Significant Aortic Insufficiency Research Articles

Management of aortic valve insufficiency in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: a republication of the review published in Japanese Journal of Artificial Organs.

Since 2011, implantable ventricular assist devices have been a standard treatment for severe heart failure alongside heart transplantation in Japan. However, the limited availability of donors has led to a prolonged wait for transplants, now averaging 1719days, intensifying the issue of aortic insufficiency in patients with continuous flow ventricular assist devices. These devices limit the opening of the aortic valve, leading to sustained closure and increased shear stress, which accelerates valve degradation. Risk factors for aortic insufficiency include having a smaller body surface area, being of advanced age, and the presence of mild aortic insufficiency prior to device implantation. In patients presenting with mild or moderate aortic regurgitation at the time of ventricular assist device implantation, interventions such as aortic valve repair or bioprosthetic valve replacement are performed with the aim of halting its progression. The choice of surgical procedure should be tailored to each patient's individual condition. The management of de novo aortic insufficiency in patients with continuous flow ventricular assist devices remains challenging, with no clear consensus on when to intervene. Interventions for significant aortic insufficiency typically consider the patient's symptoms and aortic insufficiency severity. De novo aortic insufficiency progression in continuous flow ventricular assist devices patients necessitates careful monitoring and intervention based on individual patient assessments and valve condition. This review was created based on a translation of the Japanese review written in the Japanese Journal of Artificial Organs in 2023 (Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 77-80), with some modifications.

Abstract 18152: Clinical Impact and Mechanism of De Novo Aortic Insufficiency During Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device Support for Cardiogenic Shock

Introduction: Recently, percutaneous ventricular assist device (p-LVAD) has been widely applicable for cardiogenic shock. Clinically significant aortic insufficiency (AI) is contraindication for p-LVAD, nevertheless p-LVAD itself can cause de novo AI (dAI) during the support. However the detail of dAI during p-LVAD support was not fully investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of AI during p-LVAD support and also investigate the mechanism and risk factor of dAI. Methods: Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent p-LVAD support (average age 66.7 years, Impella CP/2.5 in 65 and 5.5/5.0 in 12 cases) from 2018 to 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. The average support periods was 8.0±6.9 days. dAI was defined as development of AI ≥ moderate during p-LVAD support. Aortic valve pathology was examined using autopsy specimens in eight patients. Results: Three patients had AI ≥ moderate before p-LVAD support and underwent surgical intervention (AVR in 2 and AV repair in 1) during p-LVAD support. dAI was observed in 8 patients (10.3%, moderate in 7 and severe in 1). Moderate dAI in four of these patients improved after cardiac recovery and weaning of p-LVAD support. However, in 3 other patients with dAI ≥ moderate developed hemodynamic instability and deceased due to heart failure. In only a patient, moderate dAI remained after p-LVAD weaning with stable hemodynamics. Progression of AI after p-LVAD removal was not observed in all patients. In-hospital mortality was higher in the patient with dAI (75.0 vs. 47.8%, p=0.14). Pathological evaluation revealed hemorrhagic change at LV side of aortic valve with hemosiderin-laden macrophages in 3 autopsy specimens, which suggested contact of p-LVAD catheter. The univariate analysis identified mild AI before p-LVAD support as independent risk factor for dAI (Odd ratio 5.5, 95%CI 0.074-0.45, p<0.001). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that de novo AI frequently occurred during p-LVAD support and had a negative impact on hemodynamics and prognosis. Interference with aortic valve by the p-LVAD catheter may cause and exacerbate AI, even in the cases with pre-existing mild AI. Surgical intervention is essential to improve hemodynamics for severe and permanent AI during p-LVAD support.

