Surgical Enlargement of the Aortic Root Does Not Increase the Operative Risk of Aortic Valve Replacement

Surgeon Frequency of Aortic Root Enlargement and Long-Term Survival in Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) is a variably performed during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to minimize patient-prothesis mismatch (PPM), but its impact on survival remains under-evaluated. We retrospectively analyzed Medicare beneficiaries (1999-2019) undergoing isolated SAVR with or without non-Konno ARE. Procedural details were doubly-adjudicated by ICD and CPT codes. Overlap propensity score weighting adjusted for confounders. Restricted mean survival times (RMST) at 30-days and 20-years were compared. Surgeons were stratified by ARE frequency, and survival was analyzed using risk-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates in both "as-treated" (SAVR vs SAVR+ARE) and "surgeon-preference" (never-ARE vs frequent-ARE surgeons) analyses. Of 214,266 beneficiaries undergoing isolated SAVR, 6,652 (3.1%) underwent SAVR+ARE. From 1999 to 2019, ARE utilization increased from 2.1% to 6.4% (Cochran-Armitage Z-statistic: 15.2). Among 3,018 surgeons, 1,513 never performed ARE (69,389 beneficiaries), 1,227 performed ARE in <10% of cases (128,258 beneficiaries), and 278 performed ARE in ≥10% of cases (16,619 beneficiaries). After risk-adjustment, survival was significantly lower in SAVR+ARE compared to SAVR recipients: 30-day RMST 28.73 (28.60,28.87) versus 29.35 (29.26,29.45) days (p = 0.013) and 20-year RMST 9.15 (8.96,9.35) vs 9.49 (9.30,9.69) years (p = 0.018). Similarly, beneficiaries treated by frequent-ARE surgeons experienced worse early risk-adjusted survival without any late survival benefit: 30-day RMST 29.19 (29.11,29.27) versus 29.33 (29.25-29.40) days (p = 0.013), 20-year RMST 9.04 (8.90,9.18) versus 9.13 (9.00,9.27) (p = 0.351). Landmark analysis of 1-year survivors showed no late survival difference (p = 0.456 "as-treated" analysis; p = 0.943 "surgeon-preference" analysis). Even among frequent-ARE surgeons, SAVR+ARE was associated with higher 30-day and reduced 20-year RMST relative to SAVR alone. In conclusion, ARE was associated with higher early mortality and no long-term survival advantage compared to SAVR alone (even among frequent-ARE surgeons), as was undergoing surgery by a frequent ARE surgeon. Further studies are required to assess the potential utility of ARE in younger patients, those with small annuli, and those at risk for PPM.

What Are SAVR Indications in the TAVI Era?

While surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has traditionally been regarded as the gold standard for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a compelling less invasive alternative for patients with severe AS across the entire surgical risk spectrum. Despite TAVI's increasing utilization and promising outcomes, SAVR continues to be an essential treatment modality for certain patient populations, including individuals with complex aortic anatomies unsuitable for TAVI, patients presenting with significant aortic regurgitation, individuals requiring concomitant surgical procedures, and cases involving infective endocarditis. Furthermore, concerns regarding the long-term durability and complication profile of transcatheter valves underscore the importance of individualized patient assessment, especially for younger patients requiring optimal lifetime management strategies. This review examines the evolving role of SAVR amidst the growing adoption of TAVI and highlights key considerations for selecting the most appropriate treatment strategy for patients with aortic valve disease, incorporating insights from recent advancements in transcatheter technologies and the latest clinical trial evidence.

Trends and Outcomes of Aortic Root Enlargement During Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) mitigates prosthesis-patient mismatch, but its use has been low. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) as a treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves is limited by small surgical valves, renewing interest in ARE during the index AVR. This study demonstrates trends and outcomes of ARE after commercial approval of VIV in 2015.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 2182 patients undergoing nonemergent AVR between August 2007 and December 2022. Endocarditis, aortic dissection, and concomitant root replacement or ventricular assist device placement were excluded. Trends in ARE use, valve size, and types were compared. Outcome measures included 30-day mortality and gradients and were compared between patients with and without ARE.

