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
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
-
Long-term outcomes following aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves
Abeline R Watkins,Ryaan El-Andari,Nicholas M Fialka,Jimmy Jh Kang,Yongzhe Hong,Sabin J Bozso,Devilliers Jonker,Michael Moon,Jayan Nagendran,Jeevan Nagendran
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.09.016
Abstract:Background: Aortic valve disease(AVD) accounts for 33 % of valvular heart disease(VHD) but causes over 60 % of VHD mortality. For surgical AVR, mechanical valves are recommended for patients <50 years old and bioprosthetic valves for those >70 years old. Objectives: To investigate the long-term differences following AV replacement(AVR) comparing bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients aged 50-70. Methods: 4,927 patients underwent AVR, 744 of which were propensity-matched 2:1 for bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. Outcomes included mortality, morbidity, and rates of reoperation. Results: The average age of the propensity-matched groups was 57 and 56.7 years, and female sex accounted for 26.4 % and 25.0 % for the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve groups, respectively. Other baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar between the groups. There were no deaths at 30 days and complication rates did not differ between groups(p > 0.05). Mortality at 1, 5, and 15 years was similar between groups. Reoperation rates at 5 and 10 years did not significantly differ between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves(p = 0.84, p = 0.31), although at 15-year follow-up, patients with bioprosthetic valves were more likely to require reoperation(21.2 % versus 9.7 %, adjusted hazard ratio 3.65, 95 % confidence interval 1.07-12.5, p = 0.0.39). Conclusions: Patients receiving AVR from 50 to 70 years old have similar long-term outcomes irrespective of whether they received bioprosthetic or mechanical valves, with only reoperation being significantly different at 15 years follow-up. With low rates of reoperation, mortality, and avoidance of anticoagulation, bioprosthetic valves are a reasonable option for patients 50-70 years old, although mechanical valves still provide a durability benefit for young patients.
-
Long-term Outcomes of Primary Aortic Valve Repair in Children with Congenital Aortic Stenosis – 15-Year Experience at a Single Center
Qiushi Ren,Juemin Yu,Tianyu Chen,Hailong Qiu,Erchao Ji,Tao Liu,Xiaowei Xu,Jianzheng Cen,Shusheng Wen,Jian Zhuang,Xiaobing Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1029245
IF: 3.6
2022-01-01
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Abstract:BackgroundStudies on the long-term outcomes of children with congenital aortic stenosis who underwent primary aortic repair are limited. We reviewed the long-term outcomes of children who underwent aortic valve (AoV) repair at our center.MethodsAll children (n = 75) who underwent AoV repair between 2006 and 2020 were reviewed. The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to demonstrate the survival estimates. The Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk regression model were used to identify risk factors for death, reintervention, adverse events, and replacement.ResultsThe median age at surgery was 1.8 (IQR, 0.2–7.7) years, and the median weight at surgery was 10.0 (IQR, 5.0–24.0) kg. Early mortality and late mortality were 5.3% (4/75) and 5.6% (4/71), respectively. Risk factors for overall mortality were concomitant mitral stenosis (P = 0.01, HR: 9.8, 95% CI: 1.8–53.9), low AoV annulus Z-score (P = 0.01, HR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4–0.9), and prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time (P < 0.01, HR: 9.5, 95% CI: 1.7–52.1). Freedom from reintervention was 72.9 ± 0.10% (95% CI: 56.3–94.4%) at 10 years. Risk factors for occurrence of adverse event on multivariable analysis included preoperative intubation (P = 0.016, HR: 1.004, 95% CI: 1.001–1.007) and a low AoV annulus Z-score (P = 0.019, HR: 0.714, 95% CI: 0.540–0.945). Tricuspid AoV morphology was associated with a suboptimal postoperative outcome (P = 0.03).ConclusionAortic valve repair remains a safe and durable solution for children with congenital aortic stenosis. Concomitant mitral stenosis and aortic valve anatomy, including tricuspid valve morphology and smaller annulus size, are associated with poor early and long-term outcomes.
-
Application of Regent Mechanical Valve in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus: 3-Year Follow-Up.
