Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement In Patients Research Articles

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

BackgroundData on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. ObjectivesThe authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. MethodsPooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. ResultsThere were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). ConclusionsA low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Cost-utility analysis of TAVI compared with surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in the Netherlands

BackgroundThere is growing evidence to support the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) who are at high- or intermediate-risk of surgical mortality. The PARTNER 3 trial showed clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in patients at low risk of surgical mortality. Whether TAVI is also cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients in the Dutch healthcare system remains uncertain. This article presents an analysis using PARTNER 3 outcomes and costs data from the Netherlands to inform a cost-utility model and examine cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a Dutch low-risk population.MethodsA two-stage cost-utility analysis was performed using a published and validated health economic model based on adverse events with both TAVI and SAVR interventions from a published randomized low risk trial dataset, and a Markov model that captured lifetime healthcare costs and patient outcomes post-intervention. The model was adapted using Netherlands-specific cost data to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsTAVI generated 0.89 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a €4742 increase in costs per patient compared with SAVR over a lifetime time horizon, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5346 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm robust results, with TAVI remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsBased on the model results, compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears cost-effective for the treatment of Dutch patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. Qualitative data suggest broader societal benefits are likely and these findings could be used to optimize appropriate intervention selection for this patient population.

Travel distance and outcomes after surgical aortic valve among veterans.

To investigate the association between travel distance and postoperative length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition among veterans undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing SAVR, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at VA Boston Healthcare (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2015). Postoperative LOS and discharge disposition were compared for SAVR patients based on travel distance to the facility: <100 miles or ≥100 miles. Multivariable regression was performed to ascertain factors associated with LOS and home discharge. Data were collected via chart review. All patients undergoing SAVR at our institution who primarily resided within the defined region were included. Of 597 patients studied, 327 patients underwent isolated SAVR; 270 patients underwent SAVR/CABG. Overall median (IQR) distance between the patient's residence and the hospital was 49.95 miles (27.41-129.94 miles); 190 patients (32%) resided further than 100 miles away. There were no differences in the proportion of patients with diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, or prior myocardial infarction between groups. Overall LOS (IQR) was 9 (7-13) days and did not differ between groups (p = 0.18). The proportion of patients discharged home was higher among patients who resided more than 100 miles from the hospital (71% vs. 58%, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, residing further than 100 miles from the hospital was independently associated with home discharge (OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.09-2.48). Travel distance was not associated with LOS. Based on our institutional experience, potential concerns of longer hospital stay or discharge to other inpatient facilities for geographically distanced patients undergoing SAVR do not appear supported. Continued examination of the drivers underlying the marked shift of veterans to the private sector appears warranted.

Diastolic dysfunction and clinical outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with atypical aortic valve stenosis.

Diastolic dysfunction is a predictor of poor outcomes in many cardiovascular conditions. At present, it is unclear whether diastolic dysfunction predicts adverse outcomes in patients with atypical aortic stenosis who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR). Five hundred and twenty-three patients who underwent transcatheter AVR (TAVR) (n = 303) and surgical AVR (SAVR) (n = 220) at a single institution were included in our analysis. Baseline left and right heart invasive hemodynamics were assessed. Baseline transthoracic echocardiograms were reviewed to determine aortic stenosis subtype and parameters of diastolic dysfunction. Aortic stenosis subtype was categorized as typical (normal flow, high-gradient) aortic stenosis, classical, low-flow, low-gradient (cLFLG) aortic stenosis, and paradoxical, low-flow, low-gradient (pLFLG) aortic stenosis. Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to examine the relation between invasive hemodynamic or echocardiographic variables of diastolic dysfunction, aortic stenosis subtype, and all-cause mortality. Propensity-score analysis was performed to study the relation between aortic stenosis subtype and the composite outcome [death/cerebrovascular accident (CVA)]. The median STS risk was 5.3 and 2.5% for TAVR and SAVR patients, respectively. Relative to patients with typical aortic stenosis, patients with atypical (cLFLG and pLFLG) aortic stenosis displayed a significantly higher prevalence of diastolic dysfunction (LVEDP ≥ 20mmHg, PCWP ≥ 20mmHg, echo grade II or III diastolic dysfunction, and echo-PCWP ≥ 20mmHg) and, independently of AVR treatment modality, had a significantly increased risk of death. In propensity-score analysis, patients with atypical aortic stenosis had higher rates of death/CVA than typical aortic stenosis patients, independently of diastolic dysfunction and AVR treatment modality. We demonstrate the novel observation that compared with patients with typical aortic stenosis, patients with atypical aortic stenosis have a higher burden of diastolic dysfunction. We corroborate the worse outcomes previously reported in atypical versus typical aortic stenosis and demonstrate, for the first time, that this observation is independent of AVR treatment modality. Furthermore, the presence of diastolic dysfunction does not independently predict outcome in atypical aortic stenosis regardless of treatment type, suggesting that other factors are responsible for adverse clinical outcomes in this higher risk cohort.

Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Analysis of the PARTNER Trials

BackgroundOur objective was to compare the impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) for 2 years after surgical aortic valve replacement within the prospective, randomized Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trials. MethodsSurgical aortic valve replacement patients from the PARTNER 1, 2, and 3 trials were included. PPM was classified as moderate (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm2/m2) or severe (indexed effective orifice area ≤0.65 cm2/m2). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death and heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years. ResultsBy the predicted PPM method (PPMP), 59.1% had no PPM, 38.8% moderate PPM, and 2.1% severe PPM; whereas by the measured PPM method (PPMM), 42.4% had no PPM, 36.0% moderate, and 21.6% severe. Patients with no PPMP (23.6%) had a lower rate of the primary endpoint compared with patients with moderate (28.2%, P = .03) or severe PPMP (38.8%, P = .02). Using the PPMM method, there was no difference between the no (17.7%) and moderate PPMM groups (21.1%) in the primary outcome (P = .16). However, those with no PPMM or moderate PPMM were improved compared with severe PPMM (27.4%, P < .001 and P = .02, respectively). ConclusionsSevere PPM analyzed by PPMP was only 2.1% for surgical aortic valve replacement patients. The PPMM method overestimated the incidence of severe PPM relative to PPMP, but was also associated with worse outcome. There was higher all-cause mortality in patients with severe PPM, thus surgical techniques to minimize PPM remain critical.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33,484 patients

IntroductionThe published studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are conflicting. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare TAVI with SAVR in pure AR.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until 23 June 2023. Review Manager was used for statistical analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to compare dichotomous outcomes. Continuous outcomes were compared using the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. The inconsistency test (I2) assessed the heterogeneity. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included studies. We evaluated the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale.ResultsWe included six studies with 5633 patients in the TAVI group and 27,851 in SAVR. In-hospital mortality was comparable between TAVI and SAVR (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.56, 1.42], P = 0.63) (I2 = 86%, P < 0.001). TAVI was favored over SAVR regarding in-hospital stroke (RR = 0.50; 95% CI [0.39, 0.66], P < 0.001) (I2 = 11%, P = 0.34), in-hospital acute kidney injury (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.76], P < 0.001) (I2 = 91%, P < 0.001), major bleeding (RR = 0.23; 95% CI: [0.17, 0.32], P < 0.001) (I2 = 78%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital say (MD = − 4.76 days; 95% CI: [− 5.27, − 4.25], P < 0.001) (I2 = 88%, P < 0.001). In contrast, TAVI was associated with a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (RR = 1.68; 95% CI: [1.50, 1.88], P < 0.001) (I2 = 0% P = 0.83).ConclusionTAVI reduces in-hospital stroke and is associated with better safety outcomes than SAVR in patients with pure AR.