Results

Overall, 74 patients (3.4%) underwent ARE, 14 (1.0%) before 2015 and 60 (7.6%, P < .0001) after 2015. Use of smaller valves (19-21 mm) decreased from 372 (26.8%) before 2015 to 85 (10.7%, P < .0001) after 2015. ARE group was younger than the AVR-alone group (64 vs 68 years, P = .001) but had similar predicted risk of mortality (median, 1.7%). Both groups had comparable postoperative mean gradients (ARE: 11 vs AVR-alone: 10 mm Hg, P = .42). ARE had higher 30-day mortality (5 [7%] vs 48 [2%], P = .014); however, no difference was found in elective patients (2 of 65 [3%] vs 39 of 1898 [2%], P = .57).

Conclusions

ARE use has increased since commercial approval of VIV. The addition of ARE to AVR did not affect early safety in elective cases, and postoperative gradients were similar to those in patients not requiring ARE. Further studies are required to determine long-term outcomes after ARE, including VIV candidacy.

Aortic Annular Enlargement vs Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Matched Annulus

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine the effect of aortic annular enlargement on the midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement surgery by comparing patients with the same-sized (≤23 mm) native aortic annuli.

METHODS

From January 2011 to June 2022, 1328 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement-1163 without aortic annular enlargement (AVR group) and 165 with aortic annular enlargement (AVR+AAE group). Propensity score matching identified 112 pairs, controlling for native aortic annulus diameter, age, sex, diabetes, chronic lung disease, dialysis, ejection fraction, prior cardiac surgery, indication, hypertension, dyslipidemia, valve type, prior stroke, prior myocardial infarction, and case status.

RESULTS

Demographic and preoperative variables were similar, except body surface area was larger in the AVR+AAE group (2.1 m2 vs 1.9 m2). Median native aortic annulus diameter was 23 mm in both groups. Median prosthesis size was 25 in the AVR+AAE group and 23 in the AVR group. The AVR+AAE group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (143 vs 111 minutes) and cross-clamp (115 vs 82 minutes) times. Incidences of perioperative complications, including operative mortality (1.8% AVR+AAE vs 3.6% AVR) were similar between groups. Survival at 6 years was 98% in the AVR+AAE group and 74% in the AVR group (P = .016). Aortic annular enlargement was an independent protective factor for midterm mortality, with a hazard ratio of 0.19 (P = .006). The rate of moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was 19% in the AVR+AAE group and 31% in the AVR group (P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with small native aortic annuli (≤23 mm) undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement may benefit from aortic annular enlargement.

Aortic Valve Intervention in Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Small Annulus

Over the last two decades, the management of aortic stenosis has undergone significant transformation due to developments in surgical techniques and the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). These transformations have enabled improved patient selection and treatments to be tailored based on individual clinical and anatomical characteristics. Both surgical and transcatheter options have resulted in reduced mortality and enhanced quality of life for patients with aortic stenosis. Nonetheless, treating patients with small aortic annulus remains challenging despite advances in current technology. The insertion of a small prosthetic valve, leading to patient prosthetic mismatch, has been associated with heart failure hospitalization, early structural valve degeneration, and long-term mortality. Although aortic root enlargement was historically employed to address this issue, stentless and sutureless valves in the supra-annular position and, more recently, TAVI have emerged as alternative treatments for patients with small annulus and severe aortic stenosis. This review will provide an overview of the prevalence and anatomical characteristics of patients with aortic stenosis and small annulus. Additionally, we will discuss current treatment options, including surgery and TAVI, used to mitigate procedural and long-term adverse outcomes in this group.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement with the Mosaic Ultra Bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

 Several studies have reported high rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Mosaic prosthesis. This work assesses the incidence of PPM after AVR with a modified version of the Mosaic prosthesis, the Mosaic Ultra.

METHODS

 We performed a retrospective analysis of the data of 532 patients who underwent AVR with implantation of the Mosaic Ultra prosthesis in the period 2007-2016 in our institution. Patients were classified according to their indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) to severe (EOAi < 0.65 cm2/m2), moderate (EOAi 0.65-0.85 cm2/m2), and absent/mild PPM (EOAi > 0.85 cm2/m2). In-hospital postoperative outcomes and the impact of PPM on mean transvalvular pressure gradient after stratification by prosthesis size were assessed.

