Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Results from a 16-Year Experience

Robotic aortic valve replacement

Although commonly reported as single-centre experiences, redo aortic valve replacement (RAVR) has overall acceptable results. Nevertheless, trans-catheter aortic valve replacement has recently questioned the efficacy of RAVR. Early-to-mid-term results and determinants of mortality in 711 cases of RAVR from seven European institutions were assessed in the entire population and in selected high-risk subgroups [elderly >75 years, urgent/emergent procedures, preoperative New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional Class IV and endocarditis]. Hospital mortality was 5.1%, major re-entry cardiovascular complications (MRCVCs) 4.9%, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) 15.3%, stroke 6.6%, acute respiratory failure (ARF) 10.6%, acute renal insufficiency (ARI) 19.3% and need for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) 7.2%, transfusions 66.9% and for permanent pacemaker (PMK) 12.7%. Mid-term survival, freedom from acute heart failure (AHF), reinterventions, stroke and thrombo-embolisms were 77.2 ± 2.7, 84.4 ± 2.6, 97.2 ± 0.8, 97.2 ± 0.9 and 96.3 ± 1.2%, respectively; 87.5% of patients were in NYHA functional Class I-II. Preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of <30% [odds ratio (OR) 8.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-35.6], MRCVCs (OR 20.9, 95% CI 5.6-78.3), cardiopulmonary bypass time (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.1), perioperative LCOS (OR 17.2, 95% CI 5.1-57.4) and ARI (OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.5-18.1) predicted hospital death. Endocarditis (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.9-19.1), preoperative NYHA functional Class IV (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.0-24.0), combined RAVR + mitral surgery (OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.5-17.3) and AHF at follow-up (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.0) predicted late death at the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Elderly >75 years had similar hospital mortality (P = 0.06) and major morbidity, except for a higher need for PMK (P = 0.03), as well as comparable mid-term survival (P = 0.89), freedom from AHF (P = 0.81), reinterventions (P = 0.63), stroke (P = 0.21) and thrombo-embolisms (P = 0.09). Urgent/emergent indication resulted in higher hospital death, LCOS, transfusions, MRCVCs, intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP), stroke, prolonged (>48 h) ventilation, pneumonia, ARI, CRRT, lower mid-term survival and freedom from AHF (P ≤ 0.03). Preoperative NYHA functional Class IV correlated with higher LCOS, IABP, prolonged ventilation, pneumonia, ARF, ARI, CRRT and MRCVCs and lower mid-term survival, freedom from AHF, reinterventions and stroke (P ≤ 0.02). Endocarditis demonstrated higher hospital mortality, MRCVCs, LCOS, IABP, stroke, ARF, prolonged intubation, pneumonia, ARI, CRRT, transfusions and PMK and lower mid-term survival and freedom from AHF and reinterventions (P ≤ 0.04). RAVR achieves overall satisfactory results. Baseline risk factors and perioperative complications strongly affect outcomes and mandate improvements in perioperative management. New emerging strategies might be considered in selected high-risk cases.

Case presentation: A 66-year-old man is referred to a cardiologist for the evaluation of a heart murmur. The patient claims to be entirely asymptomatic, although his wife notes that he has decreased his physical activity over the past two years because he is “getting old.” At physical examination, his blood pressure was 120/70 mm Hg; pulse, 80 bpm; respiration, 13 breaths per minute; and temperature, 99.0°F. Cardiovascular examination revealed normal central venous pressure. His carotid upstrokes were reduced in volume and delayed in upstroke. Cardiac examination revealed a forceful sustained apical impulse in its normal position. There was a 3/6 late-peaking systolic ejection murmur heard at the right upper sternal border radiating to the neck. The rest of the physical examination was unremarkable. Echo-Doppler evaluation revealed an ejection fraction of 0.60, a left ventricular free wall thickness of 1.3 cm, and a peak transaortic flow velocity of 4.5 m/s. How should this patient be managed? Should he undergo aortic valve replacement now? Should he undergo longitudinal follow-up to monitor progression of his aortic stenosis? Over the past 40 years, diagnostic techniques, substitute cardiac valves, and valve implantation surgery have undergone continued improvement, reducing the risk of the valve replacement and enhancing its benefits. Thus, the risk-benefit analysis of valve surgery has tilted in favor of increasingly early intervention for valve disease. The following is a summary incorporating this concept into the current strategy for managing patients with aortic stenosis such as the one described above. The patient with severe aortic stenosis who presents with symptoms represents the most straightforward management strategy for the disease. Survival is nearly normal until the classic symptoms of angina, syncope, or dyspnea develop.1 However, only 50% of patients who present with angina survive 5 years, whereas 50% survival is 3 years for patients who …

The following are highlights from the new series, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Topic Reviews. This series will summarize the most important manuscripts, as selected by the Editor, which have been published in the Circulation portfolio. The objective of this new series is to provide our readership with a timely, comprehensive selection of important papers that are relevant to the quality and outcomes as well as general cardiology audience. The studies included in this article represent the most significant research in the area of valvular heart disease. ( Circ Cardiovasc Quality and Outcomes . 2012;5:-e103.) In recent years, no field of clinical cardiology has experienced a great influx of transformational therapeutic options as has the area of valvular heart disease. Treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) has been revolutionized by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has been shown to improve life expectancy and functional outcomes in patients with inoperable AS1,2 and to have short-term outcomes comparable to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at high perioperative risk.3,4 Analogously, mitral valve disease has been amenable to percutaneous valve replacement,5,6 as well as clipping procedures7 that can substantively reduce severe mitral regurgitation (MR) and improve functional outcomes. Even right-sided heart disease involving valves in pulmonary8,9 and tricuspid10 positions has been treated successfully with endovascular techniques. Yet, even with this growing focus on percutaneous valvular interventions, open surgical techniques remain the dominant treatment strategies and standard of care for most advanced lesions. Surgical valve repair and replacement account for 10% to 20% of all cardiac surgical procedures,11–13 approximately two thirds of which are for AS.11–13 For patients undergoing surgery, there remains considerable debate about risk stratification,14 intraoperative technique,15 and postoperative …

In contemporary practice, a cardiac surgeon is often confronted with critical questions. Should the ascending aorta be replaced concomitantly when the aortic valve is replaced? Does simultaneous surgery significantly increase operative risk? Although the literature offers answers, the decision for simultaneous surgery remains individualized for every patient, taking into account clinical and nonclinical data. Concomitant replacement of the ascending aorta and aortic valve was first introduced in the 1960s, and since then, the debate has continued regarding the most appropriate surgical strategy for managing aneurysmal disease of the ascending aorta and the criteria guiding such interventions. We aim to presentand compare our institutional data on isolated aortic valve surgery versus concomitant replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta and to compare our findings with the literature. We retrospectively analyzed our database of adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) or concomitant AVR and ascending-aorta replacement from 2007 to 2023 at the Cardiac Surgery Service, University Hospital Center "Mother Teresa," Tirana. Data were extracted from operating-room registers and medical records. Demographic, pre-, intra-, and postoperative clinical variables were collected. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation; categorical variables as percentages. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 26.0. The study included 491 patients who underwent isolated AVR and 131 patients who had concomitant AVR with ascending-aorta replacement. Sex (p < 0.001) and age (p < 0.001) differed significantly between the groups. Concomitant surgery involved 102 men (77.9%), whereas isolated surgery involved 311 men (63.3%). The mean age for isolated AVR was 62.28 ± 10.76 years; for concomitant surgery, 57.33 ± 11.90 years. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was also significant, with 457 patients (94.8%) in NYHA II-III in the isolated group and 128 patients (97.7%) in the concomitant group. Arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus were statistically significant comorbidities; renal insufficiency, smoking, obesity, and COPD were not. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (83.85 ± 22.63 min vs. 111.09 ± 23.67 min; P < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp time (65.22 ± 19.20 min vs. 89.56 ± 20.71 min; P < 0.001) differed significantly. Aortic annulus diameter, body-surface area, and indexed effective orifice area (SEPi) were also significant variables. Although hospital mortality was not statistically different, it was the most clinically relevant outcome in comparison with several international centers, underscoring the good results of our surgical team. Hospital mortality for isolated AVR was 1.6% (eight patients); for concomitant surgery, 2.29% (three patients).This analysis was limited to in-hospital outcomes. No long-term follow-up data, such as reoperation rates, late complications, or survival beyond discharge, were included. Conclusion: Concomitant replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta markedly prolongs CPB and aortic cross-clamp times compared with isolated AVR, yet mortality remained low and comparable with leading international centers. Although concomitant surgery carries a higher operative risk than isolated AVR, our experience demonstrates that it can be performed with satisfactory outcomes.

Developmental efforts to achieve percutaneous catheter-based therapies for cardiac valve repair and replacement have advanced rapidly over the past several years. A variety of methods to treat mitral regurgitation (MR) and to replace aortic and pulmonic valves have already been successfully employed in patients. These innovative clinical transcatheter valve therapies were anticipated more than a decade ago by creative experimentalists who helped develop predicate techniques in animal models. For example, in 1992, a catheter-delivered ball-in-cage prosthetic aortic valve was implanted in a canine model by Pavcnik1 and a stent-mounted bioprosthetic valve was placed by Andersen, who used a retrograde transarterial approach in a swine model.2 Clearly, the catheter-based technologies used in clinical studies today in patients with aortic stenosis were derived from the fusion of known successful aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgical devices and adaptive interventional modalities, first studied in experimental animal models. Similarly, approaches for transcatheter treatment of MR have also borrowed heavily from preexisting and accepted surgical techniques, such as the edge-to-edge leaflet coaptation technique and reduction ring mitral annuloplasty.3 Importantly, recognition that the coronary sinus parallels the mitral annulus has spurred unique catheter-based transvenous approaches to treat MR by indirectly reducing mitral annular dimensions.4 Because many of the new percutaneous approaches to valve therapy have been developed by surgeons, a collaboration has emerged between thoughtful surgeons and interventionalists, combining skill sets and experiences to accelerate the developmental pathways of less-invasive transcatheter valve therapies. Growing recognition exists that percutaneous alternatives to surgical therapies are required in some patient subgroups with valvular heart disease. Among patients with either mitral and/or aortic valve disease, an expanding population of elderly patients with significant comorbidities may benefit from traditional surgical methods, but these methods are associated with unacceptable perioperative mortality or prolonged postoperative recoveries. In the EuroHeart Survey …

Reply

Hypertrophy is considered one of the major mechanisms of the myocardium for adapting to hemodynamic overload. More muscle mass provides more contractile elements for generating the extra work required by the overload. In pressure overload of aortic valve stenosis, concentric left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) normalizes wall stress, a key determinant of ejection performance.1 Afterload is often expressed as wall stress (pressure×radius/thickness). As the pressure term in the numerator increases, it is offset by an increase in the thickness term of the denominator. In this way, the high systolic pressure required to drive blood through even a very stenotic aortic valve can be consistent with normal afterload and normal ejection fraction. See p 3170 Unfortunately, hypertrophy not only provides benefits but also has many pathological consequences. One of these is myocardial ischemia and the attendant angina reported by patients with aortic stenosis despite normal epicardial coronary arteries. The onset of angina greatly increases the risk of sudden death compared with the risk in asymptomatic patients with aortic valve stenosis.2,3 Angina occurs when myocardial oxygen demand exceeds supply. Demand is proportional to heart rate and wall stress, and the latter can be elevated in cases of aortic stenosis when hypertrophy is inadequate to normalize stress.1 After aortic valve replacement, there is marked regression of hypertrophy that may occur over the next several months to years,4 but angina is relieved immediately. Relief of angina immediately after surgery is probably due to the combination of sudden decreased oxygen demand after removal of pressure overload and increased oxygen supply of improved perfusion. However, there are remaining questions about the physiological mechanisms for reduced myocardial oxygen supply (coronary blood flow) in aortic stenosis and its improvement after relief of pressure overload. Specifically, what is it about critical aortic stenosis that is “critical” …

<i>Circulation</i> Editors’ Picks

In this issue of Circulation , Koch and associates1 from the Cleveland Clinic published a study on the relationship between prosthetic valve size and the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The study was conducted with 1014 patients operated on from 1995 through 1998, completed 1 year later, and published now. DASI scores increased from a mean of 29 preoperatively to 46 postoperatively after a mean follow-up of 8.3 months. The investigators could find no obvious relationship between prosthetic valve size and postoperative DASI score. One of the limitations of the study was that prosthetic valve gradients and effective orifice areas were not measured by echocardiography to quantify prosthesis–patient mismatch. It is also interesting to note that more than two thirds of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional classes I and II preoperatively, and yet the DASI mean score before surgery was only 29 out of a maximum of 58.2. For this reason alone, it must be assumed that factors other than the aortic valve disease played a role in the DASI score. Nevertheless, this is not the first study to suggest that valve size plays no role in the clinical outcomes of AVR. See p 3221 Valve prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) is a term introduced by Rahimtoola in 1978 to describe a condition in which the in vivo prosthetic valve effective orifice area is smaller than that of the native valve.2 According to this broad definition, every patient with a prosthetic heart valve has PPM because the leaflets of both mechanical and bioprosthetic valves are mounted into frames that occupy …

2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS Expert Consensus Document on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Developed in collaboration with the American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Failure Society of America, Mended Hearts, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

1. Talha Niaz, MBBS* 2. Jonathan N. Johnson, MD*,† 3. Frank Cetta, MD*,† 4. Timothy M. Olson, MD*,† 5. Donald J. Hagler, MD*,† 1. *Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, and 2. †Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN * Abbreviations: AHA : : American Heart Association BAV : : bicuspid aortic valve TTE : : transthoracic echocardiography Bicuspid aortic valve is the most common congenital heart defect in children, adolescents, and adults. Primary care providers play an important role in screening, referral, and follow-up of these patients and should be aware of the family screening guidelines, sports participation recommendations, and periodic follow-up requirements for adequate surveillance of the complications that arise from bicuspid aortic valve. After reading this article, readers should be able to: 1. Describe the epidemiology and anatomy of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). 2. Understand the clinical presentation and diagnosis of BAV in infants, children, and adolescents. 3. Identify the various complications of BAV disease. 4. Discuss the management and follow-up requirements for BAV. 5. Analyze the family screening and sports participation guidelines for patients with BAV. Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart defect in children, adolescents, and adults. (1) It is a heterogeneous disease that affects both the aortic valve and the aorta. It can lead to many complications, including aortic valve stenosis, regurgitation, or endocarditis. (2)(3) It also can lead to dilation of the aorta, predisposing individuals to a significantly higher risk of aortic aneurysm and dissection. (4) Although most individuals with BAV present with these long-term complications during adulthood, a considerable number of patients may also present during childhood and adolescence with early-onset disease; that may require interventions in up to 12% to 15% of the patients. (5)(6) Therefore, patients with BAV require lifelong follow-up and surveillance. BAV has multiple implications in terms of sports participation and family screening, making it an important subject for primary care providers. This article reviews the anatomy, genetics, presentation, diagnosis, …

Prosthesis–patient mismatch and clinical outcomes: The evidence continues to accumulate

The AVATAR Trial for Severe Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: Wait or Operate?

Left ventricular remodeling early after aortic valve replacement: differential effects on diastolic function in aortic valve stenosis and aortic regurgitation