Dong Zhao,Chunsheng Wang,Tao Hong,Cuizhen Pan,Changfa Guo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-7-88
2012-01-01
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Abstract:Background Aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a small aortic annulus is always challenging for the cardiac surgeon. In this study, we sought to evaluate the midterm performance of implantation with a 17-mm or 19-mm St. Jude Medical Regent (SJM Regent) mechanical valve in retrospective consecutive cohort of patients with small aortic annulus (diameter ≤ 19 mm). Methods From January 2008 to April 2011, 40 patients (31 female, mean age = 47.2 ± 5.8 years) with small aortic annulus (≤19 mm in diameter) underwent aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm or 19-mm St. Jude Medical Regent (SJM Regent) mechanical valve. Preoperative mean body surface area, New York Heart Association class, and mean aortic annulus were 1.61 ± 0.26 m 2 , 3.2 ± 0.4, and 18 ± 1.4 mm respectively. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the implantation of 17 mm SJM Regent mechanical valve (group 1, n = 18) or 19 mm SJM Regent valve (group 2, n = 22). All patients underwent echocardiography examination preoperatively and at one year post-operation. Results There were no early deaths in either group. Follow-up time averaged 36 ± 17.6 months. The mean postoperative New York Heart Association class was 1.3 ± 0.6 (p < 0.001). By echocardiography, in group 1, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular fraction shortening (LVFS), and the indexed effective orifice area (EOAI) increased from 43.7% ± 11.6%, 27.3% ± 7.6%, and 0.70 ± 0.06 cm 2 /m 2 to 69.8 ± 9.3%, 41.4 ± 8.3%, and 0.92 ± 0.10 cm 2 /m 2 respectively ( P < 0.05), while the left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and the aortic transvalvular pressure gradient decreased from 116.4 ± 25.4 g/m 2 , 46.1 ± 8.5 mmHg to 86.7 ± 18.2 g/m 2 , 13.7 ± 5.2 mmHg respectively. In group 2, the LVEF, LVFS and EOAI increased from 45.9% ± 9.7%, 30.7% ± 8.0%, and 0.81 ± 0.09 cm 2 /m 2 to 77.4% ± 9.7%, 44.5% ± 9.6%, and 1.27 ± 0.11 cm 2 /m 2 respectively, while the LVMI, and the aortic transvalvular pressure gradient decreased from 118.3 ± 27.6 g/m 2 , 44.0 ± 6.7 mmHg to 80.1 ± 19.7 g/m 2 , 10.8 ± 4.1 mmHg as well. The prevalence of PPM was documented in 2 patients in Group 1. Conclusions Patients with small aortic annulus and body surface area, experienced satisfactory clinical improvement after aortic valve replacement with modern SJM Regent bileaflet prostheses.
-
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.
-
Medium-term Outcome of Toronto Aortic Valve Replacement: Single Center Experience
Wei Li,Susanna Price,Christine A. O'Sullivan,Pankaj Kumar,Xu Y. Jin,Michael Y. Henein,John R. Pepper
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.03.098
IF: 4.039
2008-01-01
International Journal of Cardiology
Abstract:Background and aims: Long-term competence of any aortic prosthesis is critical to its clinical durability. Bioprosthetic valves, and in particular the stentless type have been proposed to offer superior haemodynamic profiles with consequent potential for superior left-ventricular mass regression. These benefits however are balanced by the potential longevity of the implanted valve. The aims of this study were to assess medium-term Toronto aortic valve function and its effect on left-ventricular function.Methods: Between 1992 and 1996 86 patients underwent Toronto aortic valve replacement for aortic valve disease and were followed up annually. Prospectively collected data was analyzed for all patients where detailed echocardiographic follow-up was available. Echocardiographic studies were analyzed at 2 +/- 0.6 and 6 +/- 1.4 years after valve replacement. Data collected included left-ventricular systolic and diastolic dimensions, fractional shortening and left-ventricular mass. In addition, data on aortic valve and root morphology, peak aortic velocities, time velocity integral, stroke volume and the mechanism of valve failure where relevant, were also collected.Results: Complete echocardiographic data were available for eighty-four patients, age 69 +/- 9 years, 62 male. Additional coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 38% of patients. Twelve (14%) valves had failed during follow-up, 7 (8%) requiring re-operation. Valve failure was associated with morphologically bicuspid native aortic valve (9/12), and progressive dilatation of the aortic sinuses, sino-tubular junction and ascending aorta (11/12). Left-ventricular mass index remained high (184 +/- 75 g/m(2)) and did not continue to regress between early and medium-term follow-up (175.8 +/- 77 g/m(2)).Conclusions: Although more than 90% of implanted Toronto aortic valves remained haemodynamically stable with low gradient at medium-term follow-up, young age and larger aortic dimensions in patients with valve failure suggest better outcome if used in the elderly with normal aortic root geometry. (C) 2007 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
-
Surgical and Transcatheter Treatments in Children with Congenital Aortic Stenosis.
