Aortic Valve Replacement Group Research Articles

Aortic valve replacement versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: long-term follow-up of the AVATAR trial.

The question of when and how to treat truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function is still subject to debate and ongoing research. Here, the results of extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial are reported (NCT02436655, clinical trials.gov). The AVATAR trial randomly assigned patients with severe, asymptomatic AS and LV ejection fraction ≥50% to undergo either early surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or conservative treatment with watchful waiting strategy. All patients had negative exercise stress testing. The primary hypothesis was that early AVR will reduce a primary composite endpoint comprising all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure (HF), as compared to conservative treatment strategy. A total of 157 low-risk patients (mean age 67 years, 57% men, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 1.7%) were randomly allocated to either early AVR group (n=78) or conservative treatment group (n=79). In an intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 63 months, the primary composite endpoint outcome event occurred in 18/78 patients (23.1%) in the early surgery group and in 37/79 patients (46.8%) in the conservative treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] early surgery vs. conservative treatment 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.73, p=0.002). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for individual endpoints of all-cause death and HF hospitalization were significantly lower in the early surgery compared with the conservative group (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.85, p=0.012 for all-cause death, and HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06-0.73, p=0.007 for HF hospitalizations). The extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial demonstrates better clinical outcomes with early surgical AVR in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV ejection fraction compared with patients treated with conservative management on watchful waiting. NCT02436655 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Prognostic Impact of High-Molecular-Weight von Willebrand Factor Multimer Ratio in Classical Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis.

High-molecular-weight (HMW) von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimer deficiency occurs in classical low-flow, low-gradient (LF/LG) aortic stenosis (AS) due to shear force-induced proteolysis. The prognostic value of HMW VWF multimer deficiency is unknown. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the impact of HMW VWF multimer deficiency on clinical outcome. In this prospective research study, a total of 83 patients with classical LF/LG AS were included. All patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography to distinguish true-severe (TS) from pseudo-severe (PS) classical LF/LG AS. HMW VWF multimer ratio was calculated using densitometric Western blot band quantification. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Mean age was 79 ± 9 years, and TS classical LF/LG AS was diagnosed in 73% (n = 61) and PS classical LF/LG AS in 27% (n = 22) of all patients. Forty-six patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) and 37 were treated conservatively. During a mean follow-up of 27 ± 17 months, 47 deaths occurred. Major bleeding complications after AVR (10/46; 22%) were more common in patients with HMW VWF multimer ratio <1 (8/17; 47%) in comparison to patients with a normal multimer pattern (2/29; 7%) at baseline (p = 0.003). In a multivariable Cox regression analysis, HMW VWF multimer deficiency was a predictor of all-cause mortality (HR: 3.02 [95% CI: 1.31-6.96], p = 0.009) in the entire cohort. This association was driven by higher mortality rates in the AVR group (multivariable-adjusted HR: 9.4; 95% CI 2.0-43.4, p = 0.004). This is the first study to demonstrate the predictive value of HMW VWF multimer ratio for risk stratification in patients with classical LF/LG AS. HMW VWF multimer deficiency was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and major bleeding complications after AVR.

The evolution of TAVI performance overtime: an overview of systematic reviews

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a well-established treatment for high and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Recent studies have demonstrated non-inferiority of TAVI compared to surgery in low-risk patients. In the past decade, numerous literature reviews (SLRs) have assessed the use of TAVI in different risk groups. This is the first attempt to provide an overview of SRs (OoSRs) focusing on secondary studies reporting clinical outcomes/process indicators. This research aims to summarize the findings of extant literature on the performance of TAVI over time.MethodsA literature search took place from inception to April 2024. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for SLRs. SLRs reporting at least one review of clinical indicators were included. Subsequently, a two-step inclusion process was conducted: [1] screening based on title and abstracts and [2] screening based on full-text papers. Relevant data were extracted and the quality of the reviews was assessed.ResultsWe included 33 SLRs with different risks assessed via the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score. Mortality rates were comparable between TAVI and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) groups. TAVI is associated with lower rates of major bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Vascular complications, pacemaker implantation, and residual aortic regurgitation were more frequent in TAVI patients.ConclusionThis study summarizes TAVI performance findings over a decade, revealing a shift to include both high and low-risk patients since 2020. Overall, TAVI continues to evolve, emphasizing improved outcomes, broader indications, and addressing challenges.

