Aortic Valve Reoperation Research Articles

Prosthesis-patient mismatch is associated with long-term mortality following surgical aortic valve replacement

Abstract Background Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) refers to a situation where the indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) of an implanted prosthetic valve is too small relative to the patient's body size, resulting in hemodynamic compromise. Studies examining the long-term consequences of PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have yielded conflicting results. Purpose To evaluate the impact of PPM on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing primary isolated SAVR. Methods All patients who underwent isolated first-time SAVR from 1990-2014 were included in this observational, single-center study. PPM was defined as a predicted iEOA <0.85 cm2/m2 and severe PPM was defined as an iEOA <0.65 cm2/m2. Patient demographics, surgical details, and in-hospital outcomes were prospectively collected in our institutional database. Cases were linked to provincial administrative databases at an independent, non-profit research institute whose legal status allows it to collect and analyze health care and demographic data. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were aortic valve reoperation (surgical or transcatheter) and post-operative hospitalization for heart failure. Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified risk factors for long-term mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for long-term survival and cumulative incidence functions for aortic valve reoperation and heart failure hospitalization. Results A total of 1,798 patients were included (no PPM: 770 [43%]; moderate PPM: 943 [52%]; and severe PPM: 85 [5%]). Mean age was 64±13 years, and 750 (42%) were female. 451 (25%) patients received a mechanical valve, and 1347 (75%) received a stented bioprosthetic valve. Concomitant aortic root enlargement was performed in 492 (27%) patients. At 20 years, survival was 47.8% (95% CI: 43.2%–52.2%) in the "no PPM group" compared with 29.5% (95% CI: 25.6%–33.5%) and 24.7% (95% CI: 12.7%–38.8%) in the moderate and severe PPM groups, respectively (p<0.001) (Figure 1). On multivariable analysis, iEOA was independently associated with long-term mortality (HR 0.95 per 0.10 increase in iEOA, 95% CI [0.91–0.98]; p=0.007). In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, iEOA was found to be associated with late mortality in patients younger than 65 years (p<0.001) but not in patients 65 years and older (p=0.23). Readmission for heart failure was more frequent among patients who had PPM than those who did not (Figure 2). There was no difference in aortic valve reintervention in patients with or without PPM (p=0.654). Conclusions Prosthesis-patient mismatch is common after SAVR and is associated with late mortality and hospitalization for heart failure. The deleterious impact of PPM on survival appears more pronounced in young patients. These findings may have important implications for the lifetime management of patients with aortic valve disease.Survival post SAVRHeart failure hospitalization post SAVR

Importance of surgeon's experience in practicing valve-sparing aortic root replacement

BackgroundValve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) requires a unique skill set. This study aimed to examine the influence of surgeon's procedural volume on outcomes of VSRR. MethodsThis retrospective study included 1697 patients from 2 large, high-volume aortic centers who underwent aortic root replacement (ARR) between 2004 and 2021 and were potentially eligible for VSRR. Surgeons were classified as performing <5 ARRs or ≥5 ARRs annually. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the independent association of surgeon volume and the decision to perform VSRR. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to match patients who were operated on by <5 ARR surgeons or ≥5 ARR surgeons and compare long-term survival probability. Cumulative incidence curves with mortality as a competing risk were plotted to compare the rate of aortic valve reoperation. ResultsOf 1697 patients who met the study inclusion criteria, 944 underwent composite-valve conduit ARR and 753 underwent VSRR. The median age of the cohort was 57 years (interquartile range, 45-66 years), and 268 (15.8%) were female. Aortic insufficiency was present in 1105 patients (65.1%), and 200 of the procedures (11.8%) were reoperations. The indication for surgery was aneurysm in 1496 patients (88.2%) and dissection in 201 (11.8%). Among the 743 patients who underwent VSRR, 691 (92%) were operated on by ≥ 5 ARR surgeons and 62 (8%) were operated on by <5 ARR surgeons. In multivariable logistic regression, ≥5 ARRs (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 2.34-4.73; P < .001) was associated with VSRR as the procedure of choice. Following IPTW, there was no significant difference between <5 ARR and ≥5 ARR surgeons in survival probability after VSRR (P = .59) or in the rate of aortic valve reoperation (P = .60). ConclusionsIn the setting of a high-volume aortic center, patients who undergo ARR are less likely to receive VSRR if operated on by a <5 ARR surgeon; however, VSRR may be safely performed by <5 ARR surgeons.