Yifan Zhu,Renjie Hu,Wen Zhang,Xiafeng Yu,Wei Dong,Yanjun Sun,Haibo Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715437
2020-01-01
Abstract:Background For patients with congenital aortic valve stenosis (AVS), comprehensive analysis of surgical aortic valvuloplasty (SAV) or balloon dilation (BD) is scarce and remains controversial. Methods This study reviewed AVS data (aortic peak gradient, aortic insufficiency, and survival and reoperation) for patients who were suitable for biventricular repair at our center in 2008 to 2018. Patients were categorized into two subgroups based on age (<= 3 or >3 months). Results A total of 194 patients were treated, including 124 with SAV and 70 with BD. Resulting data revealed that residual aortic gradient at discharge was worse for BD ( p =0.001). While for patients younger than 3 months, the relief of AVS was comparable between the two groups ( p =0.624). There was no significant difference in time-related survival between the two groups (log-rank p =0.644). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic dimension predicted early death ( p =0.045). Survival in the two groups after 10 years was 96.8% in SAV and 95.7% in BD ( p =0.644). Freedom from reoperation after 10 years was 58.1% in SAV and 41.8% in BD patients ( p =0.01). There was no significant difference in freedom from reoperation between SAV and BD in patients younger than 3 months ( p =0.84). Multivariate analysis indicated that residual aortic peak gradient was predictive of reoperation ( p =0.038). Conclusion Both methods achieved excellent survival outcomes at our center. SAV achieved superior gradient reduction and minimized the necessity for reoperation. For patients younger than 3 months, BD rivaled SAV both in aortic stenosis relief and freedom from reoperation.
-
Technical Details of Aortic Valve Replacement using Carpentier–Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis in a Sexagenarian Patient with Severe Calcific Aortic Stenosis: A Video Presentation
Ujjwal K. Chowdhury,Sukhjeet Singh,Niwin George,Poonam Malhotra Kapoor,Lakshmi Kumari Sankhyan,Sanjoy Sengupta,Prateek Vaswani,Suryalok Angadi,Chaitanya Chittimuri
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721189
2020-11-03
Journal of Cardiac Critical Care TSS
Abstract:The current guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC) from 2014, and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) from 2012 uniformly recommend mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients under 60 years of age and biologic aortic valve replacement in patients over 70 years of age.[1] [2] The recommendations are conflicting for patients between 60 and 70 years of age. The ESC guidelines recommend biologic prosthesis from the age of 65 years onward, whereas the newer AHA/ACC guidelines only recommend biological valves starting 70 years of age. Over the past 20 years, there is a shift away from a clear-cut age limit toward patient's wish and lifestyle considerations.[3]The number of surgical aortic valve replacements using a bioprosthesis is increasing according to the annual surveys of thoracic surgery in 2013 and 2014 by the Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery, which states that bioprostheses are used in three-quarters of all aortic valve replacements procedures.[4] In addition, the age limit for implantation of an aortic bioprosthesis is continuously being shifted down with bioprostheses used for aortic valve replacements in 60% of sexagenarian patients and 90% of septuagenarian or octogenarian patients.[3] [4] [5] [6] This may be related to the enhanced durability of new-generation bioprostheses, improved outcomes of redo valve replacement surgery, or the development of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation.[3] [4] [5] [6]Randomized trials comparing biological and mechanical valve replacements are scanty. In 2009, Stassano and associates randomized 310 patients between 55 and 70 years of age into a mechanical and a biological prosthesis group to undergo aortic valve replacement. At a mean follow-up of 4 years, they found similar mortality and other adverse prosthesis-related events, namely, thromboembolic complications, bleeding, endocarditis, and structural valvular deterioration in the two group of patients.[7]In 2008, Brown and associates analyzed outcome after aortic valve replacement with mechanical versus biological prosthesis in patients aged between 50 and 70 years at operation. Freedom from reoperation was 98% for mechanical valve and 91% for bioprosthesis (p = 0.06). Rehospitalization for hemorrhagic events occurred in 15% of patients with mechanical valves and 7% of patients with bioprosthesis (p = 0.001). The 5- and 10-year unadjusted survivals were 87% and 68% for mechanical valves and 72% and 50% for bioprosthesis, respectively.