Clinical and Surgical Evaluations of Reoperation After Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement Due to Different Etiologies

Background:This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and surgical characteristics of patients who required reoperation after mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR).Methods:We retrospectively identified 204 consecutive patients who underwent reoperation after mechanical MVR between 2009 and 2018. Patients were categorized according the reason for reoperation (perivalvular leakage, thrombus formation, or pannus formation). The patients' medical and surgical records were studied carefully and the rates of in-hospital complications were calculated.Results:The mean age was 51±12 years and 44% of the patients were male. The reasons for reoperation were perivalvular leakage (117 patients), thrombus formation (35 patients), and pannus formation (52 patients). The most common positions for perivalvular leakage were at the 6–10 o'clock positions (proportions of ≥25% for each hour position). Most patients had an interval of >10 years between the original MVR and reoperation. The most common reoperation procedure was re-do MVR (157 patients), and 155 of these patients underwent concomitant cardiac procedures. There were 10 in-hospital deaths and 32 patients experienced complications. The 10-year survival rate was 82.2 ± 3.9% in general, and the group of lowest rate was patients with PVL (77.5 ± 5.2%). The independent risk factors were “male” (4.62, 95% CI 1.57–13.58, P = 0.005) and “Hb <9g/dL before redo MV operation” (3.45, 95% CI 1.13–10.49, P = 0.029).Conclusion:Perivalvular leakage was the most common reason for reoperation after mechanical MVR, with a low survival rate in long term follow-up relatively.

Left Ventricular Mechanics Differ in Subtypes of Aortic Stenosis Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) mechanics are impaired in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We hypothesized that there would be differences in myocardial mechanics, measured by global longitudinal strain (GLS) recovery in patients with four subtypes of severe AS after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), stratified based upon flow and gradient.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 204 patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR and were followed post-TAVR at our institution for clinical outcomes. Speckle-tracking transthoracic echocardiography was performed pre- and post-TAVR. Patients were classified as: (1) normal-flow and high-gradient, (2) normal-flow and high-gradient with reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF), (3) classical low-flow and low-gradient, or (4) paradoxical low-flow and low-gradient.ResultsBoth GLS (−13.9 ± 4.3 to −14.8 ± 4.3, P < 0.0001) and LVEF (55 ± 15 to 57 ± 14%, P = 0.0001) improved immediately post-TAVR. Patients with low-flow AS had similar improvements in LVEF (+2.6 ± 9%) and aortic valve mean gradient (−23.95 ± 8.34 mmHg) as patients with normal-flow AS. GLS was significantly improved in patients with normal-flow (−0.93 ± 3.10, P = 0.0004) compared to low-flow AS. Across all types of AS, improvement in GLS was associated with a survival benefit, with GLS recovery in alive patients (mean GLS improvement of −1.07 ± 3.10, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsLV mechanics are abnormal in all patients with subtypes of severe AS and improve immediately post-TAVR. Recovery of GLS was associated with a survival benefit. Patients with both types of low-flow AS showed significantly improved, but still impaired, GLS post-TAVR, suggesting underlying myopathy that does not correct post-TAVR.

Economic Considerations in Access to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis, with the number of procedures and sites offering the procedure steadily rising over the past decade in the United States. Despite this, growth into certain markets has been limited as hospitals have to balance high TAVR costs with the ability to offer a complete array of state-of-the-art therapies for aortic stenosis. This trade-off often results in decreased access to TAVR services by patients cared for in hospitals that cannot afford these services or have difficulty meeting procedural requirements, recruiting skilled physicians, and initiating and then maintaining a functioning TAVR program. The lack of access is more common among patients of color or those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. The purpose of this review is to describe the hospital-level economic considerations of TAVR in the United States and the resulting effects on geographic, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic access for Americans.

The Transaxillary Approach via Prosthetic Conduit for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the New-Generation Balloon-Expandable Valves in Patients With Severe Peripheral Artery Disease

Background: The left subclavian artery (LSA) is an infrequently used alternative access route for patients with severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We report a new endovascular approach for TAVR combining an axillary prosthetic conduit-based access technique with new-generation balloon-expandable TAVR prostheses.Methods and Results: Between January 2020 and December 2020, 251 patients underwent TAVR at the West German Heart and Vascular Center. Of these, 10 patients (3.9%) were deemed to be treated optimally by direct surgical exposure of the left or right axillary artery via a surgically adapted prosthetic conduit. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. One procedural stroke occurred due to severe calcification of the aortic arch. No specific complications of the subclavian access site (vessel rupture, vertebral, or internal mammary ischemia) were reported. Two minor bleedings from the access site could be treated conservatively. No surgical revision was necessary.Conclusion: The axillary prosthetic conduit-based access technique using new-generation balloon-expandable valves allows safe and successful TAVR in a subgroup of patients with a high risk of procedural complications due to severe peripheral vascular disease. Considering the increasing number of patients referred for TAVR, this approach could represent an alternative for patients with limited access sites.

Comparison of clinical outcomes in elderly patients undergoing TAVR- a nationwide analysis

Introduction Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive alternative to traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) that has been increasingly utilized in the management of aortic stenosis. Several studies have compared the outcomes of TAVR to SAVR, and studies have also compared the clinical outcomes in the elderly population. However, the comparison in outcomes of TAVR between patients more than 80 years and less than 80 years old has not been well characterized. Therefore, in this study, we sought to assess the hospital outcomes and major adverse events of TAVR in patients ≥80 years old compared to those <80 years. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using the National Inpatient Sample for the year 2018. Using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10) procedure codes we identified patients who underwent TAVR. We further divided these patients into two cohorts based on age being ≥80 years and <80 years old. The primary outcomes were the comparison of in-hospital mortality and major adverse events (MAE) in patients with TAVR procedure stratified based on age. Secondary analysis included sub-groups analysis of both the cohorts and comparing those with and without MAE as well as comparison of those with MAE only in both cohorts. Results We identified 63,630 patients who underwent TAVR procedures from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Among them, 35, 115(55%) were ≥80 years and 28,515(45%) were <80 years of age. There was no difference in the in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.1%, p=0.89) and rates of MAE (23.8 vs 23.4, p=0.49) between ≥80 and <80year patients. Anemia (aOR-2.12 vs. aOR-1.93), Liver disease (aOR-1.57 vs aOR-1.48), CKD (aOR-1.34 vs. aOR-1.68), history of stroke (aOR-1.54 vs. aOR-1.46), and a higher number of comorbidities were independently associated with higher odds of MAE in both groups. Among patients ≥80, increasing age was also associated with higher MAE (aOR-1.03). In patients who had MAE, those < 80 years had higher comorbidities compared to those ≥80 years (Charlson category ≥3 - 74.5 vs 67%, p<0.001). More patients of age ≥80 years old also belonged to zip-codes with higher median income (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis of patients with MAE on both cohorts, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality rate (p=0.65) and length of stay (p=0.12) but total hospital charges were higher for patients less than 80 years of age (283,618 vs 300,624$, p=0.04). However, patients ≥80 years had a higher rate of pacemaker insertion compared to those < 80 years (25.1 vs 24.4%, p=0.008). Conclusion This study shows that in patients undergoing TAVR, the in-hospital mortality and MAE were not statistically significant between those aged ≥80 years and < 80 years. However, among subjects who experienced MAE, those < 80 years had a higher proportion of comorbidities than those ≥80 years of age. Our study also shows that for those above 80 years of age undergoing TAVR, the odds of MAE increases by 3% for each year on increasing age.