scholarly journals 753 Should Mini-Sternotomy Be Favoured Over Conventional Full-Sternotomy Approach in Aortic Valve Replacement

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Aljanadi ◽  
N Moawad ◽  
G Beattie ◽  
O Nzewi ◽  
M Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Duration Of Operation ◽  
Mid Term Results ◽  
High Bmi

Abstract Aim In view of the increasing interest in Upper mini-sternotomy (UMS) as an alternative approach for conventional full sternotomy AVR (FS), we aimed to compare early and mid-term results between UMS and Full-sternotomy AVR. Method This is a retrospective study of 231 patients who had aortic valve replacement via upper mini sternotomy (UMS) compared with 231 patients had their AVR via full sternotomy (FS). Baseline characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes were compared. Patients’ data are presented as median (interquartile range) or as percentages. Results The two groups were almost comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics. Though patients with age >80 were more in UMS AVR group (11.25% vs 8.6%), this was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Females were significantly more in UMS AVR group (104 vs 66, p < 0.05), as well as in high BMI patients (120 vs 89, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality( 0.43%vs 2.2%, P > 0.05) between the two groups, as well as in cardiopulmonary bypass time (109 vs 103 min, p > 0.05), aortic cross-clamping time (82 vs 83 min, p > 0.05) and the duration of operation(218 vs 213, p > 0.05).Results showed no significant difference in the incidence of major and minor postoperative complications apart from FS AVR patients had a higher incidence of postoperative pneumonia ( 2.1% vs 10.4 %, p < 0.05). Conclusions UMS AVR are more commonly used in females and high BMI patients. Our results show that UMS AVR is a safe alternative approach for aortic valve surgery revealing comparable early and midterm results to conventional FS AVR.

scholarly journals J-ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad A. Torky ◽  
Amr A. Arafat ◽  
Hosam F. Fawzy ◽  
Abdelhady M. Taha ◽  
Ehab A. Wahby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Pacemaker Insertion ◽  
Cardiac Operations ◽  
Low Ejection Fraction

Abstract Background The advantage of minimally invasive sternotomy (MS) over full sternotomy (FS) for isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still controversial. We aimed to examine if J-shaped MS is a safe alternative to FS in patients undergoing primary isolated AVR. This study is a retrospective and restricted cohort study that included 137 patients who had primary isolated AVR from February 2013 to June 2015. Patients with previous cardiac operations, low ejection fraction (< 40%), infective endocarditis, EuroSCORE II predicted mortality > 10%, and patients who had inverted T or inverted C-MS or right anterior thoracotomy were excluded. Patients were grouped into the FS group (n=65) and MS group (n=72). Preoperative variables were comparable in both groups. The outcome was studied, balancing the groups by propensity score matching. Results Seven (9%) patients in the MS group were converted to FS. Cardiopulmonary bypass (98.5 ± 29.3 vs. 82.1 ± 13.95 min; p ≤ 0.001) and ischemic times (69.1 ± 23.8 vs. 59.6 ± 12.2 min; p = 0.001) were longer in MS. The MS group had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (10.1 ± 11.58 vs. 10.9 ± 6.43 h; p = 0.045), ICU stay (42.74 ± 40.5 vs. 44.9 ± 39.3; p = 0.01), less chest tube drainage (385.3 ± 248.6 vs. 635.9 ± 409.6 ml; p = 0.001), and lower narcotics use (25.14 ± 17.84 vs. 48.23 ± 125.68 mg; p < 0.001). No difference was found in postoperative heart block with permanent pacemaker insertion or atrial fibrillation between groups (p = 0.16 and 0.226, respectively). Stroke, renal failure, and mortality did not differ between the groups. Reintervention-free survival at 1, 3, and 4 years was not significantly different in both groups (p = 0.73). Conclusion J-ministernotomy could be a safe alternative to FS in isolated primary AVR. Besides the cosmetic advantage, it could have better clinical outcomes without added risk.

scholarly journals Low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis: surgical outcomes and mid-term results after isolated aortic valve replacement

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 1685-1690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Lopez-Marco ◽  
Harriet Miller ◽  
Aprim Youhana ◽  
Saeed Ashraf ◽  
Afzal Zaidi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Mid Term Results

Abstract 15741: Long Term Survival Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From a Single US High Volume Center

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo O Escarcega ◽  
Rebecca Torguson ◽  
Marco A Magalhaes ◽  
Nevin C Baker ◽  
Sa’ar Minha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Long Term Mortality