[8] The reported incidence of survival following mechanical mitral valve replacement in the published literature at 10, 20, and 30 years was 61 to 75%, 36.5 to 39% and 22.6%, respectively.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]The Carpentier–Edwards pericardial prosthesis commercially available since 1980 is the bioprosthesis, which is the most used worldwide. As a second-generation pericardial bioprosthesis, the Carpentier–Edwards pericardial valve was designed to minimize structural valvular deterioration, which plagued the first-generation prosthesis while retaining the hemodynamic superiority conferred by pericardial valve substitutes.[14] [15] [16] [17] Published literature documents excellent long-term outcomes with the Carpentier–Edwards pericardial valve ([Table 1]).[15] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]ModelAuthorFollow-up maximum, mean (years)Time of structural valve deterioration estimate (years)Age (years)Freedom from structural valve deterioration estimate (%)Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval.Carpentier–EdwardsPoirier et al[15]15, 4.814Mean (not reported)< 6060–69≥7079.9 ± 5.084.787.9100Carpentier–EdwardsNeville et al[18]12, 4.712Mean 68< 60≥6094 (CI: 90–98)89 (CI: 80–98)98 (CI: 96–100)Carpentier–EdwardsBanbury et al[19]17, 1215Mean 65< 5050–70≥7077 (CI: 74–82)488090Carpentier–EdwardsDellgren et al[22]14, 512Mean 71> 6586 ± 9.0100Carpentier–EdwardsBiglioli et al[-Abstract Truncated-
-
Long-term outcomes in patients with bicuspid valve stenosis and aortic dilation undergoing transcatheter valve implantation
Jianing Fan,Zhenzhen Li,Dawei Lin,Jiaxin Miao,Zilong Weng,Yiming Qi,Mingfei Li,Shasha Chen,Yuan Zhang,Zhiyun Shen,Wenzhi Pan,Daxin Zhou,Junbo Ge
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132201
2024-08-15
Abstract:Background: To date, whether ascending aorta dilation (AAD) should be considered a contraindication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains a topic of debate.. Objective: The study investigated the clinical outcome of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV-AS) complicated by AAD. Methods: We included patients with BAV-AS who underwent TAVR between 2012 and 2019. We collected patient perioperative clinical data., tracked clinical outcomes for over four years post-TAVR, and obtained echocardiography images one year postoperatively. The Kaplan-Meier method was employed for analyzing both unadjusted and adjusted survival data, which was compared using the log-rank test. COX regression and nomograms were used to assess the impact of AAD on post-TAVR clinical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS), with all-cause mortality as the primary clinical endpoint. Results: A total of 111 BAV patients were included in this study. Long-term follow-up showed an increased mortality risk in patients with BAV-AAD (adjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis: P = .02/0.001). Cox correlation analysis indicated that age (OR = 1.137; P = .034), AAD (OR = 3.51; P = .038), and postoperative left ventricular pressure (LVSP) (OR: 0.959; P = .044) were predictive factors for mortality more than four years after TAVR in patients with BAV. The area under the curve of the Nomogram predicting long-term survival for the training set of patients based on the above metrics was 0.845 (95% CI: 0.696-0.994). Short-term cardiac ultrasound follow-up showed a more rapid rate of AA expansion (0.29 [0-0.34] vs. -1 [-3.3-1] mm/month, P = .001) and a smaller proportion of AA diameter reduction (7.1% vs. 53.7%, P = .001) in patients who died. Conclusions: Patients with BAV-AAD-AS treated with TAVR have an increased risk of long-term mortality, and clinical prediction models, including AAD age and postoperative LVSP, may predict long-term patient survival. Condensed abstract: The study investigated the clinical outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV-AS) complicated by ascending aorta dilation (AAD). Patients with BAV-AAD-AS treated with TAVR have an increased risk of long-term mortality. AAD, age and postoperative LVSP, may predict long-term patient survival. Short-term cardiac ultrasound follow-up showed a more rapid rate of AA expansion and a smaller proportion of AA diameter reduction in patients who died. A high postoperative AAD expansion rate may indicate an adverse clinical outcome. Surgery regimens for tolerable BAV-AADs and can be considered as a treatment option.
-
Up to Thirty-Year Survival after Aortic Valve Replacement in the Small Aortic Root
GW HE,GL GRUNKEMEIER,HL GATELY,AP FURNARY,A STARR
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)00075-v
IF: 5.113
1995-01-01
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Abstract:Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the small aortic root has been reported to be associated with obstruction of left ventricular output. This study was designed to investigate the determinants of long-term survival after the implantation of small size prostheses. From September 1961 to December 1993, 2,977 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution. Of these patients, 447 who were older than 18 years received small size (21 mm or less) prostheses. Long-term survival was investigated in the 404 patients who survived operation (more than 30 days) with 92% follow-up completeness (mean +/- deviation 7.1 +/- 6.4; maximum, 31 years). The age was younger than 50 years in 62 patients, 50 to 59 years in 60, 60 to 69 years in 99, 70 to 79 years in 138, and 80 to 94 years in 45; 67% were men. Thirty patients (7%) had previous AVR. Prosthesis usage included early Starr-Edwards models in 130 (32%), current Starr-Edwards (model 1260 since 1969) in 50 (12%), Carpentier-Edwards (porcine) in 113 (28%), and other prostheses in 111 patients (27%). One hundred sixteen patients (26%) had concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Eleven variables (age divided as above, sex, preoperative functional class, body surface area [BSA], small BSA [less than 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9 m2], period of operation, previous AVR, type of prosthesis, size of prosthesis, concomitant CABG, and re-replacement) were investigated with regard to the long-term survival by the Kaplan-Meier method, and age, concomitant CABG, and type of prosthesis were significant.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
Initial balloon versus surgical valvuloplasty in children with isolated congenital aortic stenosis: Influence on timing of aortic valve replacement
Michael O Murphy,Jared P Beller,Jordan P Bloom,Claudia Montanaro,Andreas Hoschtitzky,Darryl Shore,Carles Bautista,Alain Fraisse
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.09.043
2024-10-02
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the influence of initial intervention on the long-term outcomes in congenital aortic stenosis. Methods: Two hundred forty-three children underwent initial intervention between 1997 and 2022, by surgical valvuloplasty in 92 (32% neonates, 36% infants) and balloon valvuloplasty in 151 (27% neonates, 30% infants). Twenty-eight patients (11.5%) had associated mitral valve stenosis. Competing risk analysis for death, alive after initial intervention, or alive after aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed and factors influencing survival or AVR examined. Results: There were 9 early deaths (3.7%). During a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range, 1.5-26.7), 98 patients had reintervention on the aortic valve (40.3%), whereas 145 had AVR (59.6%) at a median age of 14.0 years (interquartile range, 9.0-17.0), which was by Ross procedure in 130 (89.6%). Of the 12 late deaths, 3 were perioperative and 9 occurred as outpatients. There were no perioperative or late deaths after AVR. AVR occurred earlier in patients who had initial balloon (12.0 years [interquartile range, 5.0-14.5]) rather than surgical (18.5 years [interquartile range, 15.5-21.5]) valvuloplasty (P < .05). Actuarial survival in the cohort was 91.3% at 25 years, with no difference between the 2 initial interventions. Critical aortic stenosis, mitral stenosis, and initial intervention as a neonate were independent risk factors for worse survival. Conclusions: We demonstrate excellent early and late survival in patients with congenital aortic stenosis after initial balloon or surgical valvuloplasty. Whilst children who had balloon valvuloplasty had AVR earlier than those who had initial surgical valvuloplasty, patient factors had a greater influence on survival than choice of initial intervention.