RESULTS

 Overall, 3 (0.6%) patients had severe, 92 (17.3%) moderate, and 437 (82.1%) absent/mild PPM. There was a significant difference in PPM proportions (moderate/severe vs absent/mild PPM) across different prosthesis sizes overall (p < 0.0001), observing gradually increasing rates of PPM with decreasing prosthesis sizes. Patients with moderate/severe PPM had higher mean transvalvular pressure gradients (19 [13-25] vs 13 [10-17] mm Hg, p < 0.0001) than patients with absent/mild PPM. There was a significant difference in mean transvalvular pressure gradient between the different aortic valve prosthesis sizes overall (p < 0.0001), observing gradually increasing gradients with decreasing prosthesis sizes.

CONCLUSION

 Patients undergoing AVR with the smaller sized (19, 21, and 23 mm) Mosaic Ultra aortic valve prostheses exhibit a higher risk for moderate/severe PPM and higher mean aortic transvalvular pressure gradients than patients receiving the larger sized (25, 27, and 29 mm) prostheses.

How-I-Do-It: Aortic Annular Enlargement - Are the Nicks and Manouguian Obsolete?

The Y-incision aortic annular enlargement (AAE), first performed in August 2020, offers a safe and more effective alternative for management of a small aortic annulus/root without need for violation of the left ventricular outflow tract, mitral valve geometry, or left/right atria in both first-time aortic valve replacement (AVR) and reoperative AVR. In the first consecutive 119 patients with Y-incision AAE, the median age was 65 (59, 71), 67% female, 28% had previous cardiac surgery, and 2 cases had endocarditis. The preoperative mean gradient was 36 (30, 47), and the native aortic valve area was 0.9 (0.7, 1.0). After aortic annular enlargement, the median prosthesis size was 29 (27, 29) with 63% of patients having a size 29 or the largest sized valve. The median increment of annulus enlargement was 3 (3, 4) valve sizes. Postoperative complications included 1 operative mortality, 1 stroke exacerbation, and 2 pacemaker implantations (including one case of endocarditis with Gerbode fistula). There was no renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, mediastinitis, or reoperation for bleeding. Postoperative computed tomography aortogram showed the aortic root was enlarged from 27 (24, 30) to 40 (37, 42) mm without aortic pseudoaneurysm. The postoperative mean gradient was 6 (5, 9) mm Hg and valve area was 2.2 (1.8, 2.6) cm2 at 24 months. Mitral and tricuspid valve functions were significantly improved. This report describes the Y-incision technique with the most up-to-date modifications and short-term outcomes.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Aortic root enlargement in patients undergoing mitral and aortic replacement: early outcomes in a sub-Saharan population

Introduction

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) is often required to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in young patients undergoing aortic surgery, including those undergoing combined mitral and aortic valve replacement (double valve replacement, DVR). Adding ARE to DVR may increase the operative risk by extending the surgical time. Herein, we review our experience with ARE in patients who underwent DVR.

Materials and methods

The medical records of 69 patients who underwent DVR at our institution between February 2008 and November 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ARE procedure (ARE-DVR: 25 patients; DVR: 44 patients). Descriptive and comparative analyses of demographic, clinical, and surgical data were performed.

Results

Among the 69 patients who underwent DVR, 35 were women (sex ratio, 0.97). The mean age at surgery was 26.7  ±  13.9 years (range: 7-62 years). Among the 47 patients aged ≤30 years, 40.4% (19/47) were aged between 10 and 20 years, and 6.3% (3/47) were aged <10 years. Patients in the ARE-DVR group were younger (23.3 ± 12.9 years vs. 28.5 ± 14.2 years, p < 0.05). The New York Heart Association Class ≥III dyspnea was the most common symptom (89.9%), with no differences between the two groups. Of all the patients, 84.1% had sinus rhythm. Rheumatic disease was the most common etiology in the entire cohort (91.3%). The mean aortic annulus diameter was 20.54 mm, with smaller sizes found in the ARE-DVR group (18.00 ± 1.47 mm vs. 22.50 ± 2.35 mm, p < 0.05). The aortic cross-clamping duration was greater in the ARE-DVR group (177.6 ± 37.9 min vs. 148.3 ± 66.3 min, p = 0.047). The operative mortality rate was 5.6% for the entire cohort (ARE-DVR: 8% vs. DVR: 4.5%, p = 0.46). Among the patients who underwent echocardiographic control at follow-up, the mean aortic gradient was 19.6 ± 7.2 mmHg (range: 6.14-33 mmHg), with no differences among the groups.