Role of aortic valve replacement in moderate aortic stenosis: a 10-year outcomes study

ObjectivePatients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) exhibit high morbidity and mortality. Limited evidence exists on the role of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this patient population. To investigate the benefit...

Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years.

This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged 50 to 70 years based on the type of prosthetic valve used. We compared patients who underwent mechanical AVR to those who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our institution between January 2000 and March 2019. Competing risk analysis and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method based on propensity score were employed for comparisons. A total of 1,580 patients (984 patients with mechanical AVR; 596 patients with bioprosthetic AVR) were enrolled. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR groups (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.177). After IPTW adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group than in the mechanical AVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.80; p=0.014). Competing risk analysis revealed lower risks of stroke (sub-distributional hazard ratio [sHR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67; p<0.001) and anticoagulation- related bleeding (sHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.53; p<0.001) in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conversely, the risk of aortic valve (AV) reintervention was higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group (sHR, 6.14; 95% CI, 3.17-11.93; p<0.001). Among patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent surgical AVR, those receiving mechanical valves showed better survival than those with bioprosthetic valves. The mechanical AVR group exhibited a higher risk of stroke and anticoagulation-related bleeding, while the bioprosthetic AVR group showed a higher risk of AV reintervention.

Impact of pulmonary hypertension on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis.

In patients with left heart disease and severe aortic stenosis (AS), pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common comorbidity and predictor of poor prognosis. Untreated AS aggravates PH leading to an increased right ventricular afterload and, in line to right ventricular dysfunction. The surgical benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients with severe AS and PH could be limited due to the multiple comorbidities and poor outcomes. Therefore, we purposed to investigate the impact of PH on short-term outcomes in patients with moderate to severe AS who underwent surgical AVR in our heart center. In this study we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 99 patients with severe secondary post-capillary PH who underwent surgical AVR (AVR + PH group) at our heart center between 2010 and 2021 with a regard to perioperative outcomes. In order to investigate the impact of PH on short-term outcomes, the control group of 99 patients without pulmonary hypertension who underwent surgical AVR (AVR group) at our heart center with similar risk profile was accordingly analyzed regarding pre-, intra- and postoperative data. Atrial fibrillation occurred significantly more often (p = .013) in patients who suffered from PH undergoing AVR. In addition, the risk for cardiac surgery (EUROSCORE II) was significantly higher (p < .001) in the above-mentioned group. Likewise, cardiopulmonary bypass time (p = .018), aortic cross-clamp time (p = .008) and average operation time (p = .009) were significantly longer in the AVR + PH group. Furthermore, the in-hospital survival rate was significantly higher (p = .044) in the AVR group compared to the AVR + PH group. Moreover, the dialysis rate was significantly higher (p < .001) postoperatively in patients who suffered PH compared to the patients without PH undergoing AVR. In our study, patients with severe PH and severe symptomatic AS who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement showed adverse short-term outcomes compared to patients without PH.

Three-year outcomes of surgical valve replacement with Dafodil™ pericardial bioprosthesis: Dafodil™-1 trial.

The Dafodil™-1 trial was designed to evaluate the clinical safety and performance of Dafodil™ pericardial bioprosthesis for replacing diseased native or prosthetic aortic or mitral valves in patients with advanced valvular heart disease (VHD). The Dafodil™-1 trial was a prospective, multicenter, first-in-human clinical trial. Patients were enrolled if they had advanced VHD requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with or without concomitant valve surgery and having surgical risk scores <4%. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke; and hemodynamics were analyzed. A total of 136 patients (aortic: 67 and mitral: 69) were enrolled in the trial (with mean age-AVR group: 60.2 ± 8.3 years and MVR group: 49.7 ± 14.4 years). A total of 134 patients (aortic: 66 and mitral: 68) completed the 3-year follow-up (total 300 per 100 patient-years of follow-up). The AVR group demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean pressure gradients from 51.2 ± 24.1 mmHg at baseline to 11.1 ± 6.0 mmHg at the 3-year follow-up (p < 0.0001). The mean effective orifice area (EOA) improved from baseline (0.9 ± 0.6 cm2) to 3-year follow-up (1.8 ± 0.4 cm2) (p < 0.0001). In the MVR group, the mean indexed EOA (iEOA) increased significantly from baseline (0.7 ± 0.4 cm2/m2) to 3-year follow-up (1.1 ± 0.4 cm2/m2) (p < 0.001). There was significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class and mean SF-12 scores in both groups. At 3-year follow-up, the MACE incidence was 2.3% per 100 patient-years (1.3% strokes per 100 patient-years and 1.3% deaths per 100 patient-years) for AVR group and 4.7% per 100 patient-years (0.6% strokes per 100 patient-years and 4.0% deaths per 100 patient-years) for MVR group. No cases of MI, structural valve deterioration and prosthetic valve endocarditis were reported. The AVR and MVR groups achieved 89.6% and 79.7% MACE-free survival, respectively at 3-year follow-up. The Dafodil™-1 trial demonstrated satisfactory outcomes of clinical safety, hemodynamic performance, and quality-of-life metrics. Additionally, no incidence of structural valve deterioration and very low rates of valve thrombosis during the 3-year follow-up period of Dafodil™-1 first-in-human trial indicated acceptable valve durability up to three years and similar outcomes are warranted for longer follow-ups as a primary goal. https://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=18377&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2017/07/009008, CTRI/2017/07/009008.

