0.409 (0.378–0.444) with TAVR overall, and 0.690 (0.674–0.707) and 0.560 (0.540–0.582), respectively, with propensity score matching. Separate subgroup analyses for patients aged 65–75 years and >75 years indicated a significant survival benefit in patients selected for sB-AVR in both groups. Other predictors of mortality were age, sex, previous heart failure, diabetes and chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective national population-based study, selection for TAVR was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared with sB-AVR in patients ≥65 years with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in the >2-year follow-up.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
Syntheses and structures of M(L)(X)BPh4 complexes {M=Co(II), Zn(II); L=cis-1,3,5-tris[3-(2-furyl)prop-2-enylideneamino]cyclohexane, X=OAc, NO3}: structural models of the active site of carbonic anhydrase

L. Cronin,S. Foxon,P. J. Lusby,P. Walton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s007750100211

2001-03-02

JBIC Journal of Biological Inorganic Chemistry

Abstract:
Catheter directed lysis and thrombectomy of submassive pulmonary embolism

M. Krichavsky,F. Rybicki,F. Resnic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22696

IF: 2.3

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and potentially highly morbid disease. However, there are a broad range of clinical presentations, varying from asymptomatic to life‐threatening hemodynamic compromise. Accordingly, the aggressiveness of treatment for acute PE must be adjusted to the acuity of the presentation and patient‐specific comorbidities. Thrombolysis is FDA approved for massive PE with hemodynamic compromise. However, this therapy has associated risk, most notably intracranial hemorrhage and other bleeding complications. This has prompted interest in catheter‐directed therapies to mechanically remove thrombus and to locally deliver reduced doses of thrombolytics. Guidelines support use of this catheter‐based strategy in cases of increased bleeding risk or high acuity with insufficient time for systemic pharmacologic therapy to be effective. We present the case of an 83‐year‐old man with acute high‐risk PE and worsening hemodynamic and respiratory status who was treated with catheter‐directed thrombolysis and rheolytic thrombectomy. There was significant improvement in thrombus burden, symptoms, and hemodynamic parameters including right ventricular function and pulmonary artery pressures. However, his course was complicated by intracranial hemorrhage and access site hematoma, demonstrating that even reduced doses and local delivery of thrombolytics do not ensure freedom from bleeding complications. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a novel tissue bioprosthesis: a systematic review

Davorin Sef,Myat Soe Thet,Tomislav Klokocovnik,Suvitesh Luthra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae045

IF: 4.534

2024-02-01

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:Abstract OBJECTIVES While current data show a clear trend towards the use of bioprosthetic valves during aortic valve replacement (AVR), durability of bioprosthetic valves remains the most important concern. We conducted a 1st systematic review of all available evidence that analysed early and mid-term outcomes after AVR using the Inspiris RESILIATM bioprosthesis. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed to identify all relevant studies evaluating early and mid-term outcomes after AVR using the Inspiris RESILIA bioprosthesis and including at least 20 patients with no restriction on the publication date. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed to compare Inspiris RESILIA and PERIMOUNT Magna Ease bioprosthesis and to pool the early postoperative mortality and stroke rates. RESULTS A total of 416 studies were identified, of which 15 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 3202 patients with an average follow-up of up to 5.3 years. The average age of patients across the studies was 52.2–75.1 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 39.0–86.4% of patients. In-hospital or 30-day postoperative mortality was 0–2.8%. At the mid-term follow-up, freedom from all-cause mortality was up to 85.4%. Among studies with mid-term follow-up, trace/mild paravalvular leak was detected in 0–3.0%, while major paravalvular leak was found only in up to 2.0% of patients. No statistically significant differences in terms of mortality (P = 0.98, odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.36–2.83) and stroke (P = 0.98, odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.38–2.73) between the Inspiris RESILIA bioprosthesis and PERIMOUNT Magna Ease bioprosthesis were observed in the subgroup meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS Mid-term data on the safety and haemodynamic performance of the novel aortic bioprosthesis are encouraging. Further comparative studies with other bioprostheses and longer follow-up are still required to endorse durability and safety of the novel bioprosthesis.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

