Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement Research Articles

Subaortic Pannus Causing Complete Outlet Obstruction After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in a Patient with Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Case Report

Abstract Background Subaortic pannus formation complicates bioprosthetic aortic valve(AV) replacement. We report an extreme case in a continuous-flow left-ventricular-assist-device(LVAD) patient. Case Summary A 49-year-old Caucasian female with dilated cardiomyopathy was bridged-to-transplant with a HeartWare ventricular-assist-device(HVAD). Duration of support was prolonged, 6-years and 7-months, due to allosensitisation requiring desensitisation. Pump thrombosis occurred 2-years and 4-months post-LVAD requiring alteplase thrombolysis. The patient underwent bioprosthetic AV replacement 3-years and 10-months post-LVAD for symptomatic aortic incompetence. Transthoracic echocardiography(TTE) performed 1-year and 2-years post-bioprosthetic AV replacement repeatedly demonstrated an AV closed during all cardiac cycles without incompetence and nil flow through the left-ventricular-outflow-tract(LVOT). Following transplant, analysis of explanted heart revealed a fused AV. A pannus adherent to the underside of the AV had formed across the entire AV outlet, with complete obliteration of LVOT. This subaortic pannus was not visualised on previous TTE. Histologically, the pannus consisted of hypocellular fibrous tissue with chronic inflammatory cells, spindle histiocytes and myofibroblasts scattered throughout the loose fibromyxoid stroma, the latter highlighted on CD68 immunohistochemical stain(IHC). Partial endothelialisation on the pannus surface was highlighted on ERG & CD31 IHC. Neither calcification, nor signs of acute inflammation were noted. In contrast to previous cases, there was no evidence of associated thrombus macroscopically or microscopically. Discussion Prolonged LVAD support may facilitate subaortic pannus following bioprosthetic AV replacement due to AV closure and altered transvalvular flow. Due to the parallel LVAD circulation, subaortic pannus may develop asymptomatically, without haemodynamic compromise, allowing progression to total LVOT obstruction. This requires consideration prior to LVAD explantation in bridge-to-recovery patients.

Major bleeding complications and antithrombotic treatment after isolated surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

Abstract Background Despite advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care, post-operative bleeds and stroke remain significant concerns after bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Purpose We assessed the incidence of short-term (30d) and long-term major bleeds and strokes and their relations to antithrombotic treatment after isolated bioprosthetic SAVR. Methods The CAREAVR study included 721 patients who underwent isolated SAVR at four Finnish university hospitals between 2002 and 2014. The day-to-day information on short-term antithrombotic treatment was available from a subgroup including 227 patients, of whom 138 (60.7%) had preoperative aspirin. Preoperative aspirin was usually discontinued the day before the index surgery. Enoxaparin 1mg/kg twice daily and vitamin K antagonist (VKA) were routinely initiated on the first postoperative day, and enoxaparin continued until the INR remained at a therapeutic level ≥ 2.0 for two days. The routine duration of VKA treatment after surgery was 3 months. Results The median follow-up time was 4.9 (interquartile range 3.0–7.0) years. During the short-term 30-day period, 31 (4.3%) patients had a major bleed, and 13 (1.8%) patients experienced a major stroke. A vast majority of the bleeding (80.6%) occurred within two days after the surgery, and the tail effect of preoperative aspirin (5-7d) was present in 51.6% of episodes, indicating unintentional triple antithrombotic therapy. During the long-term follow-up (>30d after the index surgery), 40 (5.5%) major bleeding episodes occurred, and 47 (6.5%) patients experienced a major stroke. Overall, 23 (57.5%) of the patients with major bleeding were on OAC during the event. In addition, 13 (27.7%) of the patients experiencing major stroke during the long-term follow-up were on OAC during the event. Conclusions Compared to major strokes, the incidence of perioperative major bleeds was over twofold, the majority occurring during the tail effect of preoperative aspirin. During the long-term follow-up, the risks of stroke and bleeding were equal, and the majority of bleeding episodes appeared during anticoagulation treatment.