Aortic Valve Replacement and Repair With or Without Concomitant Ascending Aorta Replacement: Impact on Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Aortic valve surgery is a common procedure used to treat significant aortic valve stenosis or insufficiency. Some of these patients have coexisting pathology affecting the ascending aorta requiring ascending aorta replacement (AAR). Although the outcomes of these procedures are independently positive, it is proposed that concomitant AAR improves outcomes and minimizes the chances of future ascending aorta replacement. A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies published since 2010 comparing outcomes of aortic valve repair and replacement with or without concomitant ascending aorta replacement was undertaken using electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase Ovid, and SCOPUS. Major exclusion criteria were (1) conference posters, literature reviews, editorials; (2) aortic root surgery, aortic arch surgery, or other surgeries (3) case series with less than 5 participants. A total of 1189 patients from 6 retrospective cohort studies were included in the final review, from which clinical outcomes such as mortality and complications were compared. Mortality rates were similar in both intervention groups. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in reexploration rates due to bleeding, stroke, postoperative dialysis, and atrial fibrillation. Survival rates varied but had no significant difference between interventions. Both isolated aortic valve surgery and concomitant AAR procedures offer comparable favourable outcomes in terms of mortality, survival rates, and complication risks. However, the evidence is limited by the lack of randomized controlled trials. We recommend that future studies should standardize reporting on postoperative recovery, complications, long-term freedom from reoperations, and long-term changes to aorta dimensions.

Outcomes of aortic valve-sparing root replacement with cusp repair in connective tissue disease

BackgroundAlthough, valve sparing is commonly performed in patients with Marfan syndrome, feasibility and results of cusp repair for aortic insufficiency have not been studied. AimTo report on the outcomes and durability of aortic cusp repair in valve sparing in patients with Marfan syndrome. MethodsAll consecutive adult patients with Marfan syndrome who underwent remodelling and annuloplasty with aortic valve repair for aortic insufficiency between May 2005 and December 2020 were included. Patients with Marfan syndrome treated for aortic aneurysm, but without aortic insufficiency, were excluded. Data were collected prospectively and reviewed retrospectively from the Aorticvalve repair International Registry (AVIATOR). ResultsDuring the study period, 71 patients with Marfan syndrome were referred to surgery. Fifty-five patients with connective tissue disease and aortic insufficiency with aorta aneurysm were treated: 46 underwent aortic valve repair and nine underwent aortic valve replacement (five mechanical aortic valve replacements and four biological aortic valve replacements). The mean age was 42.9±15.4 years, and the mean EuroScore II was 2.5±2.2. No patient died, and no patient had significant aortic insufficiency (grade≥II) at discharge. The 5-year survival rate estimate was 94.4%, which seems statistically similar to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. At 5 years, freedom from reoperation was 94.6%, and the incidence of infective endocarditis was 2.6%. No valve thrombosis, aortic dissection, major bleeding events, thromboembolic events (stroke) or myocardial infarctions were noted during follow-up. ConclusionRemodelling and aortic valve repair showed excellent durability at 5 years, even in connective tissue disorders.

Long-term experience of the modified David V re-implantation technique for valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

The modified David V technique is one of the valve-sparing aortic root replacement (V-SARR) techniques, which is an alternative to traditional composite valve graft root replacement techniques. We aimed to analyse our long-term experience with the modified David V re-implantation technique for the treatment of aortic root aneurysm and significant aortic valve insufficiency. From March 2009 to November 2021 the modified David V re-implantation technique, one of the V-SARR techniques, was performed on 48 patients in our centre. The results were analysed retrospectively. Two different-sized grafts were used in all patients. The grafts used in the proximal position were larger than the distal grafts. We performed both intra-operative and post-procedural transoesophageal echocardiography on each patient. All patients were followed by means of transthoracic echocardiography. The mean follow-up period was 5.7 ± 3.1 years. The mean age of this cohort was 56.3 ± 14.3 years (24-79) and the majority were men (75%). The mean aortic root diameter was 5.1 ± 0.6 cm. The mean diameter for the assending aorta was 5.4 ± 2.1 cm. The in-hospital mortality rate was 4.2% (n = 2). One patient needed aortic valve replacement in the early postoperative period. Two (4.2%) patients died in the early postoperative period and four (8.3%) died in the late postoperative period. Overall survival was 91 ± 4 and 86 ± 5% at one and five years, respectively. Aortic valve insufficiency was at moderate levels postoperatively. Freedom from moderate to severe residual aortic insufficiency was 89.6% at 10 years. None of the patients needed late re-operation of the aortic valve postoperatively. Freedom from valve re-operation was 100% at the end of the follow up. Our study shows that the David V technique is associated with excellent long-term durability, a remarkably low rate of valve-related complications, and it protects the re-implanted native aortic valve from a second operation. Additionally this technique could be safely implemented in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve and acute type A aortic dissection without leaflet deformity.