Surgical aortic valve replacement etiologies, hemodynamics, and outcomes in 1346 patients from the Malaysian heart centre

BackgroundThis study examined the characteristics and outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) both isolated and in combination with other cardiac surgery in Malaysia from 2015 to 2021.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of 1346 patients analyzed on the basis of medical records, echocardiograms and surgical reports. The overall sample was both considered as a whole and divided into aortic stenosis (AS)/aortic regurgitation (AR)-predominant and similar-severity subgroups.ResultsThe most common diagnosis was severe AS (34.6%), with the 3 most common etiologies being bicuspid valve degeneration (45.3%), trileaflet valve degeneration (36.3%) and rheumatic valve disease (12.2%). The second most common diagnosis was severe AR (25.5%), with the most common etiologies being root dilatation (21.0%), infective endocarditis (IE) (16.6%) and fused prolapse (12.2%). Rheumatic valve disease was the most common mixed disease. A total of 54.5% had AS-predominant pathology (3 most common etiologies: bicuspid valve degeneration valve, degenerative trileaflet valve and rheumatic valve disease), 36.9% had AR-predominant pathology (top etiologies: root dilatation, rheumatic valve disease and IE), and 8.6% had similar severity of AS and AR. Overall, 62.9% of patients had trileaflet valve morphology, 33.3% bicuspid, 0.6% unicuspid and 0.3% quadricuspid. For AS, the majority were high-gradient severe AS (49.9%), followed by normal-flow low-gradient (LG) severe AS (10.0%), paradoxical low-flow (LF)-LG severe AS (6.4%) and classical LF-LG severe AS (6.1%). The overall in-hospital and total 1-year mortality rates were 6.4% and 14.8%, respectively. Pure severe AS had the highest mortality. For AS-predominant pathology, the etiology with the highest mortality was trileaflet valve degeneration; for AR-predominant pathology, it was dissection. The overall survival probability at 5 years was 79.5% in all patients, 75.7% in the AS-predominant subgroup, 83.3% in the AR-predominant subgroup, and 87.3% in the similar-severity subgroup.ConclusionsThe 3 most common causes of AS- predominant patients undergoing SAVR is bicuspid valve degeneration, degenerative trileaflet valve and rheumatic and for AR-predominant is root dilatation, rheumatic and IE. Rheumatic valve disease is an important etiology in our SAVR patients especially in mixed aortic valve disease.Study registration IJNREC/562/2022.

Rates and Predictors of Structural Valve Degeneration and Failure of Trifecta Bioprosthetic Valve Over a 5-year Follow-up Period: A Single-center Experience

Abstract Introduction: The Trifecta bioprosthetic valve has been commonly used for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Multiple studies have been done to define the rate of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and failure (SVF), but the outcomes are still debatable. Therefore, we aim to conduct this single-center study to estimate the rate and predictors of SVD/SVF. Methodology: This retrospective observational cohort single-center study was conducted between 2014 and 2019 among Trifecta SAVR patients. Data were patient’s characteristics collected from electronic medical records at baseline and follow-up (3–5 years). Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 271 eligible patients were identified. Most of our sample were males (57.9%), with a mean age of 71.1 ± 10.6 years. The mean baseline preoperative ejection fraction (EF) was 53.0%, with no change (P = 0.88) in the immediate postoperative EF (53.6%). A most recent follow-up EF revealed a significant increase of EF (55.2%), P = 0.01. Furthermore, there was a significant increase from peak velocity to PVMRE (mean difference [MD] ± standard error of mean (SEM) [0.15 ± 0.04], P &lt; 0.01), an increase in pressure gradient (PGIPE) to PGMRE (MD ± SEM [1.70 ± 0.49], P &lt; 0.01), and a decrease in Doppler velocity index (DVIIPE) to DVIMRE (MD ± SEM [−0.037 ± 0.01], P = 0.01). Regarding the SVF rate, 13 (4.8%) patients had failed valves requiring replacement throughout the study period. Conclusions: Over a 5-year follow-up period, 4.8% had SVF with an SVD of 23.2%, with the majority of SVD not being clinically significant except in six patients. These results corroborate with a previously published study suggesting a bad clinical outcome of Trifecta valve placement.