Prognostic Relevance of Global Myocardial Work Index in Patients with Moderate Aortic Valve Stenosis.

A reduced global myocardial work index (GWI) ≤ 1951 mmHg% is associated with increased mortality in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). However, parameters predicting the outcome in patients with moderate AS are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the GWI in patients with moderate AS. In this prospective study, 103 patients with moderate AS (mean age 72 ± 10 years; male: 69%) underwent standardized transthoracic echocardiography. The primary endpoint was survival without an aortic valve replacement (AVR). After a median follow-up of 30 ± 5 months, 37 patients (36%) were referred for an AVR. Survival without an AVR was 96% at 12 months and 80% at 30 months (>1951 mmHg%) versus 96% and 68% (≤1951 mmHg%). A GWI ≤ 1951 mmHg% did not predict the need for an AVR (hazard ratio 1.31 (95% CI, 0.63-2.72), p = 0.49). Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between the mean GWI (1644 ± 448 mmHg%) and mean aortic valve pressure gradient (24.2 mmHg ± 6.2, p = 0.615) or effective aortic orifice area (1.24 cm2 ± 0.11, p = 0.678). There was no difference between the AVR and non-AVR groups in the occurrence of clinical symptoms. In contrast to patients with severe AS, a GWI ≤ 1951 mmHg% did not predict the need for an AVR. Further research is needed to improve the risk stratification in patients with moderate AS.

Abstract 12643: Role of Aortic Valve Replacement in Moderate Native Aortic Stenosis: A 10-year Outcomes Study

Background: Patients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) exhibit high morbidity and mortality. Very limited evidence exists on the role of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this patient population. Objectives: To investigate the benefit of AVR in patients with moderate AS compared to clinical surveillance on long-term survival. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, patients aged ≥ 60 years with native tricuspid moderate AS between 2008-2016 were selected from the Cleveland Clinic echocardiographic database. Patients were classified as receiving AVR or managed with clinical surveillance. Clinical outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, assessed by survival analyses and multivariable-adjusted Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Results: We included 1,421 patients (mean age, 75.3 ± 5.4 years and 39.9% females) followed over a median duration of 6 years. Patients in the AVR group had lower risk of all-cause (adjusted HR = 0.51, 95% CI: [0.34, 0.77]; p = 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (aHR = 0.50, 95% CI: [0.31, 0.80]; p = 0.004) compared to those in the clinical surveillance group irrespective of sex, receipt of other open-heart surgeries, and underlying malignancy. Conclusions: In patients with moderate AS, AVR was associated with favorable clinical outcomes and left ventricular remodeling patients. Figure 1 Incidence of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in patients with moderate AS in those who underwent AVR and clinical surveillance. Hazards ratios (HR) represent relative incidence of AVR versus clinical surveillance. HRs for all-cause mortality were calculated using Cox regression and for cardiovascular mortality using competing risks regression, with non-cardiac mortality as competing event. HRs were adjusted for age, sex, body-mass index, comorbidities, medications, and baseline echocardiographic data (AVA, MG, Vmax, and LVEF)