CARC12: Surgical Correction of De Novo Aortic Valve Insufficiency after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Background: Development of significant aortic insufficiency (AI) is a common complication associated with prolonged support with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD). The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes after surgical correction of de novo AI after LVAD implantation. Methods: Between January 2013 and June 2022, 190 patients underwent CF-LVAD implantation. Of them, 24 had trivial or less AI before LVAD implantation and developed moderate or greater de novo AI after LVAD implantation. Those who had undergone aortic valve surgery before or concomitant with LVAD surgery were excluded. Among the 24 patients, surgeries were indicated for medically refractory de novo AI in 11 patients, who were included in the current study. Primary endpoint was post-operative improvement in hemodynamics as assessed with right heart catheter examination, and the secondary endpoint was 3-year survival and freedom from death and/or heart failure readmission rate. Results: Correction of de novo AI were accomplished with aortic valve closure with bovine pericardial patch in 10 patients and prosthetic valve replacement in one patient. After surgery, pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), and cardiac index (CI), mixed venous blood oxygen saturation (SvO2) significantly improved compared with preoperative baseline (Figure). The mean follow-up after LVAD implantation was 1413days, and the 3-year survival rate was 90.9%. The freedom from postoperative moderate or greater AI rate, and the freedom from heart failure readmission rate were both 90.9% at 3 years. Conclusion: In patients who were indicated for surgical correction of de novo AI after LVAD implantation, postoperative hemodynamic improvement and survival were considered favorable.Figure 1. Hemodynamic change in three states

Endoscopically assisted selective antegrade cardioplegia in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for patients with aortic insufficiency

In minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a right minithoracotomy for patients with significant aortic insufficiency, optimal cardioplegia delivery procedures remain controversial. This study aimed to describe and evaluate endoscopically assisted selective cardioplegia delivery in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency. Between September 2015 and February 2022, 104 patients (mean age, 66.0±14.3 years) with moderate or greater aortic insufficiency underwent endoscopically assisted minimally invasive aortic valve replacement at our institutions. For myocardial protection, potassium chloride and landiolol were systemically administered before aortic crossclamping, and cold crystalloid cardioplegia was delivered selectively to the coronary arteries using step-by-step endoscopic procedures. The early clinical outcomes were also evaluated. Eighty-four patients (80.7%) had severe aortic insufficiency, and 13 patients (12.5%) had aortic stenosis and moderate or greater aortic insufficiency. A regular prosthesis was used in 97 cases (93.3%), and a sutureless prosthesis was used in 7 cases (6.7%). The mean operative, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic crossclamping times were 169.3±36.5, 102.4±25.4, and 72.5±21.8minutes, respectively. No patients underwent a conversion to full sternotomy or required mechanical circulatory support during or after surgery. No operative deaths or perioperative myocardial infarctions occurred. The median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 1 and 5 days, respectively. Endoscopically assisted selective antegrade cardioplegia delivery is safe and feasible for treating minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients with significant aortic insufficiency.