Bioprosthetic versus mechanical prostheses in patients aged 50 to 70 years undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery: outcomes analysis from propensity score matching

Abstract Introduction Despite increasing use of bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (bAVR) in patients ≤70 years [1, 2], the relative benefits compared to mechanical valve replacement (mAVR) remain uncertain [3, 4]. Purpose The current study aims to compare mortality and other important clinical endpoints by prosthesis type for patients aged 50-70 years who received an AVR in a well-characterised Australian cohort. Methods A retrospective cohort study was designed utilising the WAVES Patient Registry and incorporating linked administrative outcome data including all patients who had an AVR in Western Australian public hospitals between 2010-2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) mortality, separately and combined with non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke (MACE), major bleeding, and days alive and out of hospital (DAOH). Outcomes were compared based on a propensity-matched analysis (including demographics, biometrics, and clinical characteristics). Results Within the initial cohort of 727 patients undergoing surgical AVR (mean age = 63 ± SD 6), a propensity-matched cohort identified 151 patients each with bAVR (mean age = 61 ± 4) and mAVR (mean age = 60 ± 5). Patients who received mAVR versus bAVR had improved all-cause survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.99) but increased risk of major bleeding (HR 4.85; 95% CI 1.57-14.98). There were no significant differences in CV mortality (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.19-1.74), MACE (HR 0.59; 95 % CI 0.32-1.07), or DAOH by prosthesis type (P = 0.452). Conclusions Patients aged 50-70 years who underwent mAVR had lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with bAVR, despite higher bleeding risk. Although risks of CV mortality and MACE were lower in mAVR, statistical significance was not reached, likely due to the small sample size. Larger studies are necessary to confirm these findings, which have important clinical implications.

Redo surgical aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration.

To compare isolated primary bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with isolated redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR) due to structural valve deterioration (SVD). Clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent primary isolated SAVR and isolated rSAVR due to SVD between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2022, at Leipzig Heart Center were retrospectively compared with regard to the primary outcome of all-cause mortality or stroke during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes of interest included myocardial infarction, re-exploration for bleeding, and permanent pacemaker implantation. A total of 2620 patients, 39.5% females, with a median EuroSCORE II of 1.7 (interquartile Range [IQR] 1.1; 2.7] were identified, of which rSAVR was performed in 174 patients (6.6%). Patients undergoing primary SAVR were older (69 versus 67 years of age, p = 0.001) and were less likely to have a history of prior stroke (0.9% versus 4.0%, p = 0.003). Although both all-cause death and death or stroke occurred less often following primary SAVR (0.5% versus 5.8%, and 2.2% versus 6.9%, respectively; p < 0.001), prior surgery was not associated with adverse clinical outcome in multivariable analysis. In a matched comparison of 322 patients, rates of death or stroke did not differ between groups (4.8% for both rSAVR and SAVR, p = 1.0). Although redo surgery for SVD is associated with increased rates of early mortality and stroke by univariate analysis, much of this increased risk can be accounted for by comorbidities. Patients undergoing rSAVR on an elective basis can expect an outcome similar to that of primary SAVR.

Trends and Outcomes of Aortic Root Enlargement During Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundAortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) mitigates prosthesis-patient mismatch, but its use has been low. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) as a treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves is limited by small surgical valves, renewing interest in ARE during the index AVR. This study demonstrates trends and outcomes of ARE after commercial approval of VIV in 2015. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 2182 patients undergoing nonemergent AVR between August 2007 and December 2022. Endocarditis, aortic dissection, and concomitant root replacement or ventricular assist device placement were excluded. Trends in ARE use, valve size, and types were compared. Outcome measures included 30-day mortality and gradients and were compared between patients with and without ARE. ResultsOverall, 74 patients (3.4%) underwent ARE, 14 (1.0%) before 2015 and 60 (7.6%, P < .0001) after 2015. Use of smaller valves (19-21 mm) decreased from 372 (26.8%) before 2015 to 85 (10.7%, P < .0001) after 2015. ARE group was younger than the AVR-alone group (64 vs 68 years, P = .001) but had similar predicted risk of mortality (median, 1.7%). Both groups had comparable postoperative mean gradients (ARE: 11 vs AVR-alone: 10 mm Hg, P = .42). ARE had higher 30-day mortality (5 [7%] vs 48 [2%], P = .014); however, no difference was found in elective patients (2 of 65 [3%] vs 39 of 1898 [2%], P = .57). ConclusionsARE use has increased since commercial approval of VIV. The addition of ARE to AVR did not affect early safety in elective cases, and postoperative gradients were similar to those in patients not requiring ARE. Further studies are required to determine long-term outcomes after ARE, including VIV candidacy.

