Aortic valve disease with severe ventricular dysfunction: stentless valve for better recovery

Stentless aortic valve replacement: current status and future trends

Stentless aortic xenografts were introduced into clinical practice as aortic valve substitutes over a decade ago. Stentless prosthetic valves were expected to provide enhanced durability and more physiologic hemodynamic behavior when compared with stented bioprostheses. Whilst the former expectation has not been fulfilled, partly due to concomitantly improved durability of second-generation stented bioprostheses, the latter has consistently been satisfied in early and late clinical observation. Evidence is accumulating suggesting improved long-term survival due to more timely and thorough regression of ventricular hypertrophy. In addition, stentless xenografts have shown extreme versatility when adopted in a variety of complex clinical conditions associated with aortic valve disease, including small aortic anulus, ascending aortic aneurysm, endocarditis and left ventricular dysfunction. Future research in the form of prospective, multicenter, randomized trials must address the issues of very long-term durability and survival, while simplification in valve design is required to promote wider use of stentless valves.

Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update

Although porcine aortic valves or pericardial tissue mounted on a stent have made implantation techniques easier, these valves sacrifice orifice area and increase stress at the attachment of the stent, which causes primary tissue failure. Optimizing hemodynamics to prevent patient–prosthetic mismatch and improve durability, stentless bioprostheses use was revived in the early 1990s. The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview of stentless valves in the aortic position. Retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies showed similar operative mortality and morbidity in stented and stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR), though stentless AVR required longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Several cohort studies showed improved survival after stentless AVR, probably due to better hemodynamic performance and earlier left ventricular (LV) mass regression compared with stented AVR. However, there was a bias of operation age and nonrandomization. A randomized trial supported an improved 8-year survival of patients with the Freestyle or Toronto valves compared with Carpentier–Edwards porcine valves. On the contrary, another randomized study did not show improved clinical outcomes up to 12 years. Freedom from reoperation at 12 years in Toronto stentless porcine valves ranged from 69% to 75%, which is much lower than for Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valves. Cusp tear with consequent aortic regurgitation was the most common cause of structural valve deterioration. Cryolife O’Brien valves also have shorter durability compared with stent valves. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 44% at 10 years. Early prosthetic valve failure was also reported in patients who underwent root replacement with Shelhigh stentless composite grafts. There was no level I or IIa evidence of more effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, LV mass regression, surgical risk, durability, and late outcomes in stentless bioprostheses. There is no general recommendation to prefer stentless bioprostheses in all patients. For new-generation pericardial stentless valves, follow-up over 15 years is necessary to compare the excellent results of stented valves such as the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount and Hancock II valves.

High-risk aortic valve replacement: are the outcomes as bad as predicted?

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR) trials are ongoing in patients with an elevated European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCOREs), patients believed to have high mortality rates and poor long-term prognoses with valve replacement surgery. It is, however, uncertain that the EuroSCORE model is well calibrated for such high-risk AVR patients. We evaluated EuroSCORE prediction vs a single institution's surgical results in this target population.

METHODS

From January 1996 through March 2006, 731 patients with EuroSCOREs of 7 or higher underwent isolated AVR. In this cohort, 313 (42.8%) were septuagenarians, 322 (44.0%) were octogenarians or nonagenarians, 233 (31.9%) had had previous cardiac procedures, 237 (32.4%) had atheromatous aortas, and 127 (17.4%) had cerebrovascular disease. A minimally invasive approach was used in 469 (64.2%). Data collection was prospective. Long-term survival was computed from the Social Security Death Benefit Index.

RESULTS

The mean EuroSCORE was 9.7 (median, 10), and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 17.2%. Actual hospital mortality was 7.8% (57 of 731). Multivariate analysis showed ejection fraction of less than 0.30 (p = 0.002; odds ratio [OR], 3.13), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.019; OR, 2.14), and peripheral vascular disease (p = 0.048; OR, 2.13) were significant predictors of hospital mortality. Complication(s) occurred in 73 patients (9.9%). Freedom from all-cause death (including hospital mortality) was 72.4% at 5 years (n = 152). Age (p < 0.001), previous cardiac operations (p < 0.014; OR, 1.51), renal failure (p < 0.002; OR, 2.37), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p < 0.007; OR, 1.30) were predictors of worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Logistic EuroSCORE greatly overpredicts mortality in these patients. Five-year survival is good, unlike suggestions from earlier EuroSCORE analyses. This raises concern about unknown long-term percutaneous prosthesis function. Clinical trials for these patients must include randomized surgical controls and have long-term end points.