Introduction: Mortality following Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been reported up to 5 years. However, mortality after 5 years remains unclear. Hypothesis: We aim to determine the mortality in patients undergoing TAVR >5 years follow up. Methods: From our institution’s prospectively collected TAVR database we analyzed all patients undergoing TAVR to a maximum follow up of 8 years. We divided our population into transapical TAVR (TA-TAVR) and transfemoral TAVR (TF-TAVR) groups. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 511 patients who underwent TAVR were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TA-TAVR had higher rates of peripheral vascular disease compared with TF-TAVR (56% vs 29%, p<0.001) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score (10.9 ± 4 vs 9.2 ± 4, p<0.001). TA-TAVR was associated with higher mortality at 1 year (32% vs 21%, p=0.01). However, there was no significant difference in very-long term mortality of patients undergoing TA-TAVR vs TF-TAVR (Figure). Conclusions: Long-term mortality following TAVR surpasses 50%. While in the first 2 years TA-TAVR is associated with higher mortality rates after three years the survival rates are similar in both approaches.

scholarly journals Infective Endocarditis After Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A State of the Art Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia L. Alexis ◽  
Aaqib H. Malik ◽  
Isaac George ◽  
Rebecca T. Hahn ◽  
Omar K. Khalique ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Entry Site ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) carries significant morbidity/mortality. Our review aims to compare incidence, predisposing factors, microbiology, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of PVE in surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR patients. We searched PubMed and Embase to identify published studies from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2020. Key words were indexed for original reports, clinical studies, and reviews. Reports were evaluated by 2 authors against a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they reported incidence and outcomes related to surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE and excluded if they were published pre‐2015 or included a small population. We followed the Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines for all stages of the design and implementation. Study quality was based on the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Thirty‐three studies with 311 to 41 025 patients contained relevant information. The majority found no significant difference in incidence of surgical aortic valve replacement/TAVR PVE (reported as 0.3%–1.2% per patient‐year versus 0.6%–3.4%), but there were key differences in pathogenesis. TAVR has a specific set of infection risks related to entry site, procedure, and device, including nonstandardized protocols for infection control, valve crimping injury, paravalvular leak, neo‐leaflet stress, intact/calcified native leaflets, and intracardiac hardware. With the expansion of TAVR to lower risk and younger patients, a better understanding of pathogenesis, patient presentation, and guideline‐directed treatment is paramount. When operative intervention is necessary, mortality remains high at 20% to 30%. Unique TAVR infection risks present opportunities for PVE prevention, therefore, further investigation is imperative.

Aortic Valve Replacement via Right Minithoracotomy versus Median Sternotomy

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald D. Glower ◽  
Bhargavi S. Desai ◽  
G. Chad Hughes ◽  
Carmelo A. Milano ◽  
Jeffrey G. Gaca
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Median Sternotomy ◽  
Relative Role ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Delayed Wound Healing ◽  
Tube Output ◽  
Chest Tube Output

Objective The aim of this study was to define the relative role of a right minithoracotomy (RT) versus standard median sternotomy (ST) for open aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of all 1348 patients undergoing isolated, open AVR at a single institution during a 14-year period. Because relatively few patients were technically suitable for redo AVR with the RT approach (n = 20), all redo patients (n = 209) were excluded, leaving 1139 patients available for analysis. Patients converting from RT to ST approach (n = 15) were analyzed separately. Results Relative to ST (n = 672), the RT patients (n = 452) were older with more stenosis but with more recent operation year, lower rate of congestive heart failure, higher ejection fraction, lower rate of endocarditis, and lower rate of renal disease than the ST AVR patients (all P < 0.0001). Right minithoracotomy AVR was associated with longer cardiopulmonary bypass times [157 (25) vs 131 (38), P = 0.0004] and clamp times [103 (20) vs 85 (27), P < 0.0001] but less transfusion (1.4 vs 3.4 U, P = 0.0003), less chest tube output (405 vs 950 mL, P < 0.0001), fewer reoperations for bleeding (0.4% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), shorter length of stay (6 vs 8 days, P = 0.03), and lower rate of atrial fibrillation (15% vs 20%, P = 0.03). Stroke, operative mortality, and survival were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusions Given the biases of retrospective propensity-adjusted analysis, these data suggest that RT AVR is a safe alternative to ST AVR in selected patients, with advantages of avoiding sternotomy with associated bleeding, transfusion, and delayed wound healing, at the expense of longer pump and clamp times.

scholarly journals Outcomes of a Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve versus its Conventional Counterpart

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten C. W. Wahlers ◽  
Martin Andreas ◽  
Parwis Rahmanian ◽  
Pascal Candolfi ◽  
Barbora Zemanova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Aortic Cross Clamp Time ◽  
Patient Prosthesis Mismatch ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Rapid Deployment ◽  
Valve Versus ◽  
Conventional Counterpart