Correlations between intraoperative and postoperative echocardiographic measurements in patients undergoing aortic bioprosthetic valve replacement: a prospective observational study.

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) should be avoided during surgical aortic valve replacement because PPM would worsen the mortality and morbidity. Diagnosis of PPM could be made using various parameters measured by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. However, few studies have examined which parameters correlate most accurately between intraoperative and postoperative values. This single-center prospective observational study analyzed 46 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Echocardiography was performed at the following 3-time points: preoperatively, intraoperatively, and 1month postoperatively. The correlation between intraoperative and postoperative measurement values, including peak velocity (PV), mean pressure gradient (MPG), effective orifice area (EOA), and effective orifice area index (EOAI), were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Moreover, to evaluate whether a multivariable linear regression model with intraoperative and postoperative stroke volume added as an explanatory variable improves the correlation, the multiple correlation coefficients were calculated. PV, MPG, EOA, and EOAI measured intraoperatively and 1month postoperatively were significantly correlated. The r values of each measurement were 0.35, 0.344, 0.411 and 0.323, respectively. The multivariable linear regression model showed that the multiple correlation coefficients for MG and EOA were 0.491 and 0.663, respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative PV, MPG, EOA, and EOAI were significantly correlated in patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve. The r value for EOA was 0.441, the largest among the measured values. Adjustment for stroke volume improved the strength of the correlation. Intraoperative evaluation of prosthetic valve function was considered most appropriate using EOA. University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, registration number UMIN000046164, https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000052695 .

Analysis of Energy and Pressure in the Sinus with Different Blood Pressures after Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

To investigate the effect of changing systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively) on sinus flow andvalvular and epicardial coronary flow dynamics after TAVR and SAVR. SAPIEN 3 and Magna valves were deployed in an idealized aortic root model as part of a pulse duplicating left heart flow loop simulator. Different combinations of SBP and DBP were applied to the test setup and the resulting change in total coronary flow from baseline (120/60mmHg), effective orifice area (EOA), and left ventricular (LV) workload, with each combination, was assessed. In addition, particle image velocimetry was used to assess the Laplacian of pressure ( ) in the sinus, coronary and main flow velocities, the energy dissipation rate (EDR) in the sinus and the LV workload. This study shows that under an elevated SBP, there is an increase in the total coronary flow, EOA, LV workload, peak velocities downstream of the valve, , and EDR. With an elevated DBP, there was an increase in the total coronary flow and . However, EOA and LV workload decreased with an increase in DBP, and EDR increased with a decrease in DBP. Blood pressure alters the hemodynamics in the sinus and downstream flow following aortic valve replacement, potentially influencing outcomes in some patients.

Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.

The choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains challenging. The risk of anticoagulation complications vs. the risk of aortic valve reintervention should be weighed. This study compared the outcomes of bioprosthetic vs. mechanical AVR in patients older and younger than 50. This retrospective study was conducted from 2009 to 2019 and involved 292 adult patients who underwent isolated AVR. The patients were divided according to their age (above 50 years or 50 years and younger) and the type of valves used in each age group. The outcomes of bioprosthetic valves (Groups 1a (>50 years) and 1b (≤50 years)) were compared with those of mechanical valves (Groups 2a (>50 years) and 2b (≤50 years)) in each age group. The groups had nearly equal rates of preexisting comorbidities except for Group 1b, in which the rate of hypertension was greater (32.6% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.025). This group also had higher rates of old stroke (8.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.011) and higher creatinine clearance (127.62 (108.82-150.23) vs. 110.02 (84.87-144.49) mL/min; p = 0.026) than Group 1b. Patients in Group 1a were significantly older than Group 2a (64 (58-71) vs. 58 (54-67) years; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the NYHA class between the groups. The preoperative ejection fraction and other echocardiographic parameters did not differ significantly between the groups. Re-exploration for bleeding was more common in patients older than 50 years who underwent mechanical valve replacement (p = 0.021). There was no difference in other postoperative complications between the groups. The groups had no differences in survival, stroke, or bleeding rates. Aortic valve reintervention was significantly greater in patients ≤ 50 years old with bioprosthetic valves. There were no differences between groups in the changes in left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, or peak aortic valve pressure during the 5-year follow-up. The outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic valve replacement were comparable in patients older than 50 years. Using bioprosthetic valves in patients younger than 50 years was associated with a greater rate of valve reintervention, with no beneficial effect on the risk of bleeding or stroke.

