scholarly journals Frailty, disability and comorbidity: different domains lead to different effects after surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Piñón ◽  
Emilio Paredes ◽  
Beatriz Acuña ◽  
Sergio Raposeiras ◽  
Elena Casquero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Cardiovascular Health Study ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract OBJECTIVES Frailty syndrome predicts adverse outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. However, disability or comorbidity is frequently associated with preoperative frailty evaluation. The effects of these domains on early and late outcomes were analysed. METHODS A prospective study including patients aged ≥75 years with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who received aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting was conducted. We used the Cardiovascular Health Study Frailty Phenotype to assess frailty, the Lawton–Brody index to define disability and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) to evaluate comorbidity. RESULTS Frailty was identified in 57 (31%), dependence in 18 (9.9%) and advanced comorbidity (CCI ≥ 4) in 67 (36.6%) of the 183 enrolled patients. Operative mortality (1.6%), transfusion rate and duration of stay increased in patients with CCI ≥4 (P < 0.005). There was a non-significant trend for these adverse outcomes among the frail patients. Follow-up was achieved in all patients (median/interquartile range 869/699–1099 days). Kaplan–Meier univariable analysis showed a reduced survival rate for frail and dependent patients and for those with multiple comorbidities (P < 0.05). According to multivariable analysis, frailty and comorbidity were independent risk factors for 1-year mortality, while disability and comorbidity, but not frailty, were risk factors for 3-year mortality (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged ≥75 years is a safe procedure with low mortality rates. Operative outcomes are mainly affected by comorbidities. The main influence of survival occurs throughout the first year, and an improved functional status prevents any progression towards disabilities, which could potentially benefit long-term outcomes. Clinical trial registration number NCT02745314

scholarly journals Pathogenesis and Risk Factors for Cerebral Infarct After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (8) ◽  
pp. 2130-2132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allie Massaro ◽  
Steven R. Messé ◽  
Michael A. Acker ◽  
Scott E. Kasner ◽  
Jose Torres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Cerebral Infarct ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

scholarly journals Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of adverse outcomes among older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e049216
Author(s):  
Tadhg Prendiville ◽  
Aoife Leahy ◽  
Laura Quinlan ◽  
Anastasia Saleh ◽  
Elaine Shanahan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Frailty Scale

IntroductionFrailty is associated with adverse outcomes relating to cardiac procedures. It has been proposed that frailty scoring should be included in the preoperative assessment of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. We aim to examine the Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), as a predictor of adverse outcomes following aortic valve replacement.Methods and analysisProspective and retrospective cohort studies and randomised controlled trials assessing both the preoperative frailty status (as per the CFS) and incidence of adverse outcomes among older adults undergoing either surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve replacement will be included. Adverse outcomes will include mortality and periprocedural complications, as well as a composite of 30-day complications. A search will be conducted from 2005 to present using a prespecified search strategy. Studies will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with methodological quality assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Relative risk ratios with 95% CIs will be generated for each outcome of interest, comparing frail with non-frail groups. Data will be plotted on forest plots where applicable. The quality of the evidence will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study as no primary data will be collected. We will publish the review in a peer-reviewed journal on completion.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020213757.

scholarly journals Short-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Isolated Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Mediastinal Radiation-Associated Severe Aortic Stenosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Nauffal ◽  
Camden Bay ◽  
Pinak B. Shah ◽  
Piotr S. Sobieszczyk ◽  
Tsuyoshi Kaneko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Mediastinal Radiation

