Long-term Outcomes after Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement with Aortic Root Enlargement in Adolescents
Zhiwei Xu,Qiuxia Shi,Ju Mei,Yan Tan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.13085
IF: 1.778
2017-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Surgery
Abstract:Journal of Cardiac SurgeryVolume 32, Issue 2 p. 133-137 ORIGINAL ARTICLEFree Access Long-term outcomes after mechanical aortic valve replacement with aortic root enlargement in adolescents Zhiwei Xu MD, Zhiwei Xu MD Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorQiuxia Shi MD, Qiuxia Shi MD Center for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung, and Blood Vessel Diseases, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJu Mei MD, Corresponding Author Ju Mei MD ju_mei63@126.com Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China Correspondence Yan Tan MD, Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai 201399, China. Email: 18610081078@163.com Co-Correspondence Ju Mei MD, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200092, China. Email: ju_mei63@126.comSearch for more papers by this authorYan Tan MD, Corresponding Author Yan Tan MD 18610081078@163.com Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, China Correspondence Yan Tan MD, Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai 201399, China. Email: 18610081078@163.com Co-Correspondence Ju Mei MD, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200092, China. Email: ju_mei63@126.comSearch for more papers by this author Zhiwei Xu MD, Zhiwei Xu MD Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorQiuxia Shi MD, Qiuxia Shi MD Center for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung, and Blood Vessel Diseases, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJu Mei MD, Corresponding Author Ju Mei MD ju_mei63@126.com Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China Correspondence Yan Tan MD, Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai 201399, China. Email: 18610081078@163.com Co-Correspondence Ju Mei MD, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200092, China. Email: ju_mei63@126.comSearch for more papers by this authorYan Tan MD, Corresponding Author Yan Tan MD 18610081078@163.com Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, China Correspondence Yan Tan MD, Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai 201399, China. Email: 18610081078@163.com Co-Correspondence Ju Mei MD, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200092, China. Email: ju_mei63@126.comSearch for more papers by this author First published: 10 January 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.13085Citations: 6 Zhiwei Xu and Qiuxia Shi contributed equally to this article. AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Background Deciding which prosthetic aortic valve to choose is difficult in adolescents who have not yet met their full growth potential. The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes following mechanical aortic valve replacement with aortic root enlargement in adolescents. Methods Between September 1997 and December 2006, 58 consecutive adolescents (49 male, 9 female, median age 15.5, range 13 to 17 years) underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement with aortic root enlargement. All patients received long-term anticoagulation treatment with warfarin, aiming to maintain an international normalized ratio between 2.0 and 2.5. Follow-up of all patients was closed in December 2015. Results The mean size of implanted valves was 20.1 ± 1.3 mm. There were two operative deaths (3.4%) and one late death (1.7%). Mean follow-up was 11.6 ± 3.3 years (range, 8.5 to 15.8 years). Actuarial survival at 15 years was 94.7 ± 3.2%. No patient required a redo procedure. At the latest clinical evaluation, 47 patients (81.0%) were in New York Heart Association functional class I and 8 (13.8%) were in functional class II. Actuarial freedom from valve-related complication was 88.1 ± 2.8% at four years. The mean gradient across the aortic mechanical valve on echocardiography was 13.2 ± 6.3 mmHg (range 6 to 38 mmHg). Conclusions Mechanical aortic valve replacement with aortic root enlargement remains an excellent treatment option in adolescents with full growth potential. The mortality is very low and all surviving patients resumed normal lifestyles. It represents a good alternative to allografts and bioprostheses in adolescent patients with aortic valve disease. 1 INTRODUCTION The selection of the most appropriate valve prosthesis in adolescents with irrepairable aortic valve lesions remains controversial. Treatment strategies should consider the growth potential and limit the number of interventions over their lifetime. Mechanical prostheses have superior durability over tissue prostheses in adolescents but lack growth potential. It is almost inevitable that the adolescents will outgrow the prosthesis. Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is a concern in adolescents.1 In order to avoid PPM, implantation of mechanical valves with aortic root enlargement is a more attractive option for these adolescent patients.2 The objective of our study was to retrospectively assess the long-term outcomes on adolescents who have undergone mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with aortic root enlargement. 