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Under 50 Years: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

To compare the long-term outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged <50 years, we performed a study-level meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data including studies published by December of 2023. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included reoperation, major bleeding, and stroke. A total of 5 studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 4,245 patients (2,311 mechanical and 1,934 bioprosthetic). All studies were observational and the mean age of groups across the studies ranged from 38.2 to 43.0 years. The median follow-up time was 11.4 years (interquartile range 6.9 to 15.0). Bioprosthetic AVR was associated with reduced overall survival and higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.170 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.002 to 1.364, p = 0.046), increased risk of reoperation over time (HR 2.581, 95% CI 2.102 to 3.168, p <0.001), decreased risk of major bleeding (HR 0.500, 95% CI 0.367 to 0.682, p <0.001), and decreased risk of stroke (HR 0.751, 95% C, 0.565 to 0.998, p = 0.049) compared with mechanical AVR in patients aged <50 years. In conclusion, for patients aged <50 years, bioprosthetic AVR is associated with increased mortality and risk of reoperation compared with mechanical valves. In contrast, mechanical AVR is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events and stroke. These aspects should be carefully considered during the selection of valve type in this age group; however, we should keep in mind that the statistically significant differences in the risk of all-cause death and stroke might not be clinically relevant (because of marginal statistical significance).

Commentator Discussion: Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in young patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis

Commentator Discussion: Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in young patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis

Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in young patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis

ObjectiveTo examine long-term surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes for young (ie, younger than age 65 years) patients with bicuspid aortic valve and aortic stenosis (AS) with or without concomitant aneurysm. BackgroundThere are few studies evaluating the early and late outcomes of SAVR in young patients (younger than age 65 years) with bicuspid aortic valve and AS. MethodsUsing institutional data from 2004 through 2022, 498 patients with bicuspid aortic valve younger than age 65 years underwent SAVR for AS with bioprosthetic valves. We examined operative outcomes, long-term valve durability, and reintervention. ResultsThe total cohort comprised 281 patients undergoing isolated SAVR and 217 with concomitant aneurysm repair (SAVR/aneurysm). The average age was 55 ± 8 years, with Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score of median 0.7 (IQR 0.5, 1.0) and mean valve size of 25 mm. Operative mortality (0.7% vs 1.4%; P = .77) was similar between SAVR and SAVR/aneurysm patients. Predischarge permanent pacemaker implantation occurred in 1.6% (8 out of 498) patients. During overall follow-up of 5.0 years (IQR 1.8-9.9; range, 0.2-18.2 years), the cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years for structural valve degeneration (n = 33), including valve-in-valve (n = 15) was 6.6% (8.1% SAVR vs 4.5% SAVR/aneurysm; P = .66). No mortality was observed for valve-in-valve or redo-SAVR. Moderate or greater aortic regurgitation and paravalvular leak were observed in 6.5% and 0.3%, respectively, at most recent follow-up. ConclusionsBicuspid AS is common in patients younger than 65 years and management includes consideration of future valve intervention. SAVR confers excellent operative and reoperative outcomes, 10-year durability, and valve function. These results may support initial SAVR when considering lifetime management of AS.

Perioperative Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement in Patients Sensitized to Alpha-gal

BackgroundAlpha-gal syndrome from tick bites, due to sensitivity to alpha-gal, can cause severe allergies. Heart valve implants contain alpha-gal, yet alpha-gal syndrome screening is not standard before valve replacement. This study examines perioperative outcomes in patients with alpha-gal antibodies. MethodsThis is a single-institution prospective cohort study of patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement between January 2022 and January 2023. Anti-alpha-gal immunoglobulin E levels were measured, with primary outcomes being severe allergic reactions and in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes including intensive care unit and hospital stay. ResultsOf 155 patients, 32.7% (n = 19) of surgical aortic valve replacement and 29.9% (n = 29) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients had detectable immunoglobulin E levels without subsequent serious allergic reactions or in-hospital mortality. Postoperative hospital stay and valve function were similar across groups. ConclusionsIn this study, sensitization to alpha-gal was not associated with serious allergic reactions and did not affect immediate aortic valve function after surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Subclinical valve leaflet thrombosis following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.

Subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT) is often an incidental finding characterized by a thin layer of thrombus involving one, two or three leaflets, with typical appearance on multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) of hypo-attenuating defect at the aortic side of the leaflet, also called hypo-attenuating leaflet thickening (HALT). SLT may occur following both transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) or biological surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of this review is to present an overview of the current state of knowledge on the incidence, diagnosis, clinical impact, and management of SLT following TAVR or SAVR. SLT occurs in 10-20% of patients following TAVR and is somewhat more frequent than following SAVR (5-15%). SLT may regress spontaneously without treatment in about 50% of the cases but may also progress to clinically significant valve thrombosis in some cases. Oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonist is reasonable if SLT is detected by echocardiography and/or MDCT during follow-up and is generally efficient to reverse SLT. SLT is associated with mild increase in the risk of stroke but has no impact on survival. SLT has been linked with accelerated structural valve deterioration and may thus impact valve durability and long-term outcomes. SLT is often an incidental finding on echocardiography or MDCT that occurs in 10-20% of patients following TAVR or 5-15% following biological SAVR and is associated with a mild increase in the risk of thrombo-embolic event with no significant impact on mortality but may be associated with reduced valve durability.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Thrombosis: Definitions, Clinical Impact, and Management: A State-of-the-Art Review.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis is frequently detected after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement due to advances in cardiac computed tomography angiography technology and standardized surveillance protocols in low-surgical-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. However, evidence is limited concerning whether subclinical leaflet thrombosis leads to clinical adverse events or premature structural valve deterioration. Furthermore, there may be net harm in the form of bleeding from aggressive antithrombotic treatment in patients with subclinical leaflet thrombosis. This review will discuss the incidence, mechanisms, diagnosis, and optimal management of bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement.

Outcomes of Bioprosthetic Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Younger Than 65 Years

Outcomes of Bioprosthetic Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Younger Than 65 Years

Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement With Repair of Acute Aortic Dissection

Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement With Repair of Acute Aortic Dissection

The Challenges of Aortic Valve Management After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

BackgroundContinuous retrograde flow across the aortic valve from left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy can result in cusp damage and progressive aortic regurgitation, potentially triggering recurrent heart and multiorgan failure. The management of aortic regurgitation after LVAD implantation has not been well defined. MethodsThis study retrospectively reviewed the investigators’ experience with the management of de novo aortic regurgitation requiring intervention in patients with continuous-flow LVAD. ResultsSix patients who had undergone LVAD implantation and who required intervention were identified. Two patients underwent redo sternotomy with bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, and 4 patients underwent percutaneous management, including Amplatzer device (Abbott) placement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. All patients had resolution of aortic regurgitation with improved hemodynamics and relief from heart failure. One early and 2 late deaths occurred. Valve function was intact, with all valves opening intermittently without greater than trivial aortic regurgitation. ConclusionsMultiple treatment modalities exist for LVAD-induced aortic valve regurgitation, including open surgical and percutaneous strategies. With a tailored risk-adjusted approach, acceptable results may be achieved.