Socioeconomic factors and long-term mortality risk after surgical aortic valve replacement

BackgroundThere is scarce knowledge about the association between socioeconomic status and mortality in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement. This study explores the associations between income, education and marital status, and long-term mortality risk. MethodsIn this national registry-based observational cohort study we included all 14,537 patients aged >18 years who underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in Sweden 1997–2020. Socioeconomic status and comorbidities were collected from three mandatory national registries. Cox regression models adjusted for patient characteristics and comorbidities were used to estimate the mortality risk. ResultsMortality risk was higher for patients in the lowest versus the highest income quintile (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.36, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.11–1.65), for patients with <10 years education versus >12 years (aHR 1.20, 95 % CI:1.08–1.33), and for patients who were not married/cohabiting versus those who were (aHR 1.24, 95 % CI:1.04–1.48). Patients with the most unfavorable socioeconomic status (lowest income, shortest education, never married/cohabiting) had an adjusted median survival of 2.9 years less than patients with the most favorable socioeconomic status (14.6 years, 95 % CI: 13.2–17.4 years vs. 11.7 years, 95 % CI: 9.8–14.4). ConclusionsLow socioeconomic status in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with shorter survival and an increased long-term adjusted mortality risk. These results emphasize the importance of identifying surgical aortic valve replacement patients with unfavorable socioeconomic situation and ensure sufficient post-discharge surveillance.

Hemostatic Profiles of Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Guidelines for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) antithrombotic prophylaxis are extrapolated predominantly from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) data. Here, we examined temporal coagulation changes occurring in the early perioperative period to determine the pathobiologic validity of this supposition. This was a prospective observational study of consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR (n=27), PCI (n=12), or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) requiring cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping (n=12). Blood samples were taken at 4 time points: T1 (baseline), after general anesthesia or sedation; T2, after heparin administration; T3, at the end of the procedure; and T4, 6 hours after the procedure. The samples were assessed concurrently using standard laboratory coagulation tests and viscoelastic tests of whole blood clotting, including the latest generation thromboelastometry (ROTEM sigma) and thromboelastometry (TEG 6s). Patients in the TAVR cohort were older and a had lower baseline hemoglobin level than patients in the PCI and SAVR cohorts. The baseline platelet function was similar between the TAVR and PCI cohorts and impaired in the SAVR cohort Figure S1. The baseline hemostatic measures were comparable among cohorts. Regarding the per-patient change from baseline, the TAVR cohort showed an overall more prothrombotic state than the other cohorts, with the most marked differences from the SAVR cohort after intraoperative heparin administration and from the PCI cohorts 6hours after the procedure. In addition, the ROTEM and TEG parameters were well correlated but not interchangeable. In conclusion, patients who underwent TAVR have a more prothrombotic hemostatic profile than PCI and SAVR patients. These findings question the current guidelines that extrapolate antithrombotic regimens from PCI to TAVR settings.

Surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients over 75 years with aortic stenosis: sociodemographic profile, clinical characteristics, quality of life and functionality.

Aortic valve stenosis (AVS) affects 25% of the population over 65 years. At present, there is no curative medical treatment for AVS and therefore the surgical approach, consisting of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), is the treatment of choice. The aim of this study was to analyze the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, quality of life and functionality of a sample of patients with AVS over 75 years of age, who underwent TAVR or SAVR, applying standard clinical practice. A prospective multicenter observational study was conducted in two hospitals of the Spanish National Health System. Data were collected at baseline, 1, 6 months and 1 year. In total, 227 participants were included, with a mean age of 80.6 [SD 4.1]. Statistically significant differences were found in terms of quality of life, which was higher at 1 year in patients who underwent SAVR. In terms of functionality, SAVR patients obtained a better score (p < 0.01). However, patients who underwent TAVR began with a worse baseline situation and managed to increase their quality of life and functionality after 1 year of follow-up. The individualized choice of TAVR or SAVR in patients with AVS improves patients' quality of life and function. Moreover, the TAVR procedure in patients with a worse baseline situation and a high surgical risk achieved a similar increase in quality of life and functionality compared to patients undergoing SAVR with a better baseline situation.