Objective The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) from two studies. Methods Patients who underwent RDAVR (INTUITY valve) in the prospective, 5-year, single-arm multicenter TRITON study, or conventional AVR (Perimount Magna Ease valve) in the prospective Perimount Magna Ease postmarket study, were propensity score matched and compared for procedural, hemodynamic, safety, and clinical outcomes. Results Matched RDAVR (n = 106) and conventional AVR (n = 106) patients had similar baseline characteristics (mean ± SD age, 72.8 ± 7.6 vs 72.5 ± 7.4 years; male 59.4% vs 61.3%) and procedures (concomitant procedures: 41.5% vs 50.9%). Mean ± SD aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in RDAVR than AVR patients (51.8 ± 20.9 vs 73.9 ± 33.2 minutes; P < 0.001), as was mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.8 ± 34.2 vs 102.4 ± 41.7 minutes; P < 0.001). At 1 year, RDAVR patients showed significantly lower mean ± SD and peak aortic valve gradients (9.0 ± 3.4 and 17.0 ± 6.2 mm Hg, respectively) than conventional AVR patients (13.4 ± 5.5 and 24.2 ± 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P < 0.001). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was significantly less common with RDAVR than with AVR [overall: 16/66 (24.2%) vs 46/76 (60.5%); P = 0.007; severe: 2/66 (3.0%) vs 13/76 (17.1%)]. There were no significant differences between the RDAVR and AVR groups regarding 30-day safety endpoints. Survival rates in the RDAVR and conventional AVR groups were, respectively, 99.1% and 100.0% at 30 days, 97.1% and 95.1% at 1 year, and 93.3% and 94.1% at 3 years ( P = nonsignificant). Conclusions In this retrospective study with matched populations, the RDAVR with the INTUITY valve system provided superior procedural and hemodynamic outcomes than a standard bioprosthesis without compromising safety.

scholarly journals Predicting the Ideal Valve Size During Aortic Valve Replacement with Rapid Deployement Bioprosthetic Valves. Is Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiogram Reliable?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Al-Alameri ◽  
Alejandro Macias ◽  
Daniel Buitrago ◽  
Alvaro Montoya ◽  
Evan Markell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transesophageal Echocardiography ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Annulus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Valve Size ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Rapid Deployment ◽  
Bioprosthetic Valves

Objective: To describe experience with using intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography to reliably predict the size of the rapid deployment prosthetic valve by measuring the native aortic annulus Methods: Retrospective review of single institution series of patients undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with Rapid Deployement Bioprosthetic Valves. Included were patients that had their native aortic valve replaced either isolated or as part of any additional procedure. Aortic annulus was measured prior to initiation of the operation using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Correlation analysis was conducted between Echocardiographic annular measurements and actual implanted valve sizes. Results: Twenty five patients underwent rapid deployment valve implantation in the aortic position. Of these, 36% of patients had the same size valve as the measured aortic annulus, 48% of patients had a valve implanted that was 1 mm different, and 16% of patients had 2 mm difference. The mean annular size based was 22.4 mm (range: 21-28 mm). The mean valve size implanted was 23.3 mm (range: 21-27 mm). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean annular measurement and the valve size selected (0.9 mm , p = 0.8). Conclusion: TEE can further enhance valve sizing and guidance through a proper and safe deployment. Although evident in our experience, larger scale studies are needed to further elucidate conclusions on the importance of avoiding under-sizing valves.

scholarly journals Pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement: rapid-deployment Intuity® compared to conventional bioprostheses

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgane Herry ◽  
Driss Laghlam ◽  
Olivier Touboul ◽  
Lee S Nguyen ◽  
Philippe Estagnasié ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Standard Group ◽  
Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Rapid Deployment

Abstract OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after aortic valve replacement by rapid-deployment bioprosthesis (RDB) and standard valve (Standard). METHODS All patients undergoing aortic valve replacement between 2015 and 2018, in 1 centre, were included. A multivariate analysis on the whole cohort and then a propensity score matching were used to compare the 2 groups. The primary end point was PPM implantation. RESULTS We studied 924 patients (256 RDBs and 668 Standards). Overall, 67 PPM were implanted, 37 (14.5%) in the RDB group and 26 (3.9%) in the Standard group (P &lt; 0.0001, univariate analysis). The multivariate analysis in the unmatched population found 4 independent factors associated with PPM implantation: right bundle branch block with odds ratios (ORs 3.7, 95% CI 2.9–6.7; P &lt; 0.0001), RDB (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.0–6.2; P &lt; 0.0001), age (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0–1.1; P &lt; 0.006) and endocarditis (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.0–11.0; P &lt; 0.04). In the propensity score-matched RDB group (203 patients per group), 25 patients required PPM implantation versus 3 in the Standard group (12.3% vs 1.5%, P &lt; 0.0001). RDBs also had more postoperative left bundle branch block and new onset of atrial fibrillation (30.2% vs 5.1%, P &lt; 0.0001 and 34.0% vs 24.1%, P = 0.029). RDBs had lower operating times (in min): aortic cross-clamping = 62 (44–76.5) vs 72 (57.5–91.5) and cardiopulmonary bypass = 81 (63–98.5) vs 91 (75–112), P &lt; 0.0001. There was no significant difference in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS RDBs were associated with reduced operating times, increased risk of atrial fibrillation and PPM implantation as compared with standard aortic valves.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document