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with radiation-associated aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may improve outcomes in this population. Methods: We evaluated 1668 TAVR and 2611 patients with SAVR enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ database between 2011 and 2018. Multiple logistic regression was used to compare 30- day outcomes between TAVR and SAVR. Propensity-matched analysis was performed to confirm results of the overall cohort. Additionally, the cohort was stratified into early (2011–2014) versus contemporary (2015–2018) TAVR eras, and 30-day outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared. Finally, outcomes with transfemoral TAVR versus SAVR were compared. Results: In the overall cohort, TAVR was associated with significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] TAVR/SAVR =0.60 [0.40–0.91]). Postoperative atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, pleural effusion, renal failure, and bleeding also occurred less frequently with TAVR. Stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA; OR TAVR/SAVR , 2.03 [1.09–3.77]) and pacemaker implantation (OR TAVR/SAVR , 1.62 [1.21–2.17]) were higher with TAVR. Propensity-matched analysis yielded similar results as the overall cohort. Following stratification by era, TAVR versus SAVR was associated with reduced 30-day mortality in the contemporary but not early era (OR Early , 0.78 [0.48–1.28]; OR Contemporary , 0.31 [0.14–0.65]). Pacemaker implantation was higher with TAVR versus SAVR in both eras (OR Early , 1.60 [1.03–2.46]; OR Contemporary , 1.64 [1.10–2.45]). There was also a nonsignificant trend towards increased stroke/TIA with TAVR during both eras (OR Early , 1.39 [0.58–3.36]; OR Contemporary , 2.46 [0.99–6.10]). Finally, transfemoral TAVR (N=1369) versus SAVR revealed similar findings as the overall cohort; however, the association of TAVR with stroke/TIA was not statistically significant (OR Stroke/TIA , 1.57 [0.79–3.09]). Conclusions: TAVR provides an effective and evolving alternative to SAVR for radiation-associated severe aortic stenosis and was associated with lower 30-day mortality and postoperative complications. TAVR was associated with increased pacemaker implantation and a trend towards increased stroke/TIA. In this unique population with extensive valvular and vascular calcifications, the risk of stroke/TIA with TAVR requires careful consideration and further investigation.

scholarly journals Impact of paravalvular regurgitation on the mid-term outcome after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1145-1152
Author(s):  
Teemu Laakso ◽  
Mika Laine ◽  
Noriaki Moriyama ◽  
Sebastian Dahlbacka ◽  
Juhani Airaksinen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
The Impact

Abstract OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and prognostic impact of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) on the outcome after transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. METHODS The nationwide FinnValve registry included data on 6463 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR (n = 2130) or SAVR (n = 4333) with a bioprosthesis for the treatment of aortic stenosis during 2008–2017. The impact of PVR at discharge after TAVR and SAVR on 4-year mortality was herein investigated. RESULTS The rate of mild PVR was 21.7% after TAVR and 5.2% after SAVR. The rate of moderate-to-severe PVR was 3.7% after TAVR and 0.7% after SAVR. After TAVR, 4-year survival was 69.0% in patients with none-to-trace PVR, 54.2% with mild PVR [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35–1.99] and 48.9% with moderate-to-severe PVR (adjusted HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.10–2.35). Freedom from PVR-related reinterventions was 100% for none-to-mild PVR and 95.2% for moderate-to-severe PVR. After SAVR, mild PVR (4-year survival 78.9%; adjusted HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93–1.78) and moderate-to-severe PVR (4-year survival 67.8%; adjusted HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.72–2.58) were associated with worse 4-year survival compared to none-to-trace PVR (4-year survival 83.7%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance in multivariable analysis. Freedom from PVR-related reinterventions was 99.5% for none-to-trace PVR patients, 97.9% for mild PVR patients and 77.0% for moderate-to-severe PVR patients. CONCLUSIONS This multicentre study showed that both mild and moderate-to-severe PVR were independent predictors of worse survival after TAVR. Mild and moderate-to-severe PVR are not frequent after SAVR, but tend to decrease survival also in these patients. Clinical trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385915.

Abstract 14342: Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve in Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Parth M Patel ◽  
Edward Chiou ◽  
Jane W Wei ◽  
Jose N Binongo ◽  
Robert A Guyton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Valve In Valve ◽  
Transvalvular Gradient