Impact of Sex on Long-Term Outcomes Following Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The impact of sex on outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains unclear. It has been proposed that females experience inferior outcomes, but this has yet to be conclusively established, particularly in the long term. The objective of this study is to identify discrepancies in postoperative outcomes between males and females following SAVR to better inform consideration for surgical intervention. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 4,927 patients who underwent SAVR from 2004 to 2018 at our centre. In total, 531 propensity-matched males and females were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at any point during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included various measures of postoperative morbidity. Follow-up duration was 15 years. In SAVR all-comers, females experienced inferior short-term mortality, but equivalent mid-term and long-term mortality. Rates of mediastinal bleeding, sternal wound infections, sepsis, heart failure, and pacemaker insertion were all equivalent between the sexes; however, males experienced a higher rate of acute kidney injury and readmission for stroke at the longest follow-up while females experienced a longer intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. In a sub-analysis of isolated SAVR, males and females experienced equivalent early, mid, and late mortality. Of note, a trend towards increased aortic valve reoperation was noted in females at the longest follow-up. Males and females experience equivalent long-term mortality following isolated SAVR. Sex is not an independent risk factor of poor outcomes post-SAVR; however, the increased preoperative risk profile of females requires diligent consideration.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of sex on outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

In recent years, extensive literature has been produced demonstrating inferior outcomes for women when compared with men undergoing heart valve interventions. Herein, we seek to analyze the literature comparing outcomes between men and women undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). A systematic literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase was conducted for articles comparing differences in outcomes between adult men and women undergoing SAVR. One thousand nine hundred and ninety titles were screened, of which 75 full texts were reviewed, and a total of 19 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Pooled estimates of mortality demonstrated that women tended to have lower rates of survival within the first 30 days post-SAVR, although mid-term and long-term mortality did not differ significantly up to 10 years postoperatively. Pooled estimates of postoperative data indicated no difference in the rates of stroke and postoperative bleeding. Rates of aortic valve reoperation and acute kidney injury favored women. Despite the inferior outcomes for women post-SAVR that have been reported in recent years, the results of this meta-analysis demonstrate comparable results between the sexes with comparable mid- to long-term mortality in data pooled from the literature. Although mortality favored men in the short term, rates of aortic valve reoperation and acute kidney injury favored women. Future investigation into this field should focus on identifying discrepancies in diagnosis and initial surgical management in order to address any potential factors contributing to discrepant short-term outcomes. http://links.lww.com/JCM/A651.

Reoperation after aortic root replacement and its impact on long-term survival

ObjectiveReoperation after aortic root replacement (ARR) is associated with increased operative risk and complexity. This study evaluated clinical outcomes and reoperation rates in patients undergoing ARR. MethodsFrom 2004 to 2021, 2700 adult patients underwent an ARR in a 2-institution database. Among 2542 surviving patients, 705 patients who had a history of previous cardiac surgery as well as 11 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement after index ARR were excluded. Among the finalized cohort of 1826 patients, 88 (4.8%) underwent a reoperation (REDO) on the aortic valve or proximal aorta (root/ascending) a mean of 3.1 years after index ARR whereas 1738 (95%) did not undergo reoperation (no-REDO). A subgroup analysis was performed among those undergoing reoperation by indication including valve dysfunction (48%), endocarditis/graft infection (33%), and aortic aneurysm/dissection/rupture (12%). Reoperative indication was unknown in 6 patients (7%). ResultsThe REDO group was younger at time of index ARR (52 vs 58 years, P < .0001) and had more bicuspid aortic valves (56% vs 37%, P = .0003). Most patients underwent modified Bentall ARR (61%), whereas 38% underwent a valve-sparing root replacement. Index root operations were similar between groups. At time of reoperation, 53% underwent aortic valve replacement and 35% underwent redo root replacement. Long-term survival was similar between REDO and no-REDO groups (80% vs 85%, P = .26) and reoperation was not a risk factor for late mortality (hazard ratio, 1.31; P = .26); however, REDO ARR was a risk factor for late mortality (hazard ratio, 2.41; P = .02). ConclusionsThe incidence of aortic valve and/or proximal aorta reoperation after index ARR is relatively low at 4.8%; however, root reoperation is a risk factor for late mortality.