Conclusion

The association between ARE and DVR did not significantly affect operative mortality. ARE can be safely used whenever indications arise to reduce the occurrence of PPM, especially in young patients with growth potential.

Managing the challenge of a small aortic annulus in patients with severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Small aortic annulus (SAA) poses a challenge in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement - both surgical and transcatheter - since it has been associated with worse clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to comprehensively summarize the available evidence regarding the management of aortic stenosis in patients with SAA and discuss the current controversies as well as future perspectives in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

It is paramount to agree in a common definition for diagnosing and properly treating SAA patients, and for that purpose, multidetector computer tomography is essential. The results of recent trials led to the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement among patients of all the surgical-risk spectrum, and the choice of treatment (transcatheter, surgical) should be based on patient comorbidities, anatomical characteristics, and patient preferences.

TAVR in 2023: Who Should Not Get It?

Since the first transcatheter delivery of an aortic valve prosthesis was performed by Cribier et al in 2002, the picture of aortic stenosis (AS) therapeutics has changed dramatically. Initiated from an indication of inoperable to high surgical risk, extending to intermediate and low risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now an approved treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic AS across all the risk categories. The current evidence supports TAVR as a frontline therapy for treating severe AS. The crucial question remains concerning the subset of patients who still are not ideal candidates for TAVR because of certain inherent anatomic, nonmodifiable, and procedure-specific factors. Therefore, in this study, we focus on these scenarios and reasons for referring selected patients for surgical aortic valve replacement in 2023.

Impact of Aortic Root Enlargement on Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can be an important adjunct for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study compared outcomes of AVR with or without ARE.

METHODS

This was an observational study using an institutional database of AVRs from 2010 to 2020 comparing patients who underwent isolated AVR vs AVR with ARE (AVR+ARE). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed.

RESULTS

Of 2371 patients, 2240 (94.5%) underwent isolated AVR and 131 (5.5%) underwent AVR+ARE. Patients who underwent AVR+ARE were more likely to be women and to be younger than those who underwent isolated AVR. Prosthesis size was smaller in patients undergoing AVR+ARE (23 mm [interquartile range {IQR}, 21-25] vs 25 mm [IQR, 23-25], P < .001), but indexed effective orifice area did not differ between the 2 groups. Operative mortality was comparable for AVR (2.3%) and AVR+ARE (3.8%, P = .28). Patients who underwent AVR+ARE had a longer length of stay (7 days [IQR, 6-13] vs 6 days [IQR 5-10], P < .001), were more likely to have acute kidney injury (6.1% vs 2.5%, P = .01), were more likely to require blood product transfusions (40.5% vs 27.6%, P < .001), and were more likely to require prolonged ventilation > 24 hours (16.0% vs 6.8%, P < .001). Rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker, and reoperation were comparable between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were similar, and on multivariable regression AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with AVR (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.46; P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

ARE can be safely performed with isolated AVR and should be considered for patients with small annuli to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Outcomes of Root Enlargement Vs Root Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Stentless aortic root replacement (ARR) and aortic root enlargement (ARE) are established strategies to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and small annuli. We sought to compare outcomes of these 2 procedures.

METHODS

This was an observational study using an institutional database of aortic valve replacements from 2010 to 2021. The study compared patients who underwent ARE vs ARR for AS. Those with endocarditis or aortic aneurysms were excluded. Postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression for survival were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for all-cause readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 533 patients underwent either ARE or ARR for AS. Of these, 193 (36.2%) underwent ARE and 340 (63.8%) underwent ARR with a stentless xenograft. There were no significant differences in operative mortality, stroke, length of stay, or new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis. There were also no significant differences in aortic valve reintervention rates (3.1% vs 1.8%; P = .314). Patients in the ARR group had larger valves implanted, larger indexed effective orifice areas, lower rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch, and lower transprosthetic gradients (P < .001). Median follow-up was 5.02 (2.70-7.8) years. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were comparable, and on multivariable Cox regression, ARR vs ARE was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.69-1.45; P = .996). Cumulative incidence estimates for all-cause readmissions were also comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ARE and stentless xenograft ARR for AS were associated with comparable postoperative complications, aortic valve reinterventions, freedom from readmission, and 5-year survival.