THROW YOUR LEAD OVER THE OBSTACLE: A CHALLENGING CRT UPGRADING

Abstract High percentage of right ventricular pacing could lead to pacing induced cardiomyopathy in a non–negligible proportion of patients. Cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrading could represent an option to improve ventricular function, reducing heart failure hospitalizations. A 82 yo male was admitted to hospital with symptomatic heart failure. He had history of complete AV block treated with dual chamber pacemaker implantation five years earlier following coronary artery bypass graft surgery, bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and septal myectomy. He had also history of cardiac arrest occurred in the context of acute coronary syndrome treated with PCI so that ICD implant was not considered at that time, and two more HF hospitalizations in previous years. Progressive LVEF decline was documented since PM impantation until last echo showed severe left ventricular dysfunction (EF 20% from baseline EF 60%). The ECG showed sinus rhythm and wide paced QRS (206 ms) with 100% pacing percentage. A CRT device upgrading was planned. Baseline venography initially showed pervious axillary–subclavian left axis, but unfortunately the guidewire encountered a complete occlusion before entering the superior vena cava. Nevertheless, dye contrast injection documented the presence of a proximal collateral branch (fig A) having a vertical course in the thorax and reaching the lateral wall of the left ventricle with an extrapericardic course then entering the right heart through inferior vena cava. Using a IM 5Fr sheath (usually used by interventional cardiologists to cannulate internal mammary artery) we could reach this branch, inserting a guidewire and finally advancing a quadripolar lead (Fig B–C) which reached the lateral left ventricular wall. LV capture was confirmed when pacing from the three proximal poles, while the distal one caused phrenic nerve capture. The quadripolar lead was connected to the LV port of a three chamber PM along with previous implanted leads thus obtaining biventricular pacing. QRS paced was 50 ms shorter than baseline. No peri–procedural complications occurred. Lead–related venous occlusion might represent an obstacle to CRT upgrade requiring high technical expertise. The presence of a complete venous occlusion might cause procedural failure, particularly in hospitals without surgical facility. In this case, the presence of a collateral branch reaching the lateral wall of the left ventricle allowed to successfully complete the CRT upgrade.

Antithrombotic therapy after heart valve surgery: contemporary practice in the UK.

There is a lack of high-quality data informing the optimal antithrombotic drug strategy following bioprosthetic heart valve replacement or valve repair. Disparity in recommendations from international guidelines reflects this. This study aimed to document current patterns of antithrombotic prescribing after heart valve surgery in the UK. All UK consultant cardiac surgeons were e-mailed a custom-designed survey. The use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and/or antiplatelet drugs following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement or mitral valve replacement, or mitral valve repair (MVrep), for patients in sinus rhythm, without additional indications for antithrombotic medication, was assessed. Additionally, we evaluated anticoagulant choice following MVrep in patients with atrial fibrillation. We identified 260 UK consultant cardiac surgeons from 36 units, of whom 103 (40%) responded, with 33 units (92%) having at least 1 respondent. The greatest consensus was for patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, in which 76% of surgeons favour initial antiplatelet therapy and 53% prescribe lifelong treatment. Only 8% recommend initial OAC. After bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement, 48% of surgeons use an initial OAC strategy (versus 42% antiplatelet), with 66% subsequently prescribing lifelong antiplatelet therapy. After MVrep, recommendations were lifelong antiplatelet agent alone (34%) or following 3 months OAC (20%), no antithrombotic agent (20%), or 3 months OAC (16%). After MVrep for patients with established atrial fibrillation, surgeons recommend warfarin (38%), a direct oral anticoagulant (37%) or have no preference between the 2 (25%). There is considerable variation in the use of antithrombotic drugs after heart valve surgery in the UK and a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice, underscoring the need for randomized studies.

Continuous or interrupted pledgeted suture technique in stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a comparison of in-hospital outcomes

BackgroundThere is ambiguity in the literature regarding the continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR). At our center, there has been a gradual shift towards CST over the interrupted pledgeted technique (IPT). This study aims at comparing outcomes for both techniques.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center study of patients undergoing AVR between January 2011 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Continuous suture technique and interrupted pledget-reinforced sutures. The pre-operative and In-hospital clinical characteristics and echocardiographic hemodynamics (i.e. transvalvular gradients and paravalvular leakage) were compared between CST and IPT.ResultsWe compared 791 patients with CST to 568 patients with IPT (median age: 73 and 74 years, respectively, p = 0.02). In CST there were 35% concomitant procedure vs. 31% in IPT (p = 0.16). Early mortality was 3.2% in CST versus 4.8% in IPT (p = 0.15), and a second cross-clamp due to a paravalvular-leak in 0.5% vs. 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.22). The CST was not associated with new-onset conduction-blocks mandating pacemaker implants(OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54–2.14; P = 0.85). The postoperative gradients on echocardiography were lower in CST compared to IPT, especially in smaller annuli (peak gradients: 15.7mmHg vs. 20.5mmHg, in valve size < 23 mm, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe continuous suture technique was associated with lower postoperative gradients and shorter cross-clamp time compared to interrupted pledgeted technique. Differences in paravalvular leaks were non-significant, although slightly less in the continuous suture technique. There were no further differences in valve-related complications. Hence, continues suture technique is safe, with better hemodynamics compared to the interrupted pledgeted technique. This may be of clinical importance, especially in smaller size annular size.