Abstract 16541: Early Aortic Valve Replacement in Symptomatic Normal-Flow, Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a class I indication for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, there is little evidence of the benefit of early AVR in symptomatic patients with normal-flow, low-gradient (NFLG) severe AS. Hypothesis: Early AVR has benefit in patients with NFLG severe AS Methods: Two-hundred eighty-one patients diagnosed with symptomatic NFLG severe AS (stroke volume index ≥ 35 mL/m 2 , mean transaortic pressure gradient &lt; 40 mmHg, peak transaortic velocity &lt; 4 m/s, and aortic valve area &lt; 1.0 cm 2 ) between January 2010 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 121 patients aged 75.1 ± 9.8 years (including 63 women) who underwent early AVR within three months after index echocardiography were compared with 121 patients who received conservative care. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization. Results: During a median follow-up of 21.9 months, 48 primary outcomes (18 in the early AVR group and 30 in the conservative care group) occurred. The early AVR group presented a significantly lower incidence of primary outcomes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.93; P = 0.028); specifically, there was no significant difference in all-cause death (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.23-1.16; P = 0.110), although the early AVR group showed a significantly lower incidence of hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95, P = 0.037). Subgroup analyses supported the main findings. Conclusions: An early AVR strategy may benefit guard against a composite outcome of death or hospitalization for heart failure in symptomatic patients with NFLG severe AS. Future randomized studies must confirm our findings.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement.

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n=57), ViV-TAVR (n=31) and redo-sutureless (n=25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p=0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Sutureless versus transcatheter valves in patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: A multi-institutional European study

BackgroundRecent randomized controlled trials showed comparable short-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate and low-risk patients. However, independent studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation results versus surgical aortic valve replacement at 5 years showed worsening outcomes in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to analyze mid- to long-term outcomes of patients with isolated aortic stenosis and an intermediate-risk profile who underwent aortic valve replacement using a sutureless valve versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. MethodsThis retrospective multi-institutional European study investigated 2,123 consecutive patients with isolated aortic stenosis at intermediate risk profile treated with sutureless aortic valve replacement (824 patients) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (1,299 patients) from 2013 to 2020. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2 balanced groups of 517 patients were obtained. Primary endpoints were as follows: 30 days, late all-cause, and cardiac-related mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events (all-cause death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, endocarditis, reoperation, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak grade ≥2). ResultsMedian follow-up was 4.3 years (interquartile range 1.1–7.4 years). Primary endpoints were as follows—30-day mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 2.13% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.64% (P = .026), all-cause mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 36.7% ± 7.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41.8% ± 8.2% (P = .023), and cardiac-related mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 10.2% ± 2.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 19.2% ± 3.5%;(P = .00043) at follow-up. Secondary endpoints were as follows—major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events in the sutureless aortic valve replacement group: 47.2% ± 9.0% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 57.3% ± 7.5% (P < .001). In particular, the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 6.38% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 11.8% [P = .002]) and paravalvular leak ≥2 (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 0.97% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.84% [P = .001]) was significantly higher in transcatheter aortic valve implantation group. At Multivariable Cox regression analysis, paravalvular leak ≥2 (hazard ratio: 1.63%; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–2.53, P = .042) and permanent pacemaker implantation (hazard ratio: 1.49%; 95% confidence interval: 1.02–2.20, P = .039) were identified as predictors of mortality. ConclusionSutureless aortic valve replacement showed a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiac-related death, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak than transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Moreover, permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak negatively affected survival in patients treated for isolated aortic stenosis.

Tricuspid valve replacement outcomes in a diverse variety of valve replacement cases: Mortality, mechanical versus biological – A single-center study

