Faculty Opinions recommendation of Aortic valve replacement with biological prosthesis in patients aged 50-69 years.

Objective: The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the characteristics (positive and negative) of Perceval S valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis. The study included 67 patients operated on at our institution and a mean follow-up period of 18 months. Methods: From June 2016 to November 2019, 209 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis. Of these, 67 patients were included in the study based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria set before the study began. Their data were recorded during their hospital stay (preoperative, intraoperative, and early and late postoperative time). Results: Fifty-four patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (group I) with a Perceval S prosthesis, and 13 patients had combined aortic valve replacement procedures and CABG procedures (group II). Patients were implanted with the following prosthesis sizes: S (N = 12), M (N = 18), L (N = 28), or XL (N = 9). The Perceval S valve successfully was implanted in 67 (91.8%) patients (in 6 patients, the preoperative transthoracic echocardiographic data did not coincide with intraoperative TEE and surgical measurement of the size of the annulus in the suture). Surgical approaches in patients were medial sternotomy (N = 48), mini sternotomy (N = 15), and thoracotomy through the second intercostal space to the right (N = 4). The mean clamping time of the aorta and CPB length for isolated cases was 54 and 82 minutes, respectively, and 96 and 120 minutes for combined procedures. Four (5.9%) patients died within 30 days. Conclusion: Early postoperative results showed that the Perceval S valve was safe. Further follow up is required to evaluate the long-term duration of patients with this bioprosthesis.

Download Full-text

Anticoagulation and outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2689 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

P Angleitner ◽

M Zinggl ◽

P Werner ◽

I Coti ◽

M Mach ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Term Survival ◽

Logistic Euroscore ◽

Biological Prosthesis ◽

Kaplan Meier

Abstract Background No strong recommendation exists regarding the use of short-term anticoagulation after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a biological prosthesis. Purpose Our aim was to analyze outcomes of patients receiving warfarin versus low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) after isolated SAVR. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all adult patients who underwent surgery between 2009 and 2017 at our department (n=598). Exclusion criteria included pre-operative anticoagulation, atrial fibrillation, dialysis, previous aortic valve replacement, or active endocarditis. Patients who were discharged alive were stratified according to the type of anticoagulation (warfarin, n=332, 55.5%; LMWH, n=266, 44.5%). Long-term survival during the follow-up period was analyzed (median follow-up, 5.6 years). Results Patients who received warfarin had significantly lower logistic EuroSCORE and were younger (Table 1). Warfarin was more frequently utilized between 2009 and 2014, whereas LMWH was more commonly used between 2015 and 2017. Kaplan-Meier curves in Figure 1 show that patients who received warfarin had significantly superior long-term survival (log-rank test: p=0.002). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis confirmed that the use of warfarin was associated with significantly lower risk of long-term mortality when compared with LMWH (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.74, p=0.001). Covariables in this model included logistic EuroSCORE, era, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass. Conclusions The present analysis suggests that the use of warfarin is associated with significantly superior survival after SAVR with a biological prosthesis. Our findings require validation in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival curves Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

Single centre experience in 1202 biological prosthesis: a comparison between sutured, sutureless and surgical transcatheter aortic valve

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.2259 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