Introduction: There has been a recent trend towards the increased use of biologic valves at the time of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with an understanding there may be a potential need for future valve intervention. In this study, we compared the clinical outcomes of Redo-SAVR with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIVTAVR) in patients with a prior history of SAVR. Methods: From 2012 to 2019, 263 patients underwent isolated aortic valve reintervention after prior SAVR: VIV-TAVR (n=187) or redo-SAVR (n=86). Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors mortality and aortic reintervention. Sub-analyses were performed to compare VIV-TAVR patients to Redo-SAVR patients undergoing biologic valve explant and implant (Biologic) as well as VIV-TAVR and Redo-SAVR patients matched by STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM). Results: Operative mortality for the Redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR was 1.2% (1) and 1.6% (3) respectively (p=0.92). Redo-SAVR patients had an increased stroke rate (7.0% vs 1.1%, p=0.02) and longer postoperative length of stay (7 vs 2 days, p<0.0001). VIV-TAVR patients had a higher rate of ≥1+ paravalvular leak (PVL) (21.4% versus 3%, p=0.0002) and a lesser reduction in transvalvular gradient (-21.9 ± 17.6mmHg vs -30.3 ± 20.7mmHg, p=0.0038). The difference in PVL was maintained during the Biologic Sub-analysis (p=0.0034). In the STS PROM Sub-analysis, early mortality was the same for each group (1.2%), and the differences in PVL (p=0.0002) and in transvalvular gradient reduction (p=0.005) were maintained. Preoperative renal failure (p=0.006) and cerebrovascular disease (p=0.04) were risk factors for mortality and prior myocardial infarction (p=0.04) was a risk factor for aortic reoperation for VIV-TAVR. No risk factors were identified for Redo-SAVR. Conclusions: Aortic valve reintervention following prior SAVR is associated with outstanding clinical outcomes. Both Redo-SAVR and VIV-TAVR can be performed with lower than expected predicted mortality. Redo-SAVR was associated with increased morbidity compared to VIV-TAVR, but improved valve function and hemodynamics. Differences in long term valve durability and patient survival between these two therapies are yet to be determined.

scholarly journals The Course of Circulating Small Extracellular Vesicles in Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Weber ◽  
Shining Sophie Liu ◽  
Letizia Cardone ◽  
Philipp Rellecke ◽  
Stephan Urs Sixt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Extracellular Vesicles ◽  
Peripheral Blood ◽  
Cell Communication ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Interventions

In the last years, increasing efforts have been devoted to investigating the role of small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) in cardiovascular diseases. These nano-sized particles (30-150 nm), secreted by different cell types, contain signalling molecules that enable participation in intercellular communication processes. In this study, we examined the course of circulating sEVs in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and correlated them with echocardiographic and standard blood parameters. Peripheral blood samples were collected from 135 patients undergoing SAVR preoperatively and at three follow-up points. Circulating sEVs were precipitated using Exoquick™ exosome isolation reagent and analyzed by nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). Our findings indicate that no more than 7 days after SAVR, there was a marked increase of circulating sEVs before returning to initial values after 3 months. Further, shear stress is not a trigger for the formation and release of circulating sEVs. Moreover, we pointed out a correlation between circulating sEVs and erythrocytes as well as LDH and creatinine levels in peripheral blood. Finally, all patients with a moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch as well as with an impaired left ventricular mass regression had lower levels of circulating sEVs 3 months after SAVR compared to their respective status before surgery. We conclude that in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AVS), sEVs may play an important part in mediating cell-cell communication and SAVR may have a crucial and lasting impact on their circulating levels. Besides, lower levels of sEVs portend to be associated with inferior recovery after major surgical interventions. The additional use of circulating sEVs beyond echocardiographic and laboratory parameters could have a prognostic value to estimate adverse outcomes in patients undergoing SAVR.

Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis

Angiology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (10) ◽  
pp. 955-965
Author(s):  
Jiayang Wang ◽  
Xinxin Wang ◽  
Fangjie Hou ◽  
Wen Yuan ◽  
Ran Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve

We determined the incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)–associated infective endocarditis (IE). We compared the incidence of IE after TAVR versus after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The incidence rate of IE 1-year post-TAVR was 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-1.0). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly reduced IE incidence (incidence rate ratio: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52-0.92, P = .011) compared with SAVR. In patients with TAVR IE, the pooled in-hospital mortality was 37.8% (95% CI: 32.4-43.3, I 2 = 54.9%). Pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR) revealed that peri-procedural peripheral artery disease (HR: 4.02, 95% CI: 2.28-7.10, P < .0001), moderate or severe residual aortic regurgitation (HR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.53-3.59, P < .0001), orotracheal intubation (HR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.19-3.82, P = .011), and male gender (HR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.47-1.97, P < .0001) were risk factors for post-TAVR IE. Post-TAVR IE is a life-threatening complication often resulting in in-hospital mortality. The current evidence-based meta-analysis to identify risk factors may lead to the development of effective preventive and therapeutic strategies for post-TAVR IE to ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document