Background: The initial trial in tricuspid surgery is repair; however, replacement is done whenever the valve is badly diseased. Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) as an isolated procedure and combined with other valve replacements presents a challenge as these patients are in the high-risk subset. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective study was performed using the medical records of 42 cases who underwent TVR since 2017 at our institute. The mean age of the participants was 36.3 ± 13.2 years and male–female was 66.7% and 33.3%, respectively. Isolated TVR was done in 35.7% of cases, associated with mitral valve replacement (MVR) in 38.1%, with aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 4.8%, triple-valve replacement (MV, TV, and AV) in 19.0%, and TVR associated with pulmonary valve replacement in 2.4% of cases. This diverse variety of valve replacement cases is the highlight of our study. About 30.9% of participants were undergoing the procedure as a redo surgery. Trial of repair was given in 33.3% of cases. Moreover, bioprosthesis and mechanical valve prosthesis were used in 73.8% and 26.2%, respectively. Results: Early mortality occurred in 8 (19.0%) cases. Cause of death common in all deaths was right ventricular failure in all cases 8/8 (100%) seconded by multi-organ failure in 7/8 cases (87.5%), previous cardiac surgery was a factor in 4/8 (50%) cases, mediastinitis occurred in 2/8 (25%) cases, and both arrhythmias and cerebrovascular accident happened in 1/8 (12.5%) case each. Mortality rate was 3/15 (20.0%) in cases of isolated TV surgery. Mortality rate for concomitant MVR was 3/15 (20.0%), and for concomitant AVR with MVR (triple-valve replacement) was 2/8 (25.0%). No early mortality happened in the concomitant AVR and concomitant pulmonary valve replacement group. Late mortality happened in 11/42 (26.2%) cases during follow-up. Total mortality as per the valve types has been 5/11 (45.5%) in the mechanical valve replacement group and 14/31 (45.2%) for the biological valve group. Conclusions: The patients who require TVR are usually high-risk surgical candidates with high early and late mortality. The most common cause of death was right ventricular failure in this study. TVR associated with other heart valve replacement increases the risk strata of the patient which is the highlight of our study. In the end, we conclude that we had 19.0% early (0–30 days) and 26.2% late mortality (0–1 year) making a composite of 45.2% mortality at the end of 1 year. No difference in the effect of mortality as per the valve type has been observed.

Long-Term Survival among Octogenarians Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with or without Simultaneous Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A 22-Year Tertiary Single-Center Experience.

The impact of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians is still debated. We analyzed the characteristics and long-term survival of octogenarians undergoing isolated AVR and AVR + CABG. All octogenarians who consecutively underwent AVR with or without concomitant CABG at our tertiary cardiac center between 2000 and 2022 were included. Patients with redo, emergent, or any other concomitant procedures were excluded. The primary endpoints were 30-day and long-term survival. The secondary endpoints were early postoperative outcomes and determinants of long-term survival. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality, and Cox regression analysis was performed for predictors of adverse long-term survival. A total of 1011 patients who underwent AVR (83.0 [81.0-85.0] years, 42.0% males) and 1055 with AVR + CABG (83.0 [81.2-85.4] years, 66.1% males) were included in our study. Survival at 30 days and at 1, 3, and 5 years in the AVR group was 97.9%, 91.5%, 80.5%, and 66.2%, respectively, while in the AVR + CABG group it was 96.2%, 89.6%, 77.7%, and 64.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in median postoperative survival between the AVR and AVR + CABG groups (7.1 years [IQR: 6.7-7.5] vs. 6.6 years [IQR: 6.3-7.2], respectively, p = 0.21). Significant predictors of adverse long-term survival in the AVR group included age (hazard ratio (HR): 1.09; 95% CI: 1.06-1.12, p < 0.001), previous MI (HR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.32-3.28, p = 0.002), and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.33-3.23, p = 0.001), while in the AVR + CABG group they included age (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04-1.10, p < 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.15-1.89, p = 0.002). Concomitant CABG was not an independent risk factor for adverse long-term survival (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.77-1.02, p = 0.09). The long-term survival of octogenarians who underwent AVR or AVR + CABG was similar and was not affected by adding concomitant CABG. However, octogenarians who underwent concomitant CABG with AVR had significantly higher in-hospital mortality. Each decision should be discussed within the heart team.

Aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis during mitral surgery improves survival free from severe stenosis.

Optimal management of moderate aortic stenosis during surgery for another indication is unclear. We assessed the effects of surgical aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis during mitral surgery. An institutional mitral surgery database was queried for patients with preoperative moderate aortic stenosis. Patients were stratified by whether they underwent concomitant surgical aortic valve replacement. Morbidity was analyzed using Student's t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox regression. Of 85 mitral surgery recipients with moderate aortic stenosis from 2012 to 2019, 62 (73%) underwent concomitant surgical aortic valve replacement. Surgical aortic valve replacement recipients were more likely to have bicuspid (11% vs. 0%, p = 0.019) or rheumatic (18% vs. 0%, p = 0.019) aortic valves, and to undergo mitral repair (32% vs. 9%, p = 0.028). Groups did not differ with respect to mitral etiology, New York Heart Association class, or cardiac intervention history (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, groups had similar stroke and gastrointestinal bleed rates (3% vs. 0% and 2% vs. 0% in the surgical aortic valve replacement vs. no surgical aortic valve replacement group respectively, both p > 0.99). Five-year survival free from severe aortic stenosis was higher in the surgical aortic valve replacement group (66% vs. 17%, p = 0.002). Surgical aortic valve replacement protected against the composite of death and progression to severe aortic stenosis at 5 years (hazard ratio: 0.32, p = 0.003). Surgical aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis at time of mitral surgery is a well-tolerated strategy to reduce aortic disease progression.

Surgical Explantation of Failed Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundRecent reports have demonstrated worse than expected outcomes of surgical explantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However in-depth analysis of the short- and mid-term risk of concomitant cardiac surgery at the time of TAVR explant is lacking. MethodsData from the multicenter EXPLANT-TAVR registry of patients undergoing TAVR-explant between November 2009 and September 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients undergoing concomitant procedures were included, but explants performed during the same admission as the initial TAVR or concomitant procedures performed on the aortic root, ascending aorta, or arch were excluded. Outcomes were evaluated between the isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and concomitant SAVR groups. Median follow-up was 6.6 months. ResultsAmong 199 patients, concomitant SAVR was performed in 94 patients (47.2%), primarily with mitral valve surgery (n = 45) followed by coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 23). Despite similar mean ages between groups (72.8 vs 73.4 years), concomitant SAVR had a higher median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score at the index TAVR (5.9% vs 3.7%, P = .001). There were no differences in median time-to-explant between groups (12.9 vs 8.7 months, P = .78). However concomitant SAVR had longer mean cardiopulmonary bypass (166 vs 114 minutes, P = .001) and cross-clamp times (123 vs 81 minutes, P = .001). Both 30-day (16.7% vs 9.9%) and 1-year mortality (36.1% vs 22.1%) were higher with concomitant SAVR but did not reach statistical significance (both P > .05). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, actuarial estimates of cumulative survival were significantly lower with concomitant SAVR at 3 years (56.8% vs 81.1%, P = .020). ConclusionsFor surgical explantation after TAVR failure, concomitant SAVR is associated with increased mortality. Further studies with longer follow-up are warranted to examine the benefit from earlier intervention before concomitant disease develops.

4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the assessment of aortic valve repair with ozaki technique

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Aortic valve neocuspidalization (Av-Neo) aims to replace the three aortic cusps with autologous pericardium pre-treated with glutaraldehyde and is becoming a valid alternative to traditional aortic valve replacement (AVR). 4D-flow cardiac magnetic resonance (4D-CMR) imaging of patients allows the derivation of shear stress on the aortic wall (WSS). Different studies support the presence of a link between increased WSS at 4D-CMR and the presence of histological alterations of the aortic wall. Purpose To compare the WSS of the ascending aorta in patients who underwent Av-Neo vs AVR with biological prostheses. Methods We performed 4D-flow CMR on 20 patients who underwent AV-Neo (Group A) or AVR (Group B), 10 patients for each group. Results The WSS in the Ozaki group was significantly lower in the proximal and distal aortic outer curvature compared to AVR patients (p 0.0179 and 0.0412, respectively, Figure 1 and 2). WSS levels remained significantly lower at the proximal aorta’s outer curvature segment in the Av-Neo population, also after adjusting the WSS for the ejection fraction and the LVOT-Aorta angle (p 0.02). Conclusions Av-neo hemodynamical features showed to be non-inferior to the ones provided by the commercially available bioprosthetic valves. Av-Neo procedures may be considered in patients affected by collagenopathy and other predisposing risk factors for the development of ascending aortic aneurism and aortic dissection other than classical AVR.