C Mariani ◽

G Murana ◽

L Botta ◽

G Gliozzi ◽

G Folesani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Kidney Injury ◽

P Value ◽

Valve Prosthesis ◽

Biological Prosthesis ◽

Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background/Introduction Different types of bio-prosthesis are now available for the treatment of aortic valve disease. In absence of the “ideal” heart valve prosthesis, the best choice may be customized on the basis of the patient's profile. Purpose The aim of this study was to compare results in different subgroups of bio-prosthesis in elderly patients (>75 years old) undergoing conventional or surgical trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (AVR). Primary outcome was all cause mortality, secondary outcomes were: early post-operative complications (stroke, AV-block, acute kidney injury requiring temporary dialysis), freedom from structural vascular disease (SVD) and from re-operation. Methods In this retrospective study we analysed 1202 patients over 75 years old, underwent AVR from 2002 to 2018. Inclusion criteria were: age >75 years underwent AVR; we divided our population in 3 groups according to different strategy: primary aortic valve replacement with sutured (group 1, n=1005), sutureless (group 2, n=103) or surgical trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (group 3, n=94). Exclusion criteria: concomitant cardiac procedure other than coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) or endocarditis. Patient and disease characteristics are described as numbers and percentages, continuous data were expressed using mean and standard deviation. Differences between groups were evaluated using either Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test or ANOVA test. Survival curves of the primary outcome and freedom from secondary outcomes were built with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results The mean age of the overall population was 80.5±3.6 years with a mean STS score of assessed at 2.79±2.2% (2.27±1.0 for standard AVR, 3.3±2.2% for sutureless and 6.4±4.5 for S-TAVR, p-value<0.001). Early outcomes are depicted in figure 1. The overall 30-day mortality was 2.9%; among the different groups we observed 2.3%, 4.9% and 7.2% for sutured, sutureless and surgical-TAVR, respectively (p-value=0.01). The groups statistically differed also for permanent pacemaker implantation (sutured AVR 2.2%, sutureless AVR 4.9%, TAVR 9.6% (p-value<0.001) and acute renal failure requiring temporary dialysis sutured AVR 3%, Sutureless AVR 1.9% and Surgical TAVR 9.6% (p-value=0.004). The survival rate at follow-up was significantly different among group (log-rank <0.001, figure 2). Instead, freedom from reoperation was similar between cohorts (figure 2.) Conclusion(s) The outcomes of surgical AVR in a elderly population could be safely guaranteed with different biological prosthesis and operative techniques. A patient tailored approach should be always advised to improve current available transcatheter options. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1 Figure 2

Download Full-text

Aortic valve replacement in young patients: should the biological prosthesis be recommended over the mechanical?

Annals of Translational Medicine ◽

10.21037/atm.2018.02.21 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 6 (10) ◽

pp. 183-183 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Alberto Alperi ◽

Daniel Hernandez-Vaquero ◽

Isaac Pascual ◽

Rocio Diaz ◽

Iria Silva ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Young Patients ◽

Biological Prosthesis

Download Full-text

91Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the management of failed biological prosthesis: early and late outcomes

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz747.0020 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

D Tam ◽

C Dharma ◽

H C Wijeysundera ◽

P Austin ◽

M Ouzounian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Permanent Pacemaker ◽

Early Mortality ◽

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Late Mortality ◽

Biological Prosthesis ◽

Valve In Valve

Abstract Background While the gold standard for the management of failed previous biological prosthesis was redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter AVR (TAVR) has emerged as a less invasive option. Published studies comparing the two techniques have been small and limited to early outcomes. Herein, we compare early mortality, morbidity and late mortality between ViV TAVR and redo SAVR. Methods Clinical and administrative databases for Canada's most populous province, Ontario (>13 million patients), were linked to identify patients undergoing ViV and redo SAVR for a failed biological prosthesis. Baseline characteristics were compared and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for baseline differences. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to assess adequacy of PSM, whereby a SMD<0.10 indicated a good match. Early outcomes were compared in the matched groups using McNemar's test. In accordance to government privacy legislation, outcomes with <6 events, were presented as absolute risk difference (ARD) between ViV and Redo SAVR to prevent patient re-identification. Late mortality was compared between the matched groups using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox-proportional hazard model. Results Records of 558 patients undergoing intervention for a failed biological prosthesis between March 2008 to September 2017 in 11 Ontario institutions were reviewed (ViV = 214, redo SAVR = 344). Patients who underwent ViV were older (78.2±8.2 vs 69.1±11.4, p<0.001, SMD=0.92) and had more hypertension, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure compared to redo SAVR before PSM (SMD>0.20). Propensity matching on 24 variables yielded similar groups for comparison (n=133 pairs). Ages were similar between ViV and Redo SAVR (76.0±6.2 vs 76.0±8.7, SMD=0.003) along with all other comorbidities (SMD<0.1). 30-day mortality was significantly lower with ViV compared to Redo SAVR (ARD: −7.4%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): −12.4%, −2.3%). The rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (ARD: −8.1%, 95% CI: −14.2%, −2.1%), blood transfusions (ARD: −62.2%, 95% CI: −75.2%, −49.1%) and length of stay (LOS) (mean difference: −7.8 days, 95% CI: −11.0, −4.6 days) were also lower with ViV. All-cause mortality at 5 years was similar between ViV and redo SAVR (Figure, p=0.19). Figure 1 Conclusion ViV TAVR was associated with lower early mortality, risk of permanent pacemaker implantation, any blood transfusion, and hospital LOS compared to redo SAVR in the largest PSM study to date. While there was no difference in late mortality at 5 years, additional studies with more subjects and longer follow-up are necessary. ViV TAVR may be the preferred approach for the treatment of failed biological prosthesis.

Download Full-text