Anxiety and depression in patients aged 80 years and older following aortic valve therapy. A six-month follow-up study

BackgroundLittle is known about mental health following advanced cardiac procedures in the oldest patients.AimsTo study changes in anxiety and depression from baseline to one- and six-month follow-up in older patients following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).MethodsProspective cohort study of patients ≥ 80 years undergoing elective TAVI or SAVR in a tertiary university hospital. Anxiety and depression were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Differences between TAVI/SAVR were analyzed using Welch’s t test or chi-squared. Changes over time and group differences were established with longitudinal models using generalized least squares.ResultsIn 143 patients (83.5 ± 2.7 years), 46% (n = 65) received TAVI. Anxiety was identified in 11% of TAVI patients at baseline. One- and six-months later, percentages were 8% and 9%. In SAVR patients, 18% had baseline scores indicating anxiety. One and six-months later, percentages were 11% and 9%. Depression was identified in 15% of TAVI patients. One- and six-months later, percentages were 11% and 17%. At baseline, 11% of SAVR patients had scores indicating depression. One- and six-months after SAVR, percentages were 15% and 12%. Longitudinal analyses showed reductions (P < 0.001) in anxiety from baseline to one-month, and stable scores between one- and six-months for both treatment groups. There was no change over time for depression among treatment groups (P = 0.21).Discussion and conclusionsSAVR or TAVI in patients ≥ 80 years was associated with anxiety reduction between baseline and follow-up. For depression, there was no evidence of change over time in either treatment group.Graphical abstract

Predictors of Left Ventricular Mass Index One Year after Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

Background and Aim of Study.To evaluate predictors of residual left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) one year after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis and clarify the relationship between long-term outcomes and predictors. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 141 patients who underwent SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve. Left ventricular dimensions and mass index were assessed using serial transthoracic echocardiography. The difference in time course and the pattern of left ventricular mass index (LVMI) regression between patients with and without residual LVH one year after surgery were evaluated. The factors associated with LVMI one year after SAVR and the prognostic impact of these predictors on long-term outcomes were analyzed. Results. Although LVMI one year after surgery showed a significant decrease in patients with and without LVH, greater preoperative LVMI and lesser extent of LVMI decrease resulted in high residual LVMI at one year after SAVR in patients with LVH. The preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic dimension index ( p = 0.027 ) and preoperative left atrial dimension ( p = 0.001 ) were significant determinants of LVMI at one year after SAVR. A cut-off value of 30 mm/m2 or greater for the left ventricular end-diastolic dimension index was optimal for predicting high LVMI one year after SAVR. Overall survival was significantly lower with a left ventricular end-diastolic dimension index ≥30 mm/m2 ( p = 0.017 , Log rank). Conclusions. High preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic dimension index and large left atrial dimension were associated with high LVMI one year after surgical aortic valve replacement. Preoperative left ventricular end-diastolic dimension index of &gt;30 mm/m2 could predict adverse outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of adverse outcomes following aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesAssessment of frailty prior to aortic valve intervention is recommended in European and North American valvular heart disease guidelines. However, there is a lack of consensus on how it is...

Long-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients receiving chronic dialysis.

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard treatment for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, which is common among patients receiving long-term dialysis. The aim of this study was to report the long-term outcomes of SAVR in patients receiving chronic dialysis and to identify independent risk factors for early and late mortality. Every consecutive patient with SAVR with or without concomitant cardiac procedures in British Columbia between January 2000 and December 2015 was identified from the provincial cardiac registry. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Univariate and multivariable models were conducted to determine independent risk factors for short-term mortality and reduced long-term survival. Between 2000 and 2015, 654 patients receiving dialysis underwent SAVR with or without concomitant procedures. The mean follow-up was 2.3 (standard deviation 2.4) years (median 2.5 yr). The overall 30-day mortality was 12.8%. The 5-year and 10-year survival rates were 45.6% and 23.5%, respectively. Twelve patients (1.8%) had redo aortic valve surgery. There was no difference in 30-day mortality or long-term survival between 2 age groups (> 65 yr v. ≤ 65 yr). Anemia and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were independent risk factors for both longer hospital stay and reduced long-term survival. The impact of CPB pump time on mortality occurred mainly within the first 30 days after surgery. When CPB pump time extended beyond 170 minutes, there was a significant increase in 30-day mortality with further prolongation of CPB pump time, and the relationship between 30-day mortality and CPB pump time became approximately linear. Patients receiving dialysis have poor long-term survival with a very low rate of redo aortic valve surgery following SAVR with or without concomitant procedures. Older age (> 65 yr) is not an independent risk factor for either 30-day mortality or reduced long-term survival. Using alternative strategies to limit CPB pump time is an important way to reduce 30-day mortality.