Early to mid-term clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid aortic insufficiency

Objective: To examine the early to mid-term clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid aortic insufficiency. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. The clinical data of 124 patients with BAV insufficiency who underwent aortic valve repair from January 2017 to June 2023 in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery at Fuwai Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. There were 117 males and 7 females with an age of (38.1±12.7) years (range: 14 to 65 years). Depending on whether the aortic sinus was replaced or not, surgical approaches were divided into valve sparing root replacement (reimplantation, remodeling, modified remodeling) and isolated aortic valve repair (annuloplasty, isolated aortic valve leaflet repair). Perioperative and follow-up data were collected. Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the curves of survival rate, free recurrence rate of massive aortic valve insufficiency and free re-operation rate, and Log-rank test was used for comparison between groups. Results: Among the surgeries, there were 47 cases of reimplantation, 8 cases of remodeling, 8 cases of modified remodeling, 48 cases of aortic annuloplasty (external annuloplasty in 22 cases, CV-0 annuloplasty in 26 cases), and 13 cases of isolated leaflet repair. Leaflet plication was the most used leaflet repair technique, used in 103 patients. The cardiopulmonary bypass time was (133.7±56.9) minutes (range: 48 to 461 minutes), and aortic cross-clamp time was (103.8±47.8) minutes (range: 25 to 306 minutes), with no surgical mortality. All patients underwent outpatient or telephone follow-up. The cumulative follow-up time was 340.3 person-years and the mean follow-up time was (M (IQR)) 34.0 (25.5) months (range: 3 to 76 months). The 5-year survival rate was 98.4%, the 5-year freedom from significant insufficiency rate was 93.4% and the 5-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation rate was 95.6%. The subgroup analysis revealed a significantly better freedom from the significant insufficiency rate in the aortic valve annular reduction group compared to the non-reduction group (P<0.01). Conclusions: Aortic valve repair in patients with bicuspid aortic insufficiency could obtain steady early to mid-term outcomes. Aortic annuloplasty can reduce the risk of recurrent aortic valve insufficiency in patients undergoing aortic repair.

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

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

Bovine pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic aortic valves: A nationwide population-based cohort study in Korea

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses, utilizing a nationwide administrative claims database. MethodsAdult patients (age ≥40 years) who underwent bioprosthetic AVR, without other valve replacements, between 2003 and 2018 were identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and valve-related events, including the incidence of reoperation, endocarditis, systemic thromboembolism, and major bleeding. Baseline adjustment was performed using propensity score matching. Time-related outcomes were evaluated using a competing risk analysis, with death as a competing risk. ResultsAmong the 7714 patients who underwent bioprosthetic AVR, 5621 (72.9%) received bovine pericardial prostheses and 2093 (27.1%) received porcine bioprostheses. After matching, 1937 pairs were included in the final analysis. During follow-up (median, 4.49 years; interquartile range, 2.83-8.20 years), the use of porcine bioprostheses was associated with a higher risk of aortic valve reoperation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 3.01); however, no significant differences were observed in cumulative incidences of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, thromboembolism, or major bleeding. Subgroup analyses revealed that the use of bovine valves was associated with improved survival in patients with diabetes mellitus, whereas in patients undergoing dialysis, porcine valves exhibited better survival than bovine valves. ConclusionsIn this large nationwide cohort study of patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, the use of porcine prostheses was significantly associated with an increased risk of reoperation compared with the use of bovine prostheses, supporting previous findings.

Outcomes after Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Children with Congenital Heart Disease.

The optimal choice of valve substitute for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in pediatric patients remains a matter of debate. This study investigated the outcomes following AVR using mechanical prostheses in children. Forty-four patients younger than 15 years who underwent mechanical AVR from March 1990 through March 2023 were included. The outcomes of interest were death or transplantation, hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events, and reoperation after mechanical AVR. Adverse events included any death, transplant, aortic valve reoperation, and major thromboembolic or hemorrhagic event. The median age and weight at AVR were 139 months and 32 kg, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 56 months. The most commonly used valve size was 21 mm (14 [31.8%]). There were 2 in-hospital deaths, 1 in-hospital transplant, and 1 late death. The overall survival rates at 1 and 10 years post-AVR were 92.9% and 90.0%, respectively. Aortic valve reoperation was required in 4 patients at a median of 70 months post-AVR. No major hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events occurred. The 5- and 10-year adverse event-free survival rates were 81.8% and 72.2%, respectively. In univariable analysis, younger age, longer cardiopulmonary bypass time, and smaller valve size were associated with adverse events. The cut-off values for age and prosthetic valve size to minimize the risk of adverse events were 71 months and 20 mm, respectively. Mechanical AVR could be performed safely in children. Younger age, longer cardiopulmonary bypass time and smaller valve size were associated with adverse events. Thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications might rarely occur.