-
Repair of Aortic Regurgitation in Young Adults: Sooner Rather Than Later.
Ana Barradas-Pires,Pablo Meras,Andrew Constantine,Giulia Costola,Teresa Segura de la Cal,Isma Rafiq,Aleksander Kempny,Wei Li,Sonya V. Babu-Narayan,J. Andreas Hoschtitzky,Michael A. Gatzoulis,Antonio Martinez Rubio,Konstantinos Dimopoulos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.122.029251
2023-01-01
Abstract:Background: Establishing surgical criteria for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in severe aortic regurgitation in young adults is challenging due to the lack of evidence-based recommendations. We studied indications for AVR in young adults with severe aortic regurgitation and their outcomes, as well as the relationship between presurgical echocardiographic parameters and postoperative left ventricular (LV) size, function, clinical events, and valve-related complications.Methods and Results: Data were collected retrospectively on 172 consecutive adult patients who underwent AVR or repair for severe aortic regurgitation between 2005 and 2019 in a tertiary cardiac center (age at surgery 29 [22-41] years, 81% male). One-third underwent surgery before meeting guideline indications. Postsurgery, 65% achieved LV size and function normalization. LV ejection fraction showed no significant change from baseline. A higher presurgical LV end-systolic diameter correlated with a lack of LV normalization (odds ratio per 1-cm increase 2.81, P<0.01). The baseline LV end-systolic diameter cut-off for predicting lack of LV normalization was 43 mm. Pre- and postoperative LV dimensions and postoperative LV ejection fraction predicted clinical events during follow-up. Prosthetic valve-related complications occurred in 20.3% during an average 5.6-year follow-up. Freedom from aortic reintervention was 98%, 96.5%, and 85.4% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively.Conclusions: Young adult patients with increased baseline LV end-systolic diameter or prior cardiac surgery are less likely to achieve LV normalization after AVR. Clinicians should carefully balance the long-term benefits of AVR against procedural risks and future interventions, especially in younger patients. Evidence-based criteria for AVR in severe aortic regurgitation in young adults are crucial to improve outcomes.
-
Pulmonary valve replacement—A 10-year single-center surgical experience in ACHD patients
Armin Darius Peivandi,Sven Martens,Anaïs Gion,Andreas Rukosujew,Sabrina Martens
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310700
IF: 3.7
2024-10-05
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Large-scale analyses of surgical outcomes after surgical pulmonary valve replacement (sPVR) as part of re-do surgery in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) are rare. Therefore, we present our outcomes of sPVR in ACHD patients over the last decade and demonstrate our standardized surgical approach. All ACHD patients who underwent sPVR between January 2013 and August 2022 were included. Primary diagnoses, peri-operative data, post-operative echocardiography, pre- and post-operative RV MRI and in-hospital mortality were examined. Pre- and postoperative MRI parameters were compared using paired testing. Standardized surgery was documented. Normality of continuous variables was tested using Shapiro-Wilk test. 79 patients (male 59.5% (n = 47), 71 re-operations (89.9%)) at a median age of 41.7 (52.2–28.8) years were included. Main underlying disease was Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF; n = 47, 59.5%). After removal of degenerated valve/conduit parts, right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) patch augmentation and implantation of a larger stented bioprosthesis (25mm in 78.5%) were conducted. In 57% of cases, concomitant surgery was performed (mainly tricuspid valve surgery: n = 28, 35.4%). 25 patients (31.6%) were operated with beating heart technique. Echocardiographic outcomes showed no moderate or severe insufficiency (median V max of 2 m/s (2.3–1.77 m/s)) upon discharge. Available MRI data showed significantly lower indexed RV-EDV (p = 0.0006) and RV-ESV (P = 0.0017) after surgery. In-hospital mortality was 5.1% (n = 4). SPVR is a safe therapeutic option with low surgical risk and satisfying post-operative results. It can serve as a solid therapeutic option for patients who need future valve-in-valve interventions.
multidisciplinary sciences
-
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.