PO-03-108 TEMPORAL COURSE OF CONDUCTION ABNORMALITIES AFTER PERCUTANEOUS AND SURGICAL AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Aortic valve replacement is an increasingly common procedure. With the advent of trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), patients that would have previously been denied valve replacement are able to undergo intervention. The anatomic proximity of the aortic valve and the native conduction system can lead to significant conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. This retrospective study aimed to compare the incidence, temporality and eventual recovery of conduction abnormalities in patients undergoing PPM implantation post TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). During the 5-year study period, 1012 patients had aortic valve replacement, 746 underwent SAVR and 266 patients underwent TAVI. In this group, patients were screened for pacemaker implantation within 14 days post procedure and were included if the pacemaker implantation was due to new AV conduction abnormalities. Patients were excluded if they had a pacemaker prior to surgery or had alternate reasons for pacemaker implantation such as complications from infective endocarditis. The incidence of new AV conduction abnormalities requiring pacemaker implantation post-operatively was 5.3% (n=14) in TAVI patients and 3.4% (n=26) in SAVR patients. In the TAVI group PPM implantation occurred on average at 3.2 ± 2.1 days (median 3 days) post procedure. In the SAVR group the average time to implantation was 6 ± 3.1 days (median 5 days). To determine conduction recovery 36 patients had complete follow up, 26 patients in SAVR and 10 patients in TAVI group. After a mean follow-up of 3 months, 50% of patients in the TAVI group and 36.1% in SAVR group recovered 1:1 conduction. At 12 months, 60% of patients in the TAVI group and 41% in the SAVR group had improved conduction and by 24 months it was 50% and 34.5%, respectively. In patients who undergo PPM implant post TAVI a high rate of conduction recovery is observed during follow-up, probably emphasizing the need for better selection of pacing candidates.

PO-05-010 PERMANENT PACEMAKER IMPLANTATION OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SURGICAL AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT: A NATIONAL READMISSIONS DATABASE ANALYSIS