Remodeling versus reimplantation in aortic root surgery – comparative results and risk factors for aortic insufficiency

Highlights. The main approaches to the aortic root valve-sparing surgery of are reimplantation and remodeling;The literature review demonstrates either the relative identity of the reimplantation and remodeling clinical outcomes, or the advantage of reimplantation in relation to long-term results.Abstract. In recent decades, valve-sparring methods of aortic root replacement, including reimplantation and remodeling, as well as their modifications, have been developed and put into widespread practice. The effectiveness and durability of these two approaches is the subject of discussions in the modern cardiac surgery community. The global experience in performing remodeling and reimplantation procedures allows for a comprehensive literature review to compare the results of these approaches. The presented review is devoted to the comparison of surgical aspects and clinical outcomes of reimplantation and remodeling techniques, the analysis of the feasibility of restoring the physiological architectonics of the aortic root in valve-sparring operations using Valsalva grafts, as well as the assessment of risk factors for residual aortic insufficiency after such interventions. The search strategy included the analysis of international (PubMed, Scopus, Embase) databases for the following keywords: “reimplantation versus remodeling for aortic root valve-sparring procedures”, “David procedure versus Yacoub procedure”, “Valsalva graft for aortic root valve-sparring procedures”, “Valve-sparing aortic root repair with an anatomically shaped sinus prosthesis”. Literature analysis demonstrates either the relative identity of early and long-term results of reimplantation and remodeling procedures, or the advantage of reimplantation in terms of freedom from late mortality and residual aortic insufficiency. Preservation of the physiology of the aortic root by implantation of Valsalva grafts or remodeling provides better hemodynamics and reduces stress on the leaflets, however, these postulates run counter to the data of clinical studies analyzing postoperative outcomes and demonstrating the lack of advantages of Valsalva grafts over linear prostheses in terms of freedom from aortic valve surgery. Residual postoperative regurgitation of a mild degree, a decrease in the effective height below 9 mm and additional interventions on the leaflets are reliable factors of significant aortic insufficiency in the long-term period after valve-sparring operations on the aortic root.

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Securement.

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Securement.

Is native aortic valvuloplasty at time of Norwood operation in infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome and aortic stenosis safe?

In hypoplastic left heart syndrome, the size and function of the left ventricle vary and are dependent on the patency of the aortic valve. A patent native aortic valve, permitting left ventricular ejection, can augment cardiac output. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with hypoplastic left heart syndrome and a stenotic aortic valve who underwent native aortic valvuloplasty at the time of Norwood and found that none of the eight patients identified had clinically significant aortic insufficiency. This case series suggests that surgical aortic valvuloplasty at Norwood is associated with aortic valve patency/augmented systemic cardiac output without the development of clinically significant aortic regurgitation at intermediate follow-up in a limited cohort.

Aortic valve fenestration: respect it or fix it?

We investigated whether aortic valve fenestrations (respected or fixed) represent a factor associated with recurrent aortic insufficiency or reoperation after repair. Between 2003 and 2019, patients who underwent aortic valve repair were included. Aortic insufficiency phenotypes were root aneurysm (repair: root remodelling + annuloplasty), ascending aorta aneurysm (repair: tubular aortic replacement + annuloplasty) and isolated regurgitation (repair: single/double annuloplasty). Fenestrations were either respected or fixed according to their features. A total of 618 patients (out of 798 operated on; 77.4%) had their valve repaired, with 167 cases of fenestrations (128 were respected, 39 fixed-32 with a patch, 6 with running suture and 1 with both). After conducting propensity score matching between no-fenestration (n = 167) and fenestration groups (n = 167), respectively, we noted the following: survival [90.3% (n = 7 deaths) vs 95.8% (n = 4)], cumulative incidence of reoperation [6.7% (n = 7) vs 5.2% (n = 4)], aortic insufficiency grade ≥ 3 [6.4% (n = 6) vs 4.4% (n = 4)] and grade ≥ 2 [28.9% (n = 28) vs 37.1% (n = 35)] were similar at 9 years [P = 0.94; median follow-up: 2.2, interquartile range: (0.8, 5.8)], whether fenestration was respected (P = 0.55) or fixed (P = 0.6, at 6 years). Standardization of the surgical approach (consisting of double annuloplasty in isolated regurgitation phenotype and expansible subvalvular annuloplasty with effective height assessment with remodelling repair for root aneurysm phenotype) reduced the risk of reoperation (era before standardization: hazard ratio: 5.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.9-15.7, P = 0.002). Fenestration, respected or fixed, is not a factor associated with reoperation or recurrence of significant aortic insufficiency after valve repair if the surgical approach is standardized.