Cardiovascular Events After Aortic Root Repair in Patients With Marfan Syndrome

BackgroundThe usefulness of aortic valve sparing operations to treat aortic root aneurysm in patients with Marfan syndrome (MS) remains controversial. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients with MS who have undergone valve-preserving aortic root replacement. MethodsPatients with MS who had aortic valve sparing operations (reimplantation of the aortic valve or remodeling of the aortic root) from 1988 through 2019 were followed prospectively for a median of 14 years. Pertinent data from clinical, echocardiographic, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance images of the aorta were collected and analyzed. ResultsThere were 189 patients whose mean age was 36 years, and 67% were men. Ten patients presented with acute type A dissection and 29 had mitral regurgitation. There were 52 patients at risk at 20 years. Mortality rate at 20 years was 21.5% (95% CI: 14.7%-30.8%); advancing age and preoperative aortic dissections were associated with increased risk of death by multivariable analysis. At 20 years, the cumulative incidence of moderate or severe aortic insufficiency was 14.5% (95% CI: 9.5%-22.0%), reoperation on the aortic valve was 7.5% (95% CI: 3.9%-14.7%), and new distal aortic dissections was 19.9% (95% CI: 13.9%-28.5%). Remodeling of aortic root was associated with greater risk of developing aortic insufficiency and aortic valve reoperation than reimplantation of the aortic valve. ConclusionsAortic valve sparing operations provide stable aortic valve function and low rates of valve-related complications during the first 2 decades of follow-up but aortic dissections remain problematic in patients with MS.

Does ozaki procedure have a future as a new surgical approach for aortic valve replacement? a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2014, Ozaki et al. introduced the neo-cuspidation (Ozaki procedure), a new valve from the pericardium, to reduce or even prevent the risk of chronic autoimmune inflammation and subsequent rejection or valve degeneration. Thus, the authors aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the Ozaki technique in treating aortic valve diseases. A comprehensive search was performed via PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Web of Science up to 20 February 2022. Random-effects meta-analysis models were employed to estimate the pooled mean and SD or event to the total of the Ozaki procedure. Relevant records were retrieved and analyzed by OpenMeta analyst software. A total of 2863 patients from 21 studies were finally included in our analysis. Ac. Ozaki technique showed statistical significance in terms of mean cardiopulmonary bypass time of 148mins (95% CI 144-152.2, P<0.001), mean aortic cross-clamp time of 112.46mins (95% CI 105.116, 119.823, P<0.001), reoperation with a low risk of 0.011 (95% CI 0.005, 0.016, P=0.047), conversion to aortic valve replacement with a low risk of 0.004 (95% CI -0.001, 0.008, P=0.392), finally ICU stay (days) and hospital length of stay (days) with a mean of 2.061 days (95% CI 1.535, 2.587, P<0.001) and 8.159 days (95% CI 7.183-9.855, P<0.001), respectively. The Ozaki procedure provides a safe surgical technique with low mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time; moreover, a mean of 2-day-postoperative hospital stay was observed with the Ozaki procedure with a low risk of conversion to aortic valve replacement, reoperation, ICU and hospital stay, and death.