High grade atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a common complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and is associated with longer hospital stays and higher readmission rates. However, these outcomes have not been examined in large nationally-representative cohorts. The study examined the rates and predictors of procedural complications, mortality, and heart failure readmissions during index admission or within 90-day readmission after SAVR. We evaluated 194,058 admissions for SAVR, including 11,561 with PPM implantation, between 2016-2019 using the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Admissions between October and December were excluded to permit 90-day readmission follow-up. ICD-10-CM codes were used to identify complications occurring during index admission and readmissions with primary codes corresponding to acute decompensated heart failure. Early mortality was defined as occurring during either index or readmission. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors of procedural complications and combined primary heart failure readmissions and mortality. Between 2016-2019, post-SAVR PPM implantation increased (5.5% to 6.1%; P<0.01) with a concurrent decrease in index mortality (1.0% to 0.7%; P<0.04). Compared to those without PPM, SAVR patients with PPMs had decreased rates of early mortality (4.1% vs 3.2%; P<0.01) but higher rates of non-home discharges (28.5% vs 18.4%; P<0.01), total readmissions (15.8% vs 12.7%; P<0.01), heart failure readmissions (0.8% vs 0.3%; P<0.01), and procedural complications (37.1% vs 24.0%; P<0.01). PPM implantation was independently associated with decreased early mortality (OR 0.8, P<0.01). Female gender (OR 1.3; P<0.01), diabetes (OR 1.1; P=0.02), length of stay ≥2 days (OR 5.3; P<0.01), age ≥65 years old (OR 1.3; P<0.01), mitral valve (MV) replacement (OR 1.6; P <0.01), and fascicular block (OR 1.5; P<0.01) were associated with PPM implantation. PPM implantation rates were significantly higher in patients ≥65 years old (5.1% vs. 7.3%; P<0.01), females (5.5% vs. 6.9%; P<0.01), and those undergoing MV procedures (5.3% vs. 12.5%; P<0.01). In this four-year real-world analysis, there was a significant increase in PPM use and decrease in mortality. PPMs were associated with lower rates of mortality, but higher complication and readmission rates. PPM implantation was significantly more frequent in older female patients undergoing concurrent MV procedures.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement After Prior Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundAortic stenosis treatment should consider risks and benefits for lifetime management. Although the feasibility of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear, concerns are emerging regarding reoperation after TAVR. ObjectivesThe authors sought to define comparative risk of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior TAVR or SAVR. MethodsData on patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR after TAVR and/or SAVR were extracted from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (2011-2021). Overall and isolated SAVR cohorts were analyzed. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Risk adjustment using hierarchical logistic regression as well as propensity score matching for isolated SAVR cases were performed. ResultsOf 31,106 SAVR patients, 1,126 had prior TAVR (TAVR-SAVR), 674 had prior SAVR and TAVR (SAVR-TAVR-SAVR), and 29,306 had prior SAVR (SAVR-SAVR). Yearly rates of TAVR-SAVR and SAVR-TAVR-SAVR increased over time, whereas SAVR-SAVR was stable. The TAVR-SAVR patients were older, with higher acuity, and with greater comorbidities than other cohorts. The unadjusted operative mortality was highest in the TAVR-SAVR group (17% vs 12% vs 9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with SAVR-SAVR, risk-adjusted operative mortality was significantly higher for TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.53; P = 0.004), but not SAVR-TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.02; P = 0.927). After propensity score matching, operative mortality of isolated SAVR was 1.74 times higher for TAVR-SAVR than SAVR-SAVR patients (P = 0.020). ConclusionsThe number of post-TAVR reoperations is increasing and represent a high-risk population. Yet even in isolated SAVR cases, SAVR after TAVR is independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients with life expectancy beyond a TAVR valve and unsuitable anatomy for redo-TAVR should consider a SAVR-first approach.

Associations between new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation and long-term outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement.

Data on prognostic implications of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is limited. We sought to explore associations between POAF, early initiated oral anticoagulation (OAC) and long-term outcome after SAVR and combined SAVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This is a retrospective, population-based study including all isolated SAVR (n = 7038) and combined SAVR and CABG patients (n = 3854) without a history of preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) in Sweden 2007-2017. Individual patient data were merged from 4 nationwide registries. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox regression models were employed separately in SAVR and SAVR + CABG patients. The median follow-up time was 4.7 years (range 0-10 years). POAF occurred in 44.5% and 50.7% of SAVR and SAVR + CABG patients, respectively. In SAVR patients, POAF was associated with increased long-term risk of death [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.21 (95% confidence interval 1.06-1.37)], ischaemic stroke [aHR 1.32 (1.08-1.59)], any thromboembolism, heart failure hospitalization and recurrent AF. In SAVR + CABG, POAF was associated with death [aHR 1.31 (1.14-1.51)], recurrent AF and heart failure, but not with ischaemic stroke [aHR 1.04 (0.84-1.29)] or thromboembolism. OAC was dispensed within 30 days after discharge to 67.0% and 65.9%, respectively, of SAVR and SAVR + CABG patients with POAF. Early initiated OAC was not associated with reduced risk of death, ischaemic stroke or thromboembolism in any group of patients. POAF after SAVR is associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality and morbidity. Further studies are warranted to clarify the role of OAC in SAVR patients with POAF.

Perioperative care differences of surgical aortic valve replacement between North America and Europe

ObjectiveTo describe differences between North America and Europe in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).MethodsPatients with moderate or greater aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring SAVR...