Farid Foroutan,Gordon H Guyatt,Kathleen O'Brien,Eva Bain,Madeleine Stein,Sai Bhagra,Daegan Sit,Rakhshan Kamran,Yaping Chang,Tahira Devji,Hassan Mir,Veena Manja,Toni Schofield,Reed A Siemieniuk,Thomas Agoritsas,Rodrigo Bagur,Catherine M Otto,Per O Vandvik,Kathleen O’Brien

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5065

2016-09-28

BMJ

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.STUDY SELECTION: Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.METHODS: Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.RESULTS: In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).CONCLUSION: Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.
Outcomes after implantation of right-sided mechanical valve prostheses in congenital heart disease

Omar Abozied,William Miranda,Ahmed Younis,Luke Burchill,Charles Jain,Heidi Connolly,Joseph Dearani,Elizabeth H Stephens,Alexander C Egbe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2023-322666

IF: 5.7

2023-07-05

Heart

Abstract:Background Bioprosthetic valves are often used for pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) and tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) because of concerns about mechanical valve thrombosis in the right heart. The purpose of this study was to assess prosthetic valve function and outcomes (prosthetic valve dysfunction, reoperations and major bleeding events) after mechanical PVR and TVR and to compare these to bioprostheses implanted in the same positions. Method Case–control study of adults with congenital heart disease that underwent mechanical TVR or PVR (2003–2021) at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. For each mechanical prosthesis, we identified two patients that received bioprosthesis in the same position (1:2 matching). Results We identified 48 consecutive patients that underwent mechanical PVR (n=39, age 32 (26–38) years, men 22 (56%)) and/or mechanical TVR (n=17, age 36 (31–42) years, men 9 (53%)), as control group of 78 patients (age 30 (24–36) years, men 44 (56%)) and 34 patients (age 34 (29–39) years, men 18 (53%)) that underwent bioprosthetic PVR and TVR, respectively. The most common diagnoses in patients that received mechanical prosthesis were: tetralogy of Fallot (n=14, 19%), aortic stenosis status post Ross operation (n=11, 23%), truncus arteriosus (n=5, 11%), atrioventricular canal defect (n=4, 8%), Ebstein anomaly (n=3, 6%), double outlet right ventricle (n=2, 4%), valvular pulmonic stenosis (n=2, 4%). Compared with the bioprosthesis group, the mechanical prosthesis group had lower temporal increase in Doppler systolic mean gradient after PVR (∆ −1±2 vs 3±2 mm Hg, p<0.001) and Doppler diastolic mean gradient after TVR (∆ 0±1 vs 2±1 mm Hg, p=0.005). The mechanical prosthesis group also had lower risk of prosthetic valve dysfunction after PVR (1.0% vs 2.8% /year, p=0.02) and after TVR (2.6% vs 4.3% /year, p=0.008), but higher risk of major bleeding events (2.2% vs 0.1% /year, p<0.001). Conclusions Patients that received right-sided mechanical valve prostheses had lower temporal increase in valve gradient, lower risk of prosthetic valve dysfunction, but higher risk of bleeding complications compared with those that underwent right-sided bioprosthetic valve implantation.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
How to approach aortic valve disease in the elderly: a 25-year retrospective study

Ebuzer Aydin,Ozge Altas Yerlikhan,Behzat Tuzun,Yucel Ozen,Sabit Sarikaya,Mehmet Kaan Kirali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2014-051