2 METHODS 2.1 Patients From September 1997 through December 2006, 58 consecutive patients (49 male, 9 female, median age 15.5, range 13 to 17 years) underwent a mechanical AVR with aortic root enlargement. During this time period, there were 15 AVRs with bioprostheses, 7 Ross procedures, and no allografts in adolescent patients. Patient characteristics and the valve pathology are listed in Table 1. This is a retrospective observational study conducted in a large university medical center. The study was approved by the hospital's ethical committee, and all patients gave informed consent to the use and reporting of their collected data. Table 1. Preoperative patient profiles Characteristic Mean ± SD or no. (%) Patient 58 Male 49 (85.5%) Female 9 (14.5%) Median age (year) 15.5 (13 ∼ 17) Body surface area (m2) 1.39 ± 0.12 Diagnosis Aortic valve regurgitation 12 (20.7%) Aortic valve stenosis 35 (60.3%) Combined lesion 11 (19.0%) Etiology Congenital heart disease 9 (15.5%) Bicuspid 33 (56.9%) Rheumatic 3 (5.2%) Infective endocarditic 11 (19.0%) Prosthesis-patient mismatch 2 (3.4%) In combination with ventricular septal defect 8 (13.8%) In combination with aorticsinus aneurysm 6 (10.3%) SD, standard deviation. 2.2 Surgical technique The operations were performed through a median sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass, established via ascending aortic and single atrial or bicaval cannulation and mild hypothermia (32 ∼ 34°C). Left heart venting from the right superior pulmonary vein was established. The ascending aorta was clamped and antegrade/retrograde cold blood cardioplegia was administered. A transverse aortotomy was performed and the aortic valve was exposed. The aortic valve was excised and the annulus was measured with the corresponding sizers. The decision to select a larger size mechanical valve was made according to the patient's age and the body surface area (BSA). The effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to BSA should be >0.95 cm2/m2. A posterior aortic root enlargement was performed using the Manougian technique with the aortotomy extending into the non-coronary sinus and into the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve.3 The reconstruction of the defect was done with a teardrop-shaped glutaraldehyde-treated patch of bovine pericardium. After the aortic annulus was resized, an ATS Open Pivot (ATS Medical Inc, Minneapolis, MN) or SJM Regent (St Jude Medical Inc, St Paul, MN) mechanical valve was inserted using 2-0 pledgeted nonabsorbable braided sutures. The aortotomy was closed using the patch to enlarge the aortic root. All patients were given warfarin orally, aiming to maintain an international normalized ratio (INR) within the range of 2.0 to 2.54 and followed with monthly INR testing. 2.3 Data collection and postoperative follow-up Follow-up of all patients was closed in December 2015. If the patient died or needed a redo operation to replace the mechanical aortic valve, the follow-up ended. Clinical assessment included operative mortality, morbidity, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and valve-related events (thrombo-embolism and anticoagulation treatment-related bleeding). Patient survival started at the time of the operation and ended at the time of death or at closure of the follow-up. Operative mortality includes any death occurring within 30 days postoperatively or during the same hospital admission. Late events include the events taking place after the patients were discharged from the hospital. Echocardiography was routinely performed before discharge from the hospital and once a year during the outpatient visits. 2.4 Statistical analysis Data analysis was performed with SPSS 15.0 software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Continuous data are presented as means (standard deviation and range). Categorical variables are reported as absolute numbers and percentages. Comparison of continuous variables was performed using the two-tailed Student's t-test for paired data, and comparison of discrete variables was done with the Pearson χ2 test or Fisher exact. All statistical tests were two sided, and tests with a value of p ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess cumulative survival and freedom from valve-related events. 3 RESULTS Mean follow-up was 11.6 ± 3.3 years (range, 8.5 to 15.8 years). The follow-up was 100% complete. 3.1 Operative mortality and morbidity The mean size of the implanted mechanical valves was 20.1 ± 1.3 mm. Five patients (8.6%) received a 17-mm mechanical prosthesis, 17 patients (29.3%) a 19-mm, and 36 patients (62.1%) a 21-mm prosthesis. There were two operative deaths (3.4%). A 16-year-old redo patient, who had his first AVR six years ago, died of cardiac arrest 18 hours after surgery. A 17-year-old male, who suffered from bacterial endocarditis secondary to a ventricular septal defect, had severe aortic valve regurgitation and required an emergency AVR. He died on the eighth postoperative day from low cardiac output. No patient required early redo surgery (<24 hours) for bleeding. Persistent premature ventricular contraction occurred in three patients (5.2%) and resolved after amiodarone therapy. Complete heart block developed in two patients (3.4%), one of whom needed a permanent pacemaker and another one recoverd to 65 beats per minute when discharged and has remained stable on follow-up. Mean hospital stay was 8.3 ± 1.5 days (range, 7 to 12 days). 