Outcomes Post-Nick's Aortic Root Enlargement Technique: Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

 Different techniques for aortic root enlargement (ARE) have been reported in the literature. Each technique comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. We report our outcomes of Nick's technique for ARE.

METHODS

 A single-center retrospective data analysis of 31 patients was performed. Patients were operated between May 2015 and November 2017 at Assuit University Heart Hospital, Assuit, Egypt.

RESULTS

 The median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 125 minutes (range: 90.0-160.0 minutes), with 90 minutes of cross-clamp (range: 60.0-110.0 minutes). Altogether 59% of the patients had mixed aortic valve diseases. Median intensive care unit and total hospital stay were 2 and 5 days, respectively. Patient-prosthesis mismatch was reported in one patient only (3.25%). Two patients died within 30 days. Median pressure gradient across the aortic valve was 20 mm Hg at 3 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

 The benefits of Nick's technique for ARE can be demonstrated in populations with younger patients and complicated pathology. Further research is required in larger patient populations.

Management of Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Mitigating Complications and Optimizing Outcomes

The use of bioprosthetic prostheses during surgical aortic valve replacements has increased dramatically over the last two decades, accounting for over 85% of surgical implantations. Given limited long-term durability, there has been an increase in aortic valve reoperations and reinterventions. With the advent of new technologies, multiple treatment strategies are available to treat bioprosthetic valve failure, including valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, ViV TAVR has an increased risk of higher gradients and patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) secondary to placing the new valve within the rigid frame of the prior valve, especially in patients with a small surgical bioprosthesis in situ. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows for placement of a larger transcatheter valve, as well as a fully expanded transcatheter valve, decreasing postoperative gradients and the risk of PPM.

Stentless Versus Stented Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The differences in long-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis between stentless and stented bioprostheses are controversial.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2018, 1173 patients underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, including 559 treated with a stentless valve and 614 with a stented valve. A propensity score matched cohort with 348 pairs was generated by matching for age, sex, body surface area, bicuspid aortic valve, chronic lung disease, previous cardiac surgery, coronary artery disease, renal failure on dialysis, valve size, concomitant procedures, and surgeon. The primary endpoints of the study were long-term survival and incidence of reoperation.

RESULTS

Immediate postoperative outcomes were similar between the stentless and stented groups with an overall operative mortality of 2.9% (P = .19). Kaplan-Meier estimation for long-term survival was comparable between the stentless and stented valves in both the whole cohort and the propensity score matched cohort (10-year survival 59% vs 55%, P = .20). The hazard ratio of stentless vs stented valve for risk of long-term mortality was 1.12 (P = .33). The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to valve degeneration was 5.5% in the stentless group and 4.7% in the stented group (P = .25). The transvalvular pressure gradient at 5-year follow-up was significantly lower in the stentless group (7 vs 11 mm Hg, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both stented and stentless valves could be used in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. We recommend stented valves for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis for their simplicity of implantation.

Impact of Non-Valvular Non-Coronary Concomitant Procedures on Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate Risk Patients

Introduction: advanced age and concomitant procedures could increase the risk of perioperative complications during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to evaluate results of elderly patients undergoing SAVR and evaluate the impact of concomitant non-valvular, non-coronary procedures on the outcomes. Methods: A retrospective single-centre study, evaluating 464 elderly patients (mean age = 75.6 ± 4 years) undergoing either isolated-SAVR (I-SAVR = 211) or combined-SAVR (C-SAVR = 253) between 01/2007 and 12/2017. Combined-SAVR involved non-valvular, non-coronary procedures. Study endpoints are postoperative results concerning the VARC-II criteria, valve dysfunction, long-term freedom from redo-AVR and survival. Results: males were 52.8%. Patients had an intermediate risk profile (mean EuroSCORE-II (%) 5.2 ± 5). Postoperative results reported no significant differences in incidence of re-exploration for bleeding (6.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 1.0), stroke (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.59), dialysis (6.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.23) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.79) between I-SAVR and C-SAVR groups. Thirty-day (2.4% vs. 7.1% p = 0.03), one-year (5.7% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.003) and overall mortality (24.6% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.002) were lower in the isolated-SAVR group. Re-AVR was indicated in 1.7% of patients due to endocarditis. Conclusions: SAVR in elderly patients offers good outcomes with increased life quality and rare re-operation for structural valvular deterioration. Mortality rates were significantly higher when SAVR was combined with another “non-valvular, non-coronary” procedure.