Abstract:Objective: In the last decade, the number of elderly patients suffering from aortic valve disease has significantly increased. This study aimed to identify possible factors that could affect surgical and long-term outcomes in the light of a literature review regarding the management of aortic valve disease in the elderly. Methods: Between January 1990 and December 2012, a total of 114 patients (64 males, 50 females; mean age 76.6 ± 3.6 years; range 70-87 years) with aortic valve replacement (AVR) alone, or combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or mitral surgery in our hospital, were retrospectively analysed. Results: In-hospital mortality was seen in 19 patients. The major causes of in-hospital mortality were low-cardiac output syndrome in eight patients (42.1%), respiratory insufficiency or infection in six (31.5%), multi-organ failure in four (21%), and stroke in one patient (5.2%). The main postoperative complications included arrhythmia in 26 patients (22.8%), renal failure in 11 (9.6%), respiratory infection in nine (7.9%), and stroke in three patients (2.6%). The mean length of intensive care unit and hospital stays were 6.4 ± 4.3 and 18 ± 12.8 days, respectively. During follow up, late mortality was seen in 28 patients (29.4%). Possible risk factors for long-term mortality were type of prosthesis, EuroSCORE ≥ 15, postoperative pacemaker implantation, respiratory infection, and haemodialysis. Among 65 long-term survivors, their activity level was good in 53 (81.5%) and poor in two. Conclusions: Our study results demonstrated that an individually tailored approach including scheduled surgery increases short- and long-term outcomes of AVR in patients aged ≥ 70 years. In addition, shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time may be more beneficial in this high-risk patient population.
Impact of explanted valve type on aortic valve reoperations: nationwide UK experience

Pradeep Narayan,Tim Dong,Arnaldo Dimagli,Daniel P Fudulu,Jeremy Chan,Shubhra Sinha,Gianni D Angelini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezae031

IF: 4.534

2024-02-01

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:Abstract OBJECTIVES This nationwide retrospective cohort study assessed the impact of the explanted valve type on reoperative outcomes in aortic valve surgery within the UK over a 23-year period. METHODS Data were sourced from the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) database. All patients undergoing first-time isolated reoperative aortic valve replacement between 1996 and 2019 in the UK were included. Concomitant procedures, homograft implantation or aortic root enlargement were excluded. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare outcomes and risk factors for in-hospital mortality was evaluated through multivariable logistic regression. Final model selection was conducted using Akaike Information Criterion through bootstrapping. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality, and secondary end points included postoperative morbidities. RESULTS Out of 2371 patients, 24.9% had mechanical and 75% had bioprosthetic valves implanted during the primary procedure. Propensity matched groups of 324 patients each, were compared. In-hospital mortality for mechanical and bioprosthetic valve explants was 7.1% and 5.9%, respectively (P = 0.632). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, valve type was not a risk factor for mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–1.05; P = 0.1]. Age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05; P < 0.05), left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.08–2.42; P < 0.05), creatinine ≥ 200 mg/dl (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.17–4.04; P < 0.05) and endocarditis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71–4.14; P < 0.05) emerged as risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSIONS The type of valve initially implanted (mechanical or bioprosthetic) did not determine mortality. Instead, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, renal impairment and endocarditis were significant risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system

Gramicidin S-synthetase: on the structure of polyenzyme template in polypeptide synthesis.

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Under 50 Years: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Long-Term Outcomes of Bioprosthetic and Mechanical Valve Replacement for Patients Aged between 50 and 70 Years

Mechanical or biological prosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients aged 45 to 74 years

Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves

Tissue versus mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50-70: a propensity-matched analysis

Long-term outcomes of isolated mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in different age groups of propensity-matched patients

Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic‐Valve and Mitral‐Valve Replacement

Durability of biological valves implanted in aortic or mitral positions: A nationwide cohort study

The Impact of Bicuspid Aortic Valve on Long-term Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement

Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

Thirty-year outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation for mechanical aortic valve

Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

Syntheses and structures of M(L)(X)BPh4 complexes {M=Co(II), Zn(II); L=cis-1,3,5-tris[3-(2-furyl)prop-2-enylideneamino]cyclohexane, X=OAc, NO3}: structural models of the active site of carbonic anhydrase

Catheter directed lysis and thrombectomy of submassive pulmonary embolism

Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a novel tissue bioprosthesis: a systematic review

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

Outcomes after implantation of right-sided mechanical valve prostheses in congenital heart disease

How to approach aortic valve disease in the elderly: a 25-year retrospective study

Impact of explanted valve type on aortic valve reoperations: nationwide UK experience