3.2 Long-term follow-up There were no redo surgeries for PPM in this cohort. One late death (1.7%) occurred during the follow-up. A 13-year-old female underwent mechanical AVR with aortic root enlargement for a bicuspid aortic valve and died seven years later from severe myocardial dysfunction. The size of her mechanical valve was 17 mm. Overall patient survival is shown in the Kaplan-Meier analysis in Figure 1, with 96.6 ± 2.7% at one year and 94.7 ± 3.2% at eight years. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Overall patient survival was shown with the Kaplan-Meier analysis after mechanical aortic valve replacement with aortic root enlargement in adolescents, with 96.6 ± 2.7% at one year and 94.7 ± 3.2% at eight years Forty-seven patients (81.0%) were in NYHA functional class I and eight (13.8%) were in functional class II. All surviving patients resumed normal lifestyles. Valve-related events included valve thrombosis in two patients which disappeared after two weeks of increasing the INR to 3.0, transient stroke in one, and gastrointestinal bleeding in two patients. Minor self-limiting episodes of nose-bleeds were recorded in three patients. The valve thrombo-embolic and anticoagulation bleeding events occurred in patients who had not had INR testing on a regular basis. There were no haemorrhagic events requiring blood transfusion. There was no mechanical valve endocarditis. Actuarial freedom from valve-related events was 88.1 ± 2.8% at four years (Figure 2). Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Actuarial freedom from valve-related events after mechanical aortic valve replacement with aortic root enlargement in adolescents 3.3 Echocardiography Echocardiography was routinely performed before discharge from the hospital and once a year during the outpatient visits. The mean time of echo measurements was 15.5 ± 3.3 months. Minor perivalvular leaks developed in three patients (5.2%). Mild mitral regurgitation developed in 23 patients (39.7%). Although calcification of the patch was observed in 37 patients (63.8%), there was no evidence of any aneurysmal changes of the patch or the aortic root. Left ventricular hypertrophy regressed. Compared with pre-operation, left ventricular—intraventricular septal thickness was significantly decreased (15.5 ± 5.3 to 12.1 ± 2.7 mm, p < 0.05). Left ventricular posterior wall thickness was significantly decreased (14.3 ± 1.7 vs. 11.6 ± 2.2 mm, p < 0.05). The mean gradient across the aortic prosthesis on echocardiography was 13.2 ± 6.3 mmHg (range 6 to 38 mmHg). 4 DISCUSSION For adolescent patients requiring aortic valve surgery, surgeons often face the difficult dilemma of what kind of valve prosthesis to choose. Either an aortic valve repair or a Ross procedure provides a good option. The advantages include avoidance of anticoagulation and potential for growth. However, the Ross procedure is more complex and there is the potential for future double valve replacement.5 Simplicity, safety, and reproducibility of the implantation technique, good hemodynamic performance, and low incidence of valve-related events are important features in ascertaining the validity of each treatment approach for adolescent patients requiring aortic valve surgery. Therefore, in adolescents, a mechanical valve is an appropriate alternative. Adolescent patients have different hemodynamic properties than adults with a faster heart rate, less incidence of arrhythmias, atrial dilatation, or myocardial dysfunction, making them less prone to develop thrombo-embolism than adults.6, 7 In our cohort, there have been seven episodes of valve-related events in patients who did not have regular INR testing. Actuarial freedom from valve-related events was 88.1 ± 2.8% at four years. These low rates are similar to those reported for children undergoing a mechanical AVR.8, 9 To maximize the therapeutic benefit from AVR, a larger size prosthesis should be implanted into the patient, as a prosthesis with a small EOA may result in persistent elevated transvalvular pressure gradients.10, 11 In the adolescent patients with growth potential, aortic root enlargement techniques minimize the risk of PPM by allowing insertion of a prosthetic valve one to two sizes larger than with an AVR alone. Those techniques include the Nicks procedure, in which the aortic incision is extended to the area between the left/non coronary commissure and the base of the noncoronary cusp into the area of intervalvular fibrosa without cutting into the anterior mitral valve (MV) leaflet12; the Manougian procedure, which has the same incision as in the Nicks procedure but the incision is extended across the