Intermediate-term Outcomes Following a Case Series of Reoperations for Medtronic Freestyle Stentless Aortic Valves

BackgroundData are limited on long-term outcomes in patients who have undergone a reoperation following failure of a stentless aortic valve. MethodsBetween 2006 and 2016, a retrospective analysis was performed on 24 patients who underwent open aortic valve replacement surgery for a failed stentless aortic valve prosthesis at Health Sciences North, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was a low mortality rate from cardiac-related deaths after 5 years. ResultsAll patients underwent insertion of a Medtronic Freestyle bioprosthesis (Minneapolis, MN) implanted using the modified subcoronary technique for their initial operation. The interval from the first operation to the stentless redo surgery ranged from 6 to 13 years. Aortic valve reoperation was performed for structural valve deterioration in 96% (n = 23) of the cases. Reoperations involved a removal of the stented valve leaflets and standard aortic valve replacement within the stentless casing in 20% (n = 5) of the cases, with the remaining cases requiring complete removal of the stentless prosthesis and aortic valve replacement. In those in whom a complete removal of the stentless valve was possible (n = 19), no disruption of the native aortic root occurred, with a 0% rate of conversion to a Bentall procedure. No intraoperative mortality occurred. The 30-day and 10-year operative mortality rates were 4% and 16%, respectively. ConclusionsRedo surgery for failing stentless valves can be done with relatively low risk and with acceptable long-term outcomes without resorting to root-replacement techniques.

Long-term Results of Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement and Aortic Cusp Repair

BackgroundLong-term results of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) and aortic cusp repair for aortic regurgitation are unclear. MethodsVSRR by reimplantation was performed in 363 patients. Tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) and bicuspid aortic valve were found in 285 and 71 patients, respectively. ResultsAortic cusp repair was performed in 268 patients. Of patients with TAV 129 had central plication of the Arantius node, 36 had free margin resuspension, and 71 had reinforcement. Mean follow-up was 71.4 months. Among TAV patients freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 10 and 15 years was 85.1% and 78.3%, respectively. Freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 10 years was lower in patients with cusp prolapse than without (77.4% vs 93.2%, P = .007). The overall freedom from more than mild aortic regurgitation at 10 and 15 years was 72.4% and 64.0%, respectively. It was also significantly greater in patients without cusp prolapse (78.4% vs 67.7%, P = .02). As for the cusp repair technique the freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 10 years was significantly better in patients who underwent only resuspension or reinforcement techniques compared with patients who underwent only central plication technique (100% vs 72.8%, P = .008). ConclusionsLong-term results of VSRR with aortic cusp repair were satisfactory. The resuspension technique appears to be useful for repairing aortic cusp prolapse in patients with TAV.

Valve Sparing vs Composite Valve Graft Root Replacement: Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

BackgroundBoth valve-sparing root replacement and composite valve graft (CVG) are acceptable options in aortic root replacement. We compare outcomes of these 2 approaches and durability of the aortic valve. MethodsA consecutive 1635 patients without acute dissection underwent primary aortic root replacement from 1997 to 2022; 473 (29%) underwent valve-sparing root replacement, and 1162 (71%) received CVG. Propensity score matching was used to reduce baseline differences. ResultsThe CVG group was older (59 ± 14 years vs 49 ± 14 years; P < .001) with more comorbidities, such as hypertension (88.4% vs 66.4%; P < .001), diabetes (7% vs 1.7%; P < .001), ischemic heart disease (5.1% vs 1.3%; P = .001), pulmonary disease (6.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), renal impairment (8.6% vs 1.3%; P < .001), class III-IV heart failure (35% vs 9.2%; P < .001), bicuspid aortic valves (44.8% vs 24.1%; P < .001), and severe aortic insufficiency (50.2% vs 13.2%; P < .001). Operative mortality was 0.4% (0% in valve sparing); incidence of major postoperative complications was 2.9% (3.6% vs 1.1%; P = .009). Ten-year survival was 93.1% (91.2% vs 97.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.3; P = .120). Mean follow-up was 65 ± 60 months; aortic valve reoperations were similar (5.8% vs 5.7%; HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.4; P = .401). Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was less prevalent in CVG (6.1% vs 11.1%; HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; P < .001). Propensity score matching identified 225 pairs. There was no difference in 10-year survival or reoperations. Recurrent moderate-severe aortic insufficiency was higher with valve sparing. ConclusionsBoth valve-sparing operations and CVG provide excellent early and late outcomes out to 10 years. Valve sparing is associated with a higher risk for development of aortic insufficiency but no difference in reoperations.