-
Valve-sparing aortic root replacement: Long-term variables significantly associated with mortality and morbidity
Varun J Sharma,Abbie Kangarajah,Amy Yang,Michelle Kim,Siven Seevayanagam,George Matalanis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.11.027
2023-11-21
Abstract:Objectives: In aortic root surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is an attractive alternative by mitigating the risks inherent to prosthetic valves; however, little is known about the variables that impact its durability. We review our mid- to long-term outcomes after valve-sparing aortic root replacement and describe factors that impact survival and valve reintervention and insufficiency. Methods: A retrospective review of 284 consecutive patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement between November 1999 and January 2022 at Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia, was undertaken, with a median follow-up of 6.43 ± 4.83 years, but up to 22.0 years. Freedom from mortality, aortic reintervention, and insufficiency was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods, Cox proportional hazard models, and Fine-Gray analysis. Results: The median age of patients at intervention was 60.0 years (interquartile range, 48.0-67.0), of whom 68 (23.9%) had bicuspid aortic valve disease, 27 (9.5%) had Marfan syndrome, 119 (41.9%) had severe aortic root dilation (>50 mm), and 155 had (54.6%) severe aortic insufficiency at the time of intervention. The 30-day mortality was 1.8%, with freedom from mortality of 96.0% (95% CI, 92.6-97.8) at 5 years and 88.2% (95% CI, 81.4-92.6) at 10 years. Freedom from aortic reintervention was 92.2% (95% CI, 87.7-95.2) at 5 years and 79.8% (95% CI, 71.8-85.8) at 10 years. Factors associated with reintervention were concomitant leaflet repair (hazard ratio, 8.13, 95% CI, 1.07-61.7) and bicuspid valvulopathy (hazard ratio, 2.23, 95% CI, 1.07-4.68), with reintervention in the bicuspid aortic valve being more likely due to aortic stenosis and in the tricuspid aortic valve due to aortic insufficiency (chi-square P = .05). The freedom from aortic insufficiency was 89.1% (95% CI, 83.5-92.9), 84.9% (95% CI, 77.8-89.9) at 5 and 10 years, respectively, and 80.7% (95% CI, 71.0-87.4). Conclusions: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement has excellent long-term outcomes, with low mortality and reintervention rates. Concomitant leaflet repair and bicuspid valve disease are the only long-term factors associated with reintervention.
-
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.
-
Lifetime Management of Adolescents and Young Adults with Congenital Aortic Valve Disease
William C. Frankel,Justin A. Robinson,Eric E. Roselli,Shinya Unai,Justin T. Tretter,Stephanie Fuller,Jennifer S. Nelson,Joanna Ghobrial,Lars G. Svensson,Gösta B. Pettersson,Hani K. Najm,Tara Karamlou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.04.038
IF: 5.113
2024-06-13
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Abstract:In this invited expert review, we focus on evolving lifetime management strategies for adolescents and young adults with congenital aortic valve disease, acknowledging that these patients often require multiple interventions during their lifetime. Our goal is to preserve the native aortic valve when feasible. Leveraging advanced multimodality imaging, a detailed assessment of the aortic valve and root complex can be obtained, and a surgical approach tailored to an individual patient's anatomy and pathology can be employed. In turn, aortic valve repair and reconstruction can be offered to a greater number of patients, either as a definitive strategy or as a component of a staged strategy to delay the need for aortic valve replacement until later in life when more options are available. In adolescents and young adults with unrepairable aortic valve disease, our preferred strategies are aortic valve replacement with pulmonary autograft (Ross procedure) or autologous pericardium (Ozaki procedure). Aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is a safe and reproducible option reserved as a "last resort" in adolescents and young adults due to the cumulative lifetime risk of valve-related complications and ongoing attrition of these patients during follow-up.
surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
-
Long-term outcomes after aortic root replacement for bicuspid aortic valve–associated aneurysm
Kavya Rajesh,Megan Chung,Dov Levine,Elizabeth Norton,Parth Patel,Patra Childress,Yanling Zhao,Pengchen Wang,Bradley Leshnower,Paul Kurlansky,Edward Chen,Hiroo Takayama
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.03.003
IF: 6.439
2024-05-01
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Abstract:Objective Patients with congenital bicuspid aortic valve often require root replacement. This study aims to describe their long-term rates of mortality and reoperation. Methods This is a multicenter retrospective study of 747 patients with bicuspid aortic valve who underwent aortic root replacement for aortic aneurysm between 2004 and 2020. Cumulative incidence curves for aortic valve and aortic reoperations were graphed. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve for the patient cohort was created alongside an age- and sex-matched curve for the US population. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine characteristics associated with long-term mortality. Results The median age of our cohort was 54 [43-64] years old, and 101 (13.5%) patients were female. In patients with bicuspid aortic valve dysfunction, 274 (36.7%) had aortic insufficiency, 187 (25.0%) had aortic stenosis, and 142 (19.0%) had both. In-hospital mortality occurred in 10 (1.3%) patients. There were 56 aortic valve reoperations and 19 aortic reoperations, with a combined cumulative incidence of 35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23%-46%) at 15 years. In addition, there was comparable survival between the patient cohort and the age- and sex-matched US population. Age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), concomitant CABG (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.29-4.04), and bypass time (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01) were associated with increased mortality. Conclusions Patients who undergo aortic root replacement with bicuspid aortic valve have an increased rate of aortic reoperation (35%; 95% CI, 23%-46%) while their survival appears to be comparable to the general US population (79%; 95% CI, 73%-87%) at 15 years.
surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
-
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).
-
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
-
Valve Replacement in Pediatric Patients: a Single Center Experience.
Yu Jian-hua,Guo Hong-wei,Zhang Gong,Wu Shu-ming,Song Guang-min,Sun Wen-yu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2011.02.012
2011-01-01
Abstract:BACKGROUND:Reconstructive surgery is the primary goal in pediatric patients with valve disease. However, in cases with irreparable valve lesions, valve replacement is the only option. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the clinical experience of heart valve prosthesis replacement in children.METHODS:Between January 1990 and July 2009, 35 pediatric patients (16 boys, 19 girls) underwent mechanical valve replacement in Shandong University Qilu Hospital. The ages ranged from 2.5 to 14 years (mean, (8.8 ± 3.8) years) and body weight varied from 11 to 37 kg (mean, (22.1 ± 5.2) kg). Mechanical valve replacement was performed because of congenital heart disease in 23 patients, rheumatic disease in ten patients and infective endocarditis in two patients. St. Jude bileaflet mechanical valves were implanted in all the 35 patients including mitral valve replacement (MVR) in 18, aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 12, tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) in two, AVR and MVR in two and MVR and TVR in one. The size of the prostheses ranged between 19 and 27 mm. All patients received long-term anticoagulation treatment with sodium warfarin, aiming to maintain an international normalized ratio between 1.5 to 2.0. Follow-up was performed in all the patients with a total follow-up of 119.4 patient-years.RESULTS:The operative mortality was 8.57% (3/35). One patient, who underwent cardiac debridement and AVR, died 2 hours after being admitted to the intensive care unit because of severe low cardiac output syndrome and ventricular fibrillation. Two patients died of cardiogenic shock and renal failure during initial hospitalization after the operation. One patient who received replacement of a tricuspid valve developed complete heart block requiring temporary pacing and recovered sinus rhythm 4 days later. Thirty-two patients survived and their cardiac function was in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I to class II when discharged. Late events included hemorrhage and endocarditis. Two patients required reoperation. No late deaths occurred during the follow-up.CONCLUSIONS:Mechanical valve replacement remains an acceptable treatment option in children when the valve reparation is impossible or unsuccessful. The operative mortality and incidence of any valve-related events such as endocarditis, reoperation, thromboembolism or anticoagulation-related bleeding are acceptable.