Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.

Konno-rastan procedure combined with manougian root enlargement for small aortic root

Aortic stenosis is a rarely seen condition in the pediatric population. Valve replacement is a treatment option for patients who do not benefit from medical or interventional procedures. In this report, we described our surgical treatment strategy in a 17-year-old patient who developed patient-prosthesis mismatch long after initial aortic valve replacement during the childhood period. Keywords: Konno-rastan procedure; manouguian technique; aortic root enlargement

Aortic Root Enlargement In Case of Double Valve Replacement

Rheumatic valvular heart disease is quite common in Bangladesh. It affects most commonly mitral and aortic valve. As a result of annular fibrosis, aortic root become smaller in some patients. So, if smaller prosthesis is implanted, there is gross patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM), poor LV regression, increase overload, and ultimately low survival rate. Its' to report our experience in aortic root enlargement in case of double valve replacement where a patient of severe mitral stenosis and aortic regurgitation with small aortic annulus requiring aortic root enlargement (ARE).Weaning from Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was uneventful, perioperative and post operative period was satisfactory. Post-operative echocardiography revealed normally functioning prosthesis. In case of small aortic root, aortic root enlargement (ARE) can be safely done by double valve replacement to overcome the prosthetic patient mismatch (PPM). KYAMC Journal Vol. 11, No.-2, July 2020, Page 108-110

A study on safety and efficacy of Otaki technique in very small aortic root

Aortic stenosis tends to pose a challenge to the surgeon when it is associated with a small size annulus. The conundrum as to whether to use a small prosthesis with a borderline effective orifice are index(EOAI) or go for a technically challenging root enlargement procedure in these cases remains. Various such techniques have been described by Kono and associates, Otaki, Nicks and colleagues, Manouguian & Seybold-Epting, and Nunez and associates. In this paper, we describe our experience with the bidirectional enlargement technique described by Yamaguchi and Otaki

Stentless Pericarbon Freedom Versus Stented Perimount Aortic Bioprosthesis: Propensity-Matched Long-Term Follow-Up

Objective Stentless aortic valves have shown superior hemodynamic performance and faster left ventricular mass regression compared to stented bioprostheses. Yet, controversies exist concerning the durability of stentless valves. This case-matched study compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes of stentless LivaNova-Sorin Pericarbon Freedom™ (SPF) and stented Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CEP) aortic prostheses. Methods From 2003 through 2006, 134 consecutive patients received aortic valve replacement with SPF at our institution. This cohort was matched, according to 20 preoperative clinical parameters, with a control group of 390 patients who received CEP prosthesis during the same time. The resulting 55 + 55 matched patients were analyzed for perioperative results and long-term clinical outcomes. Results Early mortality was 0% for both groups. Lower transvalvular gradients were found in the SPF group (10.6 ± 2.9 versus 15.7 ± 3.1 mmHg, P < 0.001). Overall late mortality (mean follow-up: 10.03 years) was similar for both groups (50.1% versus 42.8%, P = 0.96). Freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) at 13 years was similar for both groups (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 73.9%, P = 0.06). Freedom from aortic valve reinterventions did not differ (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 93.5%, P = 0.55). Gradients at 13-year follow-up remained significantly lower in SPF group (10.0 ± 4.5 versus 16.2 ± 9.5 mmHg, P < 0.001). Incidence of acute bacterial endocarditis (ABE) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was similar. Conclusions SPF and CEP demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes related to late mortality, SVD, aortic valve reinterventions, and incidence of ABE and MACCE. Superior hemodynamic performance of SPF over time can make this valve a suitable choice in patients with small aortic root and large body surface area.