Outcomes of aortic root replacement with tricuspid aortic valve reimplantation in patients with residual aortic regurgitation

ObjectiveTo characterize residual aortic regurgitation (AR), identify its risk factors, and evaluate outcomes following aortic root replacement with aortic valve reimplantation. MethodsFrom 2002 to 2020, 756 patients with a tricuspid aortic valve underwent elective reimplantation for aortic root aneurysm. AR on transthoracic echocardiograms before hospital discharge was graded as mild or greater. Machine learning was used to identify risk factors for residual AR and subsequent aortic valve reoperation. ResultsSixty-five patients (8.6%) had mild (58 [7.7%]) or moderate (7 [0.93%]) residual postoperative AR. They had more severe preoperative AR (38% vs 12%; P < .0001), thickened cusps (7.7% vs 2.2%; P = .008), aortic valve repair (38% vs 23%; P = .004), and multiple returns to cardiopulmonary bypass for additional repair (11% vs 3.3%; P = .003) than those without AR. Predictors of residual AR were severe preoperative AR, smaller aortic root graft, and concomitant cusp repair. At 10 years, patients with versus without residual AR had more moderate or severe AR (48% vs 7.0%; P < .0001) and freedom from reoperation was worse (89% vs 98%; P < .0001). Residual AR was a risk factor for early reoperation. Concomitant coronary bypass, lower body mass index, and lower ejection fraction were risk factors for late reoperation. Ten-year survival was similar among patients with and without residual AR (97% vs 93%; P = .43). ConclusionsResidual AR after elective reimplantation of a tricuspid aortic valve for aortic root aneurysm is uncommon. Patients with severe preoperative AR and those who undergo valve repair have higher risk for residual AR, which can progress and increase risk of aortic valve reoperation.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Redo Procedures: Single-Center Experience.

Background and Objectives: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have presented favorable hemodynamic performance while facilitating minimally invasive access approaches. As the population ages, the number of patients at risk for aortic valve reoperation constantly increases. The aim of the present study is to present our single-center experience in sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in reoperations. Materials and Methods: The data of 18 consecutive patients who underwent SU-AVR in a reoperation between May 2020 and January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The mean age of the patients was 67.9 ± 11.1 years; patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a median logistic EuroSCORE II of 7.8 (IQR of 3.8-32.0) %. The implantation of the Perceval S prosthesis was technically successful in all patients. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 103.3 ± 50.0 min, and the cross-clamp time was 69.1 ± 38.8 min. No patients required a permanent pacemaker implantation. The postoperative gradient was 7.3 ± 2.4 mmHg, and no cases of paravalvular leakage were observed. There was one case of intraprocedural death, while the thirty-day mortality was 11%. Conclusions: Sutureless bioprosthetic valves tend to simplify the surgical procedure of a redo AVR. By maximizing the effective orifice area, sutureless valves may present an important advantage, being a safe and effective alternative not only to traditional surgical prostheses but also to transcatheter valve-in-valve approaches in select cases.

Aortic valve repair versus the Ross procedure in children

BackgroundAortic valve repair and the Ross procedure are widely used in children; however, it is unclear which provides the best outcomes. MethodsPatients who underwent primary aortic valve surgery from 1980 to 2018 were included. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences. ResultsOf 415 children, 82.7% (343/415) underwent repair and 17.3% (72/415) underwent the Ross procedure. At 15 years, survival was higher for aortic valve repair (93.9% ± 1.8% vs 80.9% ± 6.4%, P = .04); freedom from reoperation (45.7% ± 4.9% vs 48.5% ± 9.0%, P = .29) did not differ, and freedom from aortic valve reoperation was higher in the Ross procedure group (45.7% ± 4.9% vs 70.7% ± 8.0%, P < .001). When analyzed by quality of repair, acceptable repair provided the highest survival (P = .01). Acceptable repair and the Ross procedure had similar freedom from reoperation at 15 years, whereas suboptimal repair performed worse (acceptable: 54.9% ± 6.7%; Ross procedure: 48.5% ± 9.0%; suboptimal: 27.0% ± 7.7%, P < .001). Acceptable repair and the Ross procedure had similar freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 15 years, whereas suboptimal repair showed worse results (acceptable: 54.9 ± 6.7; Ross procedure: 70.7% ± 8.0%; suboptimal: 27.0% ± 7.7%, P < .001). Propensity score matching paired 66 patients who underwent the Ross procedure with 198 patients who underwent repair. At 15 years, repair was associated with better survival (98.0% ± 1.2% vs 78.5% ± 7.2%, P = .03), whereas freedom from reoperation was similar (42.6% ± 7.6% vs 50.7% ± 9.8%, P = .50). However, the Ross procedure was associated with higher freedom from aortic valve reoperation (42.6% ± 7.6% vs 72.3% ± 8.5%, P = .002). ConclusionsPrimary aortic valve repair was associated with better survival than the Ross procedure, whereas overall freedom from reoperation was similar. When an acceptable intraoperative result was achieved, outcomes of repair were favorable. However, when the intraoperative result of repair was suboptimal, the Ross procedure showed better results.