Updates on the Latest Surgical Approach of the Aortic Stenosis

Over the last twenty years, we marked significant progresses in the field of tissue engineering and the development of new aortic valve structural and delivery systems. These continuous iterations on the field, have completely changed the surgical indications and approaches for AVR. Nowadays, therapeutic decisions are endorsed by international guidelines; however, new technical advances need a new integrated approach. The clinical scenarios issued from the interaction between the Guidelines and the newest approaches and technologies are regularly on debate by the Heart Team. We will present some of our most encountered situations and the pattern of our therapeutic decisions. To easily navigate through Guidelines and clinical scenarios, we reported in this review a simplified and easy to use Clinical decision-making algorithm that may be a valuable tool in our daily practice.

Lifetime management of aortic valve disease: Aligning surgical and transcatheter armamentarium to set the tone for the present and the future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has already received the green light for high-, intermediate- and low-risk profiles and is an alternative for all patients regardless of age. It is clear that there has been a push towards the use of TAVR in younger and younger patients (<65 years), which has never been formally tested in randomized controlled trials but seems inevitable as TAVR technology makes steady progress. Lifetime management as a concept will set the tone in the field of the structural heart. Some subjects in this scenario arise, including the importance of optimized prosthetic hemodynamics for lifetime care; surgical procedures in the aortic root; management of structural valve degeneration with valve-in-valve procedures (TAVR-in-surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR] and TAVR-in-TAVR) and redo SAVR; commissural alignment and cusp overlap for TAVR; the rise in the number of surgical procedures for TAVR explantation; and the renewed interest in the Ross procedure. This article reviews all these issues which will become commonplace during heart team meetings and preoperative conversations with patients in the coming years.

Cardiac surgery following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to retrospectively analyse surgical outcomes of patients undergoing secondary cardiac surgery after initial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

Between December 2012 and February 2020, a total of 41 consecutive patients underwent cardiac surgery after a TAVR procedure at our institution. Patients who underwent emergency operations due to periprocedural complications such as ventricular rupture and TAVR dislocation were excluded from this study (n = 12). Thus, 29 patients were included in the analysis. Data are presented as medians (25th-75th quartiles) or as absolute numbers (percentages).

RESULTS

The median age was 76 years (68-80); 58.6% were men. The median time to a secondary conventional procedure was 23 months (8-40), with 8 patients requiring surgical intervention within the first year post TAVR. The indications for secondary conventional procedures were prosthesis endocarditis (n = 15), prosthesis degeneration or dysfunction (n = 7) and progression of valvular, aortic or coronary artery disease (n = 7). Surgical redo aortic valve replacement was performed in 24 patients (82.8%). No complications involving the aortic root or the aortomitral continuity were observed. The operative mortality was 10.3%. Extracorporeal life support was required in 3 patients (10.3%) for a median duration of 3 days (3-3 days). No adverse cerebrovascular events were observed postoperatively. Postoperatively, 4 patients (13.8%) required a pacemaker and 7 patients (24.1%) required renal replacement therapy. Overall survival at 1 year was 83.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional cardiac surgical procedures following TAVR are feasible with reasonable results and a low complication rate.

Current Therapeutic Options in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease requiring valve replacement. Valve replacement therapies have undergone progressive evolution since the 1960s. Over the last 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has radically transformed the care of aortic stenosis, such that it is now the treatment of choice for many, particularly elderly, patients. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, indications for intervention, and current therapeutic options for aortic stenosis.

Porcine and bovine aortic valve comparison for surgical optimization: A fluid-structure interaction modeling study

BACKGROUND

Porcine aortic valve (PAV) and bovine aortic valve (BAV) are commonly used in aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgeries. A detailed comparison for their hemodynamic and structural stress/strain performances would help to better understand valve cardiac function and select valve type and size for AVR outcome optimizations.

METHODS

Eight fluid-structure interaction models were constructed to compare hemodynamic and stress/strain behaviors of PAV and BAV with 4 sizes (19, 21, 23, and 25 mm). Blood flow velocity, systolic cross-valve pressure gradient (SCVPG), geometric orifice area (GOA), flow shear stresses (FSS), and stress/strain were obtained for comparison.

RESULTS

Compared with PAV, BAV has better hemodynamic performance, with lower maximum flow velocity (7.17%) and pressure (9.82%), smaller pressure gradient (mean and peak SCVPG: 8.92% and 9.28%), larger GOA (9.56%) and lower FSS (6.61%). The averages of the mean and peak net pressure gradient values from 4 BAV models were 8.10% and 8.35% lower than that from PAV models. Larger valve sizes for both PAV and BAV had improved hemodynamic performance. Maximum flow velocity, pressure, mean SCVPG and maximum FSS from 25 mm BAV were 36.80%, 15.81%, 39.05% and 38.83% lower than those from 19 mm BAV. The GOA of PAV and BAV 25 mm Valve were 43.75% and 33.07% larger than 19 mm valves, respectively. BAV has lower stress on the leaflets than PAV.

CONCLUSIONS

BAV had better hemodynamic performance and lower leaflets stress than PAV. More patient studies are needed to validate our findings.

Surgical aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus

BACKGROUND

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the standard of treatment for severe aortic stenosis, a small aortic annulus (SAA) poses significant challenges. Improvements in valve designs and evolution in surgical techniques have led to improved outcomes, however, the ideal prosthetic valve remains elusive.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature review to discuss the surgical management of aortic stenosis, with a special focus on patients with SAA.

RESULTS

Stentless valves and root replacement techniques have been shown to overcome the hemodynamic challenges associated with conventional stented bioprostheses, but are technically challenging and require longer cross-clamp times. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves mitigate the long operative time while maintaining the hemodynamic advantages. The use of transcatheter AVR has emerged as another reasonable alternative and has shown promise among patients with SAA, however, long-term outcomes are awaited.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus regarding the type of valve prosthesis or replacement technique among patients with SAA. Consideration of patient comorbidities and valvular anatomy is paramount in planning the optimal strategy for AVR. Further long-term clinical trials are necessary to assess outcomes and achieve progress toward the development of the ideal prosthesis.

Aortic root widening: “pro et contra”

In patients with a small aortic annulus, the clinical benefits of aortic valve replacement depend on avoidance of patient-prosthesis mismatch as it is associated with reduced overall survival. Aortic root widening or enlargement is a useful technique to implant larger valve prosthesis to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Posterior annular enlargement is the commonest technique used for aortic root enlargement. Consistent enlargement of the aortic root requires more extensive procedures like Manouguian or Konno-Rastan techniques. The patients commonly selected are younger patients with good life expectancy. However, caution is advised in applying this procedure in elderly patients, patients with heavily calcified annulus and when performing concomitant procedures. There is no definitive conclusion on the best material to use for the reconstruction of aortic annulus and aorta in aortic root enlargement procedures.

Analysis of various techniques of aortic root enlargement

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A myriad of techniques have been described for aortic root enlargement to circumvent this problem. We review the salient techniques with their merits, demerits, and results.

Aortic root enlargement: When and how

Aortic valve replacement is the definitive management for severe aortic stenosis. Intraoperatively, an aortic root enlargement (ARE) may be used to facilitate the implementation of a suitably sized prosthetic valve. This is to prevent patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM), a condition that causes a left ventricular outflow obstruction. There are four main techniques that are used to perform ARE, namely, Nicks, Manouguian, Nunez (modified Manouguian), and Kanno-Rastan procedures. They each involve incisions through different anatomical structures and allow a variety of valve sizes to be implanted. Studies prove that ARE effectively reduces the incidence of PPM. In addition, they show that there is no definitive link between ARE and perioperative mortality or other complications. There is a scarcity of literature exploring the comparative outcomes of each surgical technique. Therefore, further research is warranted for these procedures to be compared adequately. This review aims to summarise the available literature surrounding ARE with respect to three main questions. (1) What are the indications for ARE, (2) what surgical techniques exist to facilitate ARE, and (3) are there significant differences in patient outcomes when these surgical techniques are employed?

Early evaluation of the aortic root after Nicks' procedure

Objective(s)

To determine the influence of surgical techniques adopted to avoid suture line disruption, periprosthetic leakage, patch dislodgement, pericardial patch aneurysm formation, and the long-term stability of aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

One hundred fifteen patients undergoing AVR or combined aortic and mitral valve replacements with Nicks' posterior ARE between 1997 and 2019 underwent long-term echocardiographic and angio-computed tomographic evaluation. Age was 11-72 years (AVR: median, 30; interquartile range, 21-47 years; AVR and mitral valve replacement: median, 27.5; interquartile range, 20-37.5 years). The aortotomy was closed using autologous pericardial patch and Teflon-buttressed sutures.