Reply: Reimplantation should be the gold standard to treat the regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve.

Reply: Reimplantation should be the gold standard to treat the regurgitant bicuspid aortic valve.

Bentall–De Bono procedure for aortic regurgitation and intraoperative rupture of moderately dilated ascending aorta: A case report

We herein present a clinical case of root and ascending aortic replacement in a patient with borderline enlargement of the ascending aorta and aortic valve insufficiency. A 65-year-old man was admitted to our clinic with signs of heart failure. Subsequent echocardiography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed hemodynamically significant aortic insufficiency, as well as expansion of the ascending aorta. Diameter at the levels of the sinuses of Valsalva, sinotubular junction and tubular portion of the ascending aorta were 48, 47 and 44 mm, respectively. Based on the aforementioned data, indications for isolated aortic valve replacement were determined. Although the main portion of the surgery was unremarkable, at its final stage, a rupture of a section of the ascending aorta occurred. The results of intraoperative express histological examination of the enlarged aorta revealed connective tissue dysplasia and cystic median necrosis. Replacement of the ascending aorta was performed using the modified Bentall–De Bono technique. This case demonstrated that a borderline aortic dilatation of 40–50 mm at the ascending aorta was associated with pathological changes in its wall, which can cause fatal complications (rupture and dissection) and may require a more aggressive approach during surgical correction. Intraoperative express histological examination of the wall of the ascending aorta in ambiguous situations can help determine the scope of the intervention.Received 16 March 2021. Revised 14 September 2021. Accepted 15 September 2021.Funding: The study did not have sponsorship.Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.Contribution of the authors Literature review: S.Yu. Boldyrev, M.A. Marukyan Drafting the article: S.Yu. Boldyrev, M.A. Marukyan, V.N. Suslova Critical revision of the article: S.Yu. Boldyrev, V.A. Porkhanov Surgical treatment: S.Yu. Boldyrev, M.A. Marukyan Final approval of the version to be published: S.Yu. Boldyrev, M.A. Marukyan, V.N. Suslova, K.O. Barbukhatti, V.A. Porkhanov

Proximal ascending aorta size is associated with the incidence of de novo aortic insufficiency with left ventricular assist device.

We sought to assess the impact of the aortic root geometry on developing de novo aortic insufficiency (AI) in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD). In total, 114 patients underwent LVAD implantation between February 2016 and January 2020 were included in this study (HeartMate3 N = 68, HeartWare N = 46). Significant aortic insufficiency was defined as mild-to-moderate or greater in echocardiography. The cohort was divided into two groups; those who developed significant AI (Group AI: n = 13) and did not (Group non-AI: n = 101). The primary outcomes of interest included late survival and predictors for significant AI. The patients in Group AI were older than Group non-AI (62.6 ± 11.9 vs 51.3 ± 14.0years, p < 0.01). The diameter of proximal ascending aorta in Group AI was larger than Group non-AI (31.0 ± 5.0 vs 27.4 ± 4.3mm, p < 0.01). Aortic valve remained closed in 53.8% in Group AI and 36.6% in Group non-AI (p = 0.24). The late survival was not significantly different between the groups (67.1% vs 76.0% at 3years, log rank = 0.97). The Cox hazard model showed that larger proximal ascending aortic diameter/BSA (HR 1.55, CI 1.19-2.04, p < 0.01) and not-opening aortic valve (HR 4.73, CI 1.43-16.9, p = 0.01) were independent risk factors for significant AI. The cutoff value of proximal ascending aortic diameter/BSA was 15.5 (area under curve: 0.770, sensitivity: 0.69, specificity: 0.79). Dilated proximal ascending aorta at the time of LVAD surgery and not-opening aortic valve during follow-up were associated with the incidence of de novo significant AI.

Role of Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty in the Management of Aortic Stenosis

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) provides an excellent alternative to surgical intervention and has become the preferred intervention for initial palliation for aortic stenosis in neonates, infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. The elderly patients with calcific aortic stenosis do not benefit from BAV. With the exception of neonates, most patients can be discharged home within 24-hours of the procedure. Although there is definitive evidence for pressure gradient relief immediately after as well as at follow-up and postponement of surgical intervention following BAV, the progression of aortic insufficiency at late follow up remain a major concern. In the neonatal population, severe aortic insufficiency may develop requiring surgical intervention. Despite these limitations, balloon aortic valvuloplasty is currently considered as therapeutic procedure of choice in the management of congenital aortic stenosis in the pediatric and young adult population. Careful follow-up to detect recurrence of stenosis and development of significant aortic insufficiency is recommended.

Less Invasive Reoperative Ventricular Assist Device Insertion for Patients With Patent Bypass Grafts

We report our technique for left ventricular assist device insertion that is useful in patients with patent coronary artery bypass grafts or mediastinal adhesions from other previous surgeries. An inverted-T upper hemisternotomy is made at the level of the second or third intercostal space, and with the left sternal section retracted, dissection is carried along the chest wall into the left pleural space. The device is implanted in the left ventricular apex via a left thoracotomy in the fifth or sixth intercostal space. The outflow graft is routed through the left pleural space and anastomosed to the ascending aorta.

The Impact of Pump Speed and Blood Pressure Optimization on Severe Aortic Valve Insufficiency with Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Mock Loop Study

It is cumbersome to medically optimize the RPM setup and afterload adjustment for patients with significant aortic valve insufficiency (AI) with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Limited amount of information is available regarding the optimal RPM setting or afterload adjustment without adverse effect on the degree of AI. All measurements were performed using a mock circulatory system with a dilated silicone LV model attached to a HeartMateII LVAD (Abbott Labs). Baseline condition was established with 17% ejection fraction, 62 bpm heart rate, LVAD set at 8,800rpm pump flow and 90 mmHg systemic aortic pressure, followed by testing at 8,800 and 9,200 rpm, and two systemic aortic pressure conditions (90 and 80 mmHg at 8,800 rpm). Severe AI was created with a small 3-D printed stent which was nonobstructive to forward flow but prevented the leaflets from fully closing. LVAD, aortic valve and systemic flow were recorded in each situation. Q ratio was calculated with LVAD flow/systemic flow, which represented an efficiency of LVAD flow contribution to the systemic flow. With the constant circuit afterload at 90mmHg, an RPM increase from 8,800 RPM to 9,200 resulted in systemic flow increase by 21% (2.27 to 2.74 L/min) with a 16% increase in LVAD flow (3.09 to 3.58 L/min), similar aortic valve flow (-0.82 to -0.84 L/min) and improvement in Q ratio (1.36 to 1.31). The regurgitant flow was similar in 8,800 vs. 9,200 (-0.86 vs. -0.83 L/min) in the severe AI setting. With the constant RPM at 8,800, an afterload reduction by 10 mmHg resulted in an increase of the systemic flow by 28% (2.27 to 2.91 L/min) with a LVAD flow increase of 14% (3.09 to 3.52 L/min), aortic valve flow increase of 23% (-0.82 to -0.61 L/min) and improvement in Q ratio (1.36 to 1.21). The alteration in the regurgitant flow was minimal between 90mmHg vs. 80mmHg afterload (-0.86 to -0.81 L/min). Both RPM increase and afterload reduction increased systemic flow and LVAD flow with improved Q ratio. The regurgitant flow stayed constant either with RPM increase or afterload reduction with the fixed regurgitant valve area. This mock-loop study suggests that both afterload reduction and RPM increase should improve systemic flow without increasing the degree of AI after LVAD implant.

Correction of High Afterload Improves Low Cardiac Output in Patients Supported on Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy.

There is a paucity of data describing the invasive assessment of afterload and influence on cardiac output in patients supported on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. From 2015 to 2018, patients on LVAD therapy were evaluated with simultaneous left/right heart catheterization ramp study for speed optimization. Hemodynamic parameters from 31 patients without significant aortic insufficiency were analyzed. Mean central aortic pressure (MAP) was elevated at 87 ± 13 mm Hg at baseline. No direct association between MAP and cardiac index (CI) was found (r = 0.11, p = 0.20). However, variable MAP provided vastly different patterns of cardiac output response to speed increments (positive correlation, p = 0.047 for MAP <80 mm Hg; negative trend, p = 0.25 for MAP > 100 mm Hg). Patients noted to be hypertensive (MAP > 90, n = 8) received nitrate therapy and experienced both improvement in biventricular filling pressures and a mean increase in CI from 2.4 to 2.9 L/min/m2 (+22%, p = 0.04) at a fixed revolutions per minute. High afterload is common in patients on LVAD therapy, is associated with poor response to ramp, and is ameliorated by nitrates. These findings serve as a foundation to evaluate the dynamic effects of high afterload and chronic vasodilator therapy in patients with durable LVADs.

Short- and intermediate-term results of balloon aortic valvuloplasty and surgical aortic valvotomy in neonates.

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty and open surgical valvotomy are procedures to treat neonatal aortic stenosis, and there is controversy as to which method has superior outcomes. We reviewed the records of patients at our institution since 2000 who had a balloon aortic valvuloplasty or surgical valvotomy via an open commissurotomy prior to 2 months of age. Forty patients had balloon aortic valvuloplasty and 15 patients had surgical valvotomy via an open commissurotomy. There was no difference in post-procedure mean gradient by transthoracic echocardiogram, which were 25.8 mmHg for balloon aortic valvuloplasty and 26.2 mmHg for surgical valvotomy, p = 0.87. Post-procedure, 15% of balloon aortic valvuloplasty patients had moderate aortic insufficiency and 2.5% of patients had severe aortic insufficiency, while no surgical valvotomy patients had moderate or severe aortic insufficiency. The average number of post-procedure hospital days was 14.2 for balloon aortic valvuloplasty and 19.8 for surgical valvotomy (p = 0.52). Freedom from re-intervention was 69% for balloon aortic valvuloplasty and 67% for surgical valvotomy at 1 year, and 43% for balloon aortic valvuloplasty and 67% for surgical valvotomy at 5 years (p = 0.60). Balloon aortic valvuloplasty and surgical valvotomy provide similar short-term reduction in valve gradient. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty has a slightly shorter but not statistically significant hospital stay. Freedom from re-intervention is similar at 1 year. At 5 years, it is slightly higher in surgical valvotomy, though not statistically different. Balloon aortic valvuloplasty had a higher incidence of significant aortic insufficiency. Long-term comparisons cannot be made given the lack of long-term follow-up with surgical valvotomy.

Invited Commentary

In this issue of The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Bilkhu and colleagues1 provide excellent outcomes of remodeling valve-sparing root replacement alone in 98 patients with a majority of connective tissue disorders, tricuspid valve, and no significant aortic insufficiency (AI). They demonstrate in this selected group of patients without annular dilatation (mean annulus preoperatively, 24.2 mm), that the annulus does not dilate significantly postoperatively (mean annulus postoperatively, 25.7 mm) at a mean follow-up of 7 years.