Autografts, homografts, and xenografts: overview on stentless aortic valve surgery

Stentless valves, either human (autografts, homografts) or animal (porcine xenografts), were historically among the first substitutes to be used to replace the diseased aortic valve. Forty years after those pioneering days and 15 years after revival of such valves, stentless grafts have become a mainstay in aortic surgery. Although limitations associated with the use of autografts, homografts and xenografts remain, stentless valves have profoundly improved quality of life after aortic valve/root replacement. In addition, stentless surgery has greatly advanced the understanding of aortic root anatomy, physiology and pathology among surgeons.

Factors affecting left ventricular remodeling after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. An overview

Although a small percentage of patients with critical aortic stenosis do not develop left ventricle hypertrophy, increased ventricular mass is widely observed in conditions of increased afterload. There is growing epidemiological evidence that hypertrophy is associated with excess cardiac mortality and morbidity not only in patients with arterial hypertension, but also in those undergoing aortic valve replacement. Valve replacement surgery relieves the aortic obstruction and prolongs the life of many patients, but favorable or adverse left ventricular remodeling is affected by a large number of factors whose specific roles are still a subject of debate. Age, gender, hemodynamic factors, prosthetic valve types, myocyte alterations, interstitial structures, blood pressure control and ethnicity can all influence the process of left ventricle mass regression, and myocardial metabolism and coronary artery circulation are also involved in the changes occurring after aortic valve replacement. The aim of this overview is to analyze these factors in the light of our experience, elucidate the important question of prosthesis-patient mismatch by considering the method of effective orifice area, and discuss surgical timings and techniques that can improve the management of patients with aortic valve stenosis and maximize the probability of mass regression.

Influence of valve prosthesis type on the recovery of ventricular dysfunction and subendocardial ischaemia following valve replacement for aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Long-standing aortic stenosis (AS) causes significant progressive left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and may result in subendocardial ischaemia. Following aortic valve surgery, LV function may improve and this may be accompanied by reversal of ischaemia. There is debate about the differential effects of valve substitutes.

METHODS

We studied 33 patients with significant AS and impaired LV systolic function. Patients underwent trans-thoracic Doppler echocardiography and 12-lead electrocardiography pre-operatively, prior to discharge from hospital and at 2.5 (range 1.5-3) years follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty patients received a stentless valve and 13 a stented valve. No patient had significant aortic regurgitation, other valvular disease or coronary artery disease. LV fractional shortening (FS) increased from 19+/-6% to 26+/-7% post-operatively and to 33+/-12% at follow-up in the stentless group (p<0.001). In the stented group, no significant change was seen in the post-operative FS, although it improved at follow-up and at this point did not differ from the stentless group. LV mass fell from 338+/-72 to 265+/-64 g post-operatively and to 170+/-77 g at follow-up (p<0.001) in the stentless group, whereas in the stented group a significant fall was seen only at follow-up (329+/-51 g pre-operatively, 304+/-68 g post-operatively, 166+/-28 g at follow-up, p=0.01). LV free wall excursion increased from 0.8+/-0.3 to 1.1+/-0.4 cm (p=0.05) and to 1.4+/-0.3 cm (p=0.02 compared with pre-operative values) in the stentless group. In the stented group, values were 1.0+/-0.4, 1.0+/-0.3 and 1.3+/-0.2 cm (p=0.05 compared with pre-operative) at the three time points, respectively. QRS duration fell from 113+/-36 ms pre-operatively to 99+/-12 ms at follow-up in the stentless group and from 117+/-28 to 99+/-19 ms in the stented group, p=0.01 for both comparisons. QT interval fell from 385+/-54 ms pre-operatively to 366+/-39 ms at follow-up (p=0.04) in the stentless group with no significant change in the stented group (387+/-52 and 375+/-33 ms, p=0.24). There was reversal of LV strain pattern in 11 (55%) of the stentless group and 6 (46%) of the stented group and normalisation of the inverted U wave in two thirds of patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with AS and severe LV dysfunction, there is a more rapid improvement in LV function following aortic valve replacement with a stentless prosthesis. Improvements in those receiving stented valves appear delayed, although there were no differences between the groups in LV function or mass at follow-up. Normalisation of LV free wall systolic behaviour, narrowing of the QRS complex and a reduction in the QT interval suggest that AS is associated with subendocardial ischaemia that reverses following valve replacement.