Postoperative exercise tolerance after aortic valve replacement by small-size prosthesis: functional consequence of small-size aortic prosthesis

Hemodynamic comparison between Trifecta and freestyle aortic valve during exercise in patients with small aortic root

BACKGROUND

Patients with a small aortic annulus, that is ≤ 23 mm, constitute a challenge for the surgeon, because they are at high risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Stentless valves provide better hemodynamic performance at rest and during exercise than stented valves, and are advocated in this group of patients. A new-generation stented valve, the Trifecta (St. Jude), has recently become available with improved hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of Freestyle (Medtronic) and Trifecta at rest and during exercise in patients with a small aortic annulus.

METHODS

From September 2012 to September 2014, 22 patients with a native aortic annulus ≤ 23 mm underwent ergometric stress testing one year after aortic valve replacement with either a Trifecta (12 patients) or a Freestyle (10 patients) bioprosthesis as part of a randomized study.

RESULTS

The mean gradient at rest was 6.0 ± 2.3 mmHg for Trifecta and 4.3 ± 3.5 for Freestyle (p = 0.213). The mean gradient at peak of exercise was 9.7 ± 3.4 mmHg for Trifecta and 7.4 ± 5 mmHg for Freestyle (p = 0.243). No significant differences were found between the two prostheses regarding other hemodynamic parameters: effective orifice area, velocity index, and performance indexes.

CONCLUSION

Both the stented Trifecta and stentless Freestyle prostheses provide excellent hemodynamic results during physical stress in patients with a small aortic annulus. Our study confirms that Trifecta implantation results in low gradients at rest and during exercise and that the performance of Trifecta is similar to that of a stentless valve.

Decreased aerobic capacity 4 years after aortic valve replacement in male patients operated upon for chronic aortic regurgitation

Exercise testing is underutilized in patients with valve disease. We have previously found a low physical work capacity in patients with aortic regurgitation 6 months after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to evaluate aerobic capacity in patients 4 years after AVR, to study how their peak oxygen uptake (peakVO₂) had changed postoperatively over a longer period of time. Twenty-one patients (all men, 52 ± 13 years) who had previously undergone cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) pre- and 6 months postoperatively underwent maximal exercise testing 49 ± 15 months postoperatively using an electrically braked bicycle ergometer. Breathing gases were analysed and the patients' physical fitness levels categorized according to Åstrand's and Wasserman's classifications. Mean peakVO₂ was 22·8 ± 5·1 ml × kg⁻¹ × min⁻¹ at the 49-month follow-up, which was lower than at the 6-month follow-up (25·6 ± 5·8 ml × kg⁻¹ × min⁻¹, P = 0·001). All but one patient presented with a physical fitness level below average using Åstrand's classification, while 13 patients had a low physical capacity according to Wasserman's classification. A significant decrease in peakVO₂ was observed from six to 49 months postoperatively, and the decrease was larger than expected from the increased age of the patients. CPET could be helpful in timing aortic valve surgery and for the evaluation of need of physical activity as part of a rehabilitation programme.

Comparison of transprosthetic mean pressure gradients between Medtronic Hall and ATS valves in the aortic position

AIM OF THE STUDY

Several studies have shown the inferior performance of small prostheses in the narrow aortic root. However, modern low-profile mechanical prostheses have improved hemodynamic performance characteristics. By measuring the transprosthetic pressure gradient in vivo, we were able to characterize the hemodynamic features of two prostheses: the ATS Medical (ATS) and the Medtronic Hall (MH) valves.

METHODS

From October 1994 to April 2002, 113 patients received an aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either an ATS or a MH valve. The transprosthetic pressure gradients, calculated from a simplified Bernoulli equation during immediate postoperative Doppler echocardiographic examination, were compared for differently sized prostheses with respect to body surface area (BSA).

RESULTS

The mean pressure gradients and the mean BSAs were: 27.8 +/- 14.8 mm Hg and 1.50 +/- 0.10 m(2) in ATS 19 mm (n = 7), 20.4 +/- 8.5 mm Hg and 1.54 +/- 0.11 m(2) in ATS 21 mm (n = 22), 13.0 +/- 5.7 mm Hg, 1.70 +/- 0.13 m(2) in ATS 23 mm (n = 22), 10.9 +/- 3.5 mm Hg and 1.81 +/ -0.16 m(2) in ATS 25 mm (n = 19), 9.3 +/- 0.6 mm Hg and 1.72 +/- 0.17 m(2) in ATS 27 mm (n = 4), 13.5 +/- 6.5 mm Hg and 1.54 +/- 0.13 m(2) in MH 20 mm (n = 9), 10.9 +/- 4.7 mm Hg and 1.64 +/- 0.15 m(2) in MH 22 mm (n = 22), 9.3 +/- 3.1 mm Hg and 1.72 +/- 0.12 m(2) in MH 24 mm (n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of the ATS 19-mm valve, the variously sized prostheses have acceptable transprosthetic pressure gradient measurements. In addition, even-sized MH valves (20 and 22 mm) with a thinner sewing cuff showed better hemodynamic performances than similarly sized ATS valves.

Functional Results in Aortic Root Enlargement

BACKGROUND

The hemodynamically efficient valves with effective orifice areas that are used in aortic valve replacement have been positively determined to affect postoperative exercise capacity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional effects of aortic root enlargement in the late postoperative period for patients with a small effective orifice area.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with a small effective orifice area were included in the study. The study group comprised 9 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with 23-mm St. Jude Medical prosthetic valves and posterior aortic root enlargement. The control group comprised 10 patients in whom 19-mm and 21-mm St. Jude Medical prosthetic valves were implanted without aortic root enlargement. The patients were evaluated in the late postoperative period with echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were similar in anthropometric parameter values, follow-up periods, echocardiographic findings, and the gradients at the prosthetic aortic valve at rest; however, the anaerobic threshold, peak oxygen uptake, minute ventilation volume, and walk time were significantly higher in the study group ( P <.05).

CONCLUSION

The choice of aortic root enlargement for the implantation of a valve with a larger effective orifice area is preferred by most of the surgeons over the implantation of a valve with a smaller effective orifice area. The late postoperative functional capacity of the patient is significantly improved with root enlargement. Surgeons should be encouraged to perform root enlargement in patients with a small effective orifice area, and such surgery may even be performed routinely in these patients.