Aortic valve regurgitation following transaortic septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Incidence and influence on late outcomes

ObjectiveIn this study, we describe the incidence, sites of valve injury, and the influence of aortic valve regurgitation (AR) on outcomes of septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. MethodsWe analyzed patients who underwent transaortic septal myectomy for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy from 2001 to 2022. The primary study end point was incidence of procedure-related AR, defined as the need for an unplanned aortic valve (AV) procedure or new-onset moderate AR on early postoperative echocardiography. ResultsThere were 2807 patients who underwent transaortic septal myectomy for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and had pre- and postoperative transthoracic echocardiograms. Procedure-related AR was observed in 55 (2%) patients; 27 (1%) required unplanned AV procedures at the time of myectomy, and 29 (1%) additional patients developed moderate AR postoperatively. During follow-up, 9 total patients underwent late AV reoperation, 1 patient who developed new moderate AR postoperatively required late AVR due to severe calcific AS, and none of the patients who had unplanned AV procedures required late reoperation. The overall cumulative incidence of AV reoperation at 10 and 15 years was 1% and 5%. The predicted probability of moderate or severe AR at 5 and 10 years was 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. There was no difference in survival comparing patients with or without early postoperative mild or worse AR (P = .69). ConclusionsProcedure-related AR was observed in 2% of patients undergoing transaortic septal myectomy, and unplanned AV procedures were necessary for half of these patients. Intraoperative identification and valve repair mitigate the impact of cusp injury on late reintervention and survival.

1987. One-Year Mortality and Reoperation Among Patients with Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract Background Treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was initially developed for older patients at high surgical risk. However, with improving technology and experience, indications for TAVI have expanded to include younger patients and those at moderate surgical risk, leading to increasing use of TAVI as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). As a result, post-TAVI infective endocarditis (IE) is increasingly common. Data on post-TAVI IE in comparison to post-SAVR IE outcomes are limited. Methods Using data from the TriNetX Research Network, we identified (1) a cohort of patients who underwent TAVI between 1/1/2016 and 12/31/2020 (CPT procedure code 1021150) and developed IE (captured with ICD-10 codes I33, I38, or I39) after the procedure; and (2) a propensity score-matched cohort of patients who underwent SAVR (CPT procedure codes 1006141, excluding any associated transcatheter procedures) and developed IE. Both cohorts were required to have at least 1 week follow-up, i.e., deaths within 7 days of IE were excluded. We matched the cohorts for demographics and clinically relevant background characteristics. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates for 1-year mortality and aortic valve reoperation and Cox proportional hazards models to compare event rates. Results We identified 616 patients with post-TAVI IE and 616 matched patients with post-SAVR IE. The baseline characteristics of the cohorts were well balanced, as indicated by standardized mean differences &amp;lt; 0.1, Table 1. The Kaplan-Meier 1-year mortality between 7 days and 1 year (as deaths before 7 days were excluded) was 20.9% in the TAVI cohort (117 events) vs. 13.0% in the SAVR cohort (72 events), HR 1.66 (95%CI 1.24-2.22; P=0.001), Figure 1. Reoperation for the aortic valve by 1 year was uncommon in both groups, with 12 and 10 events in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively (2.0% vs. 1.4%; HR 1.49, 95%CI 0.61-3.65; P=0.56). Baseline Patient Characteristics After Matching Figure 1 One-year survival post infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI IE) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR IE). Deaths within 7 days of infective endocarditis diagnosis were excluded. Conclusion In this comparative, propensity-matched cohort study, 1-year mortality after an episode of IE was significantly higher among TAVI recipients vs their SAVR counterparts. Repeat aortic valve procedures were uncommon in both groups. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the causes of excess mortality among TAVI recipients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Reply from authors: Sutureless valves-expanding the surgeon's toolbox.

Reply from authors: Sutureless valves-expanding the surgeon's toolbox.