intervalvular fibrosa into the center of the anterior MV leaflet3; or the Konno procedure, in which the aortic annulus is incised between the right and left coronary cusps extending into the ventricular septum with patch reconstruction of the septum and the ascending aorta.13 In our study, the operative mortality was 3.4%. The low mortality rate suggests that aortic root enlargement can be safely performed during AVR. Other groups have reported similarly low perioperative mortality associated with aortic root enlargement. Castro et al14 performed aortic root enlargement in 17% of patients undergoing AVR (n = 114) between 1995 and 2001, with a 30-day mortality of 2.9%. There were no redo procedures in our cohort due to PPM. Freedom from surgical re-intervention rates with aortic root enlargement ranging between 85.1% and 91.0% at 10 years have been reported.15, 16 It is almost inevitable that the adolescents will outgrow the prosthesis. Utilization of aortic root enlargement techniques allows a widening of the aortic root by 2 ± 8 mm. The mean size of implanted valves was 20.1 ± 1.3 mm. The survival rate was 96.6 ± 2.7% at one year and 94.7 ± 3.2% at eight years. Besides long-term survival, the functional status of the patients were also encouraging, since 47 patients (81.0%) were in NYHA functional class I and 8 (13.8%) were in functional class II. The mean gradient across the aortic prosthesis on echocardiography was 13.2 ± 6.3 mmHg. Furthermore, postoperative echocardiograms showed evidence of significant LV mass regression. Mechanical AVR with aortic root enlargement and long-term anticoagulation remains an excellent treatment option in adolescent patients. In our experience it has been associated with acceptable, operative mortality, low incidence of thrombo-embolism, anticoagulation treatment-related haemorrhage, and good long-term survival. Even more importantly, with the insertion of an adult-sized mechanical valve, a redo operation may not be required. We believe it represents a good alternative to available biological substitutes, including the pulmonary autograft. The addition of an aortic root enlargement procedure is essential to avoid long-term PPM. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors acknowledge no conflict of interest in the submission. REFERENCES 1 Zhong Q, Xiao Y, Chen J, et al. Strategy of aortic root enlargement in patients undergoing aortic and mitral valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 90: 782– 787. 2 Peng E, Hasan A. A modified approach to aortic root reconstruction in children: an extended 2-patch root enlargement technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 146: 1547– 1549. 3 Manouguian S, Kirchhoff PG. Aortic and aortic-mitral annular enlargement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996; 112: 207– 207. 4 Sun X, Hu S, Qi G, et al. Low standard oral anticoagulation therapy for Chinese patients with St. Jude mechanical heart valves. Chin Med J (Engl). 2003; 116: 1175– 1178. 5 Xu Z, Li W, Xu X, et al. Long-term follow-up with Ross procedure at a single institution in China. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 62: 216– 221. 6 Alexiou C, McDonald A, Langley SM, et al. Aortic valve replacement in children: are mechanical prostheses a good option? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2000; 17: 125– 133. 7 Ruzmetov M, Vijay P, Rodefeld MD, et al. Evolution of aortic valve replacement in children: a single center experience. Int J Cardiol. 2006; 113: 194– 200. 8 Sharabiani MT, Dorobantu DM, Mahani AS, et al. Aortic valve replacement and the Ross operation in children and young adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67: 2858– 2870. 9 Lupinetti F, Warner J, Jones TK, et al. Comparison of human tissues and mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in children. Circulation. 1997; 96: 321– 325. 10 Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, et al. The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J Cardiol. 1996; 12: 379– 387. 11 Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1131– 1141. 12 Nicks R, Cartmill T, Bernstein L. Hypoplasia of the aortic root. The problem of aortic valve replacement. Thorax. 1970; 25: 339– 346. 13 Konno S, Imai Y, Iida Y, et al. A new method for prosthetic valve replacement in congenital aortic stenosis associated with hypoplasia of the aortic valve ring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975; 70: 909– 917. 14 Castro LJ, Arcidi JM, Jr., Fisher AL, et al. Routine enlargement of the small aortic root: a preventive strategy to minimize mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 74: 31– 36. 15 Ibrahim M, Cleland J, O'Kane H, et al. St Jude Medical prosthesis in children. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994; 108: 52– 56. 16 Alexiou C, Chen Q, Langley SM, et al. Is there still a place for open surgical valvotomy in the management of aortic stenosis in children? The view from Southampton. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001; 20: 239– 246. Citing Literature Volume32, Issue2February 2017Pages 133-137 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation