Oral anticoagulant treatment after bioprosthetic valvular intervention or valvuloplasty in patients with atrial fibrillation—A SWEDEHEART study

Aims To describe the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF), use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) and change in antithrombotic treatment patterns during follow-up after valve intervention with a biological prosthesis or valvuloplasty. Methods and results All patients with history of AF or new-onset AF discharged alive after valvular intervention (biological prosthesis or valvuloplasty) between 2010–2016 in Sweden were included (n = 7,362). Information about comorbidities was collected from national patient registers. Exposure to OAC was based on pharmacy dispensation data. In total 4,800 (65.2%) patients had a history of AF, and 2,562 (34.8%) patients developed new-onset AF, with 999 (39.0%) developing new-onset AF within 3 months after intervention. The proportion of patients with biological valve prosthesis was higher in patients with new-onset AF compared to history of AF (p<0.001). CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 was observed in 83.1% and 75.5% patients with history of AF and new-onset AF, respectively. Warfarin was more frequently dispensed than NOAC at discharge in patients with history of AF (43.9% vs 7.3%), and in patients with new-onset AF (36.6% vs 17.1%). Almost half of the AF population was not dispensed on any OAC at discharge (48.8% in patients with history of AF and 46.3% in patients with new-onset AF). Conclusion In this real world study of patients with AF and recent valvular intervention, risk of new-onset AF after valvular intervention is high emphasizing need for frequent rhythm monitoring after intervention. A considerable undertreatment with OAC was observed despite being indicated for the majority of the patients. Warfarin was the OAC most frequently dispensed.

Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis for Degenerative Aortic Valve Stenosis: Initial Experience With 67 Patients

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.

Aortic root prosthesis with pericardial cusps "Russian conduit": A hydrodynamic experiment

<p><strong>Aim.</strong> The study aimed to compare the hydrodynamic characteristics and durability of the aortic root prosthesis with pericardial cusps with various options for the formation of commissures.</p><p><strong>Methods.</strong> Nine conduits with pericardial valves were formed according to the technique described by Ozaki. The prostheses were divided into 3 groups of 3 specimens each: group 1 — without additional reinforcing seams on the top of the commissure; group 2 — with an additional U-shaped seam without gasket; and group 3 — with an additional suture with an opposite pericardial gasket. The prostheses were fixed on a stand for hydrodynamic testing of artificial heart valves. The hydrodynamic characteristics of the prostheses were evaluated. The hydrodynamics of the frame biological prosthesis was used for comparison. After assessing the hydrodynamic parameters of the aortic root prostheses, their work durability was tested. Defects of the pericardial cusps were studied macroscopically.</p><p><strong>Results. </strong>Two samples from group 2 were withdrawn from testing ahead of schedule at around 11 × 10⁶ cycles, which is approximately 3.5 months of normal heart function. The other prostheses remained competent and were removed for an examination at 32 × 10⁶ cycles, which is approximately 9.6 months of normal heart function.</p><p><strong>Conclusion. </strong>The hydrodynamics of the aortic root prosthesis with pericardial valves was comparable to the hydrodynamics of the frame biological prosthesis. Additional U-shaped sutures in the commissure area of the pericardial cusps did not increase the functional durability of the aortic root prosthesis with pericardial leaflets and served as additional risk factors for leaflet perforation. Implantation of pericardial leaflets into a vascular graft resulted in a different distribution of dynamic stress compared to the original aortic valve neocuspidisation, which preserved the aortic root.</p><p>Received 8 July 2021. Revised 30 August 2021. Accepted 7 September 2021.</p><p><strong>Funding:</strong> The study did not have sponsorship.</p><p><strong>Conflict of interest:</strong> Authors declare no conflict of interest.</p><p><strong>Contribution of the authors<br /> </strong>Conception and study design: V.V. Bazylev, P.A. Batrakov<br /> Data collection and analysis: P.A. Batrakov, D.M. Khadiev, A.A. Egorov, N.A. Eremin<br /> Drafting the article: P.A. Batrakov<br /> Critical revision of the article: V.V. Bazylev, P.A. Batrakov<br /> Final approval of the version to be published: V.V. Bazylev, P.A. Batrakov, D.M. Khadiev, A.A. Egorov, N.A. Eremin<strong> </strong></p>

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

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 (&gt;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 &gt;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&lt;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&lt;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 &lt;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

PATIENT-PROSTHESIS MISMATCH IS A PREVENTABLE DISEASE BUT HOW TO PREVENT IT IS A STORY NOT YET WRITTEN

Large studies demonstrated that moderate or severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) occurs in 44.2% to 65% of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. If there is general agreement that patients with PPM have worse outcome than patients without, it is difficult to understand how to prevent this dangerous complication. The formula used to calculate the effective orifice area (EOA) of an implanted aortic prosthesis has many weak points that produce inconsistent results using the same prosthetic valve (type and size). The observed EOA (3 to 6 months postoperatively) of a #23 biological prosthesis can range from 0.9 to 3.5 cm², making PPM prevention impossible using projected EOA, where only the mean value is reported (1.83 cm² for the same #23 biological prosthesis). An EACTS-STS-AATS Valve Labelling Task Force has been established to suggest the manufacturers to present essential information on valvular prosthesis characteristics in standardized Valve Charts. For valves used in the aortic position, Valve Charts should include a standardized PPM chart to assess the probability of PPM after implantation. This will not solve completely the conundrum of prevention, but most likely it will be a step ahead.

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

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