Results

Hospital mortality was 1.7% (n = 2), with 4 (3.5%) late deaths. At a mean follow-up of 123.11 ± 77.67 months, the survival probability from Kaplan–Meier was 93.25 ± 0.03%. No cases of severe prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) were observed, and only 2 patients had moderate PPM. Median aortic root diameters at the level of sinus of Valsalva and sinotubular junction were 32 (29-35) mm and 33 (30-36) mm, respectively, at discharge, and were 33 (30-36) mm, and 33 (31-37) mm, respectively, at latest follow-up, with no cases of late pericardial patch aneurysm.

Conclusions

ARE is a safe adjunct to AVR in patients with a small aortic annulus to prevent PPM. Retention of a pericardial collar and Teflon-buttressed sutures is an expedient, safe, and effective technique in reducing bleeding at the enlarged ventriculo-aortic junction. Autologous pericardial patch aortoplasty is not associated with late aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm formation.

Annulus root enlargement during redo aortic valve replacement: Perioperative results and hemodynamic impact

OBJECTIVES

Redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) might present an increased risk for predicted patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Aortic root enlargement (ARE) procedures can decrease PPM and improve hemodynamic parameters. It is crucial to evaluate the safety of ARE in the context of redo AVR to allow better patient selection.

METHODS

This is a matched case-control study of 125 patients who underwent a redo AVR between 1991 and 2016, 21 patients had a concomitant ARE procedure. Patients were matched for age, gender, presence of coronary artery disease, renal clearance, left ventricular ejection fraction, and body mass index. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were postoperative impact of the ARE procedures on echocardiographic measurements and survival.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, indexed aortic valve area (0.49 vs 0.66 cm² /m² ; P = .02) and left ventricle outflow tract diameters (20.1 vs 22.2 mm; P < .01) were significantly smaller in the ARE group. ARE procedures increased the aortic valve area by an average of 0.4 cm² (pre = 0.9, post = 1.3; P < .01), with a reduction of maximum and mean transvalvular gradients of 26.6 mm Hg (pre = 56.8, post = 30.2; P < .01) and 17.1 mm Hg (pre = 31.9, post = 14.8; P < .01), respectively. Postoperatively, the occurrence of MACE was similar (ARE = 19%, no ARE = 14%; P = .68). Survival rates were similar (P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing redo AVR, ARE is not associated with higher perioperative mortality and morbidity when compared with patients undergoing AVR without ARE. The fear of perioperative complications potentially associated with ARE should not be a prohibiting factor in symptomatic redo patients with small aortic annulus and predicted PPM.

Impact of Aortic Annulus Enlargement on the Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis

We sought to evaluate the impact of surgical aortic annulus enlargement (ARE) on the perioperative outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement. Databases were searched for articles published by October 2019 in order to carry out a systematic review followed by meta-analysis. Thirteen studies with 40,447 patients (aortic valve replacement [AVR] with aortic annulus enlargement [AAE]: 4686 patients; AVR without AAE: 35,761 patients) were included. The total rate of AAE was 11.6%, ranging from 4.1%-28.1%. The overall unadjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for operative mortality showed a statistically significant difference between the groups, with higher risk in the "AVR with AAE" group (OR 1.388; 95% CI 1.049-1.836, P < 0.001), but not for isolated AVR+AAE (OR 1.341; 95% CI 0.920-1.956, P = 0.127) and also not in matched populations (OR 1.003; 95% CI 0.773-1.300, P = 0.984). The "AVR with AAE" group showed an overall lower risk of significant patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (OR 0.567; 95% CI 0.376-0.854, P = 0.007) and a higher overall difference in means of indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) (random effect model: 0.058 cm²/m²; 95% CI 0.024-0.092, P < 0.001). The overall ORs for myocardial infarction, stroke, complete heart block/permanent pacemaker implantation and reoperation for bleeding showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. AAE is a useful adjunct to AVR, but the benefit of reduced PPM must be balanced against a possibly higher risk of perioperative mortality.