#3312 EFFICACY OF TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION FOR SEVERE AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS IN HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS

Abstract Background and Aims In Japan, of the &amp;gt;340,000 chronic dialysis patients, approximately 60% have lifestyle-related diseases including diabetes and nephrosclerosis. Two-thirds of maintenance dialysis patients (age, ≥65 years) often develop aortic stenosis (AS) and other serious and complex systemic cardiovascular disease complications associated with chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Furthermore, renal function loss and a prolonged state of renal failure are observed requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT). AS in dialysis patients progresses quickly, and the frequency of hospitalized treatment for heart failure increases with the worsening condition, leading to ADL deterioration, which may subsequently cause dialysis hypotension/interruption. At our hospital, of the 420 maintenance dialysis patients who died during hospitalization in 5 years before 2020 (420/2,637 = 16%), 32 cases (8%) developed AS complications, which became their direct cause of death in 12 cases (3%), and aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed in 5 cases (1%). Maintenance hemodialysis patients (HD) are at high risk group and have a poor prognosis for life. Previously, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was not indicated., but recently TAVI has been approved in Japan. Efficacy of TAVI for HD patients remains unclear, here we investigated several outcomes. Method A total of 123 maintenance dialysis patients with severe AS were included in 2019–2021. We examined TAVI group and AVR group for length of hospital stay, hospitalization costs, life expectancy, and rates of complications such as occurrence of arrhythmias. Results Over a 3-year period, we performed TAVI for 58 maintenance dialysis patients (mean age, 81 years); their median duration of hospitalization was 14 days for a median cost of 6,259,350 JPY. The mean age was older than that of 66 patients who underwent open-heart AVR during the same period (mean age, 73 years; 35 days for 7,192,570 JPY); therefore, the cost was less, and the rate of complications, including vital prognosis and arrhythmia, was not inferior in hospitalization period. Conclusion In conclusion, TAVI is effective for elderly maintenance dialysis patients with severe AS and has a positive health care economics, ADL maintenance.

Outcomes of Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Experience in Wellington Hospital

Rapid deployment (RD) aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Edwards Intuity Elite Valve System is a significant breakthrough in advancement in comparison with other current conventional sutured surgical AVR. This study aimed to analyse early experiences using this novel bioprosthesis. This 60-month prospective study, between July 2017 and July 2022, found that 59 patients had RD bioprosthesis implanted at this institution. Median follow-up period was 12 months. Baseline preoperative characteristics, isolated or concomitant procedures, valve prosthesis-related events, survival rates, and valve haemodynamics were evaluated. Primary endpoints were pacemaker implantation (PPM) rates, neurological events, paravalvular leaks, and early 30-day mortality rates. Secondary endpoints were reintervention, valve degeneration, arrhythmia, hospital stay, and readmission rates. Approximately 64% were males, with the mean age of 75±3 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 54% and the rest were concomitant procedures. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping times were acceptable. In the isolated AVR group, the early PPM implantation rates were 5%, with 1.7% of patients experiencing a minor stroke event. One patient had paravalvular leak, which was moderate in haemodynamics. Mean gradient at discharge was 11±3 mmHg. There was no early inpatient mortality in the isolated AVR group, and the 30-day post-discharge mortality was zero. Re-operation rates and valve degeneration rates were zero. This study found promising and excellent early results in this small cohort of patients, validating for more usage of rapid deployment AVR in suitable patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in dialysis-dependent patients: a meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis in dialysis-dependent patients. Literature searches employed PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase to identify relevant studies. Bias-treated data were prioritized, isolated and pooled for analysis; raw data were utilized where bias-treated data were unavailable. Outcomes were analysed to assess for study data crossover. Literature search identified 10 retrospective studies; following data source analysis, five studies were included. Upon pooling of bias-treated data, TAVI was significantly favoured in early mortality [odds ratio (OR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.19-0.92; I2 = 92%; P = 0.03], 1-year mortality (OR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.80-0.97; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01), rates of stroke/cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.93; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01) and blood transfusions (OR, 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.62; I2 = 86%; P = 0.0002). Pooling demonstrated fewer new pacemaker implantations in the AVR group (OR, 3.33; 95% CI 1.94-5.73; I2 = 74%; P ≤ 0.0001) and no difference in the rate of vascular complications (OR, 2.27; 95% CI 0.60-8.59; I2 = 83%; P = 0.23). Analysis including raw data revealed the length of hospital stay to favour TAVI with a mean difference of -9.20 days (95% CI -15.58 to -2.82; I2 = 97%; P = 0.005). Bias-treated meta-analysis comparing surgical AVR and TAVI favoured TAVI in early mortality, 1-year mortality, rates of stroke/cerebrovascular events and blood transfusions. There was no difference in the rates of vascular complications; however, TAVI required more pacemaker implantations. Data pooling including raw data revealed that the length of hospital admission favours TAVI.