Late results of double-valve replacement with biologic or mechanical prostheses

Case report: Transapical transcatheter double valve-in-valve replacement of degenerated aortic and mitral bioprosthetic valves with limited radiopaque landmarks

A 67-year-old male patient who had undergone double valve replacement 11 years before presented with severe dyspnea to our department. The bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves have failed. Because of the high risk of redo surgery. We perform a simultaneous transapical transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement of degenerated aortic and mitral bioprosthetic valves with limited radiopaque landmarks using the second-generation self-expanding J-valve. The post-operative course was stable and the patient was discharged on post-operative day eight.

Considerations for prostheses choice in multiple valve surgery

OBJECTIVES

The prosthesis type for multiple valve surgery (replacement of two or more diseased native or prosthetic valves, replacement of two diseased valves with repair/reconstruction of a third, or replacement of a single diseased valve with repair/reconstruction of a second valve) remains inadequately evaluated. The clinical performance of multiple valve surgery with bioprostheses (BP) and mechanical prostheses (MP) was assessed to compare patient survival and composites of valve-related complications.

METHODS

Between 1975 and 2000, 1245 patients had multiple valve surgery (BP 785, mean age 62.0 ± 14.7 years; and MP 460, mean age 56.9 ± 12.9 years). There were 1712 procedures performed [BP 969(56.6%) and MP 743(43.4%). Concomitant coronary artery bypass (conCABG) was BP 206(21.3%) and MP 105(14.1%) (p = 0.0002). The cumulative follow-up was BP 5131 years and MP 3364 years. Independent predictors were determined for mortality, valve-related complications and composites of complications.

RESULTS

Unadjusted patient survival at 12 years was BP 52.1 ± 2.1% and MP 54.8 ± 4.6% (p = 0.1127), while the age adjusted survival was BP 48.7 ± 2.3% and MP 54.4 ± 5.0%. The predictors of overall mortality were age [Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.051, p < 0.0001], previous valve (HR 1.366, p = 0.028) and conCABG (HR 1.27, p = 0.021). The actual freedom from valve-related mortality at 12 years was BP 85.6 ± 1.6% and MP 91.0 ± 1.6% (actuarial p = 0.0167). The predictors of valve-related mortality were valve type (BP > MP) (2.61, p = 0.001), age (HR 1.032, p = 0.0005) and previous valve (HR 12.61, p < 0.0001). The actual freedom from valve-related reoperation at 12 years was BP 60.8 ± 1.9% and MP85.6 ± 2.1% (actuarial p < 0.001). The predictors of valve-related reoperation were valve type (MP > BP) (HR 0.32, p < 0.0001), age (HR 0.99, p = 0.0001) and previous valve (HR 1.38, p = 0.008) CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival (age adjusted) is differentiated by valve type over 10 and 12 years and valve-related mortality and valve-related reoperation favours the use of mechanical prostheses, overall for multiple valve surgery.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Procedures for Bioprosthetic Valve Dysfunction in Patients With Rheumatic vs. Non-Rheumatic Valvular Heart Disease

Background: Bioprosthetic heart valve has limited durability and lower long-term performance especially in rheumatic heart disease (RHD) patients that are often subject to multiple redo operations. Minimally invasive procedures, such as transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation, may offer an attractive alternative, although data is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in rheumatic vs. non-rheumatic patients undergoing ViV procedures for severe bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.

Methods: Single center, prospective study, including consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter ViV implantation in aortic, mitral and tricuspid position, from May 2015 to September 2020. RHD was defined according to clinical history, previous echocardiographic and surgical findings.

Results: Among 106 patients included, 69 had rheumatic etiology and 37 were non-rheumatic. Rheumatic patients had higher incidence of female sex (73.9 vs. 43.2%, respectively; p = 0.004), atrial fibrillation (82.6 vs. 45.9%, respectively; p < 0.001), and 2 or more prior surgeries (68.1 vs. 32.4%, respectively; p = 0.001). Although, device success was similar between groups (75.4 vs. 89.2% in rheumatic vs. non-rheumatic, respectively; p = 0.148), there was a trend toward higher 30-day mortality rates in the rheumatic patients (21.7 vs. 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.057). Still, at median follow-up of 20.7 [5.1–30.4] months, cumulative mortality was similar between both groups (p = 0.779).

Conclusion: Transcatheter ViV implantation is an acceptable alternative to redo operations in the treatment of patients with RHD and severe bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Despite similar device success rates, rheumatic patients present higher 30-day mortality rates with good mid-term clinical outcomes. Future studies with a larger number of patients and follow-up are still warranted, to firmly conclude on the role transcatheter ViV procedures in the RHD population.

Double transcatheter balloon-expandable valve implantation for severe valve dysfunction in high-risk patients: initial experience

OBJECTIVES

Concomitant valvular heart valve disease is a frequent finding, with higher morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing redo surgical procedures. Our goal was to report our initial experience with combined transcatheter Inovare bioprosthesis implants for severe valve dysfunction.

METHODS

Among 300 transcatheter procedures, a total of 6 patients had concurrent simultaneous transcatheter bioprosthesis implants for severe mitral bioprosthesis failure (valve-in-valve), with a second valve procedure that included native aortic (n = 2) or degenerated bioprostheses in the aortic position (n = 4). During the procedures, all patients were treated with a balloon-expandable Inovare transcatheter valve, using the transapical approach.

RESULTS

Patients were highly symptomatic [New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV: 100%], with a mean age of 62 ± 5 years, yielding a mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk II (EuroSCORE II) of 24.0 ± 10.1%. There was a mean of 1.6 ± 0.4 prior valve operations/patient, with a median time from prior mitral bioprosthesis surgery of 13.0 (9.2-20.0) years. Device success was 100% according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium and the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. During the hospital stay, only 1 patient required dialysis, and the median intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay were 5.0 (3.2-6.7) days and 16.0 (12.2-21.2) days, respectively. No deaths occurred at 30 days; at a median follow-up of 287 (194-437) days, 1 patient died of a non-cardiac cause and the rest of patients were in NYHA functional class I or II, with normofunctioning bioprostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter double valve interventions using the Inovare bioprosthesis in this initial series were shown to be a reasonable alternative to redo surgical operations. The short- and mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes demonstrate promising results, although future studies with a larger number of patients and longer follow-up are warranted.

Combined Mitral and Aortic Valve Surgery: 17 Years' Experience in a Single Center

Background and objective:

It is not uncommon that patients requiring valve surgery have several simultaneous valvular dysfunctions. Combined aortic and mitral valve surgery is the most common form of double-valve surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze and present the outcomes of simultaneous aortic and mitral valve surgery in a single center in a real-life setting.

Methods:

The study population consisted of 150 patients operated in the Kuopio University Hospital from 2004 to 2020. All patients undergoing concomitant mitral and aortic valve surgery were included. Four groups were formed based on either the etiology or pathophysiology of the valvular dysfunction. The most common combination was mitral regurgitation with aortic regurgitation (n = 72, 48%), followed by mitral regurgitation with aortic stenosis (n = 37, 25%), endocarditis (n = 29, 19%), and mitral stenosis with aortic regurgitation or stenosis (n = 12, 8%). Concomitant coronary artery revascularization was performed in 37 (25%) patients and tricuspid valve repair in 26 (17%) patients.

Results:

Operative mortality was 2% and 30-day mortality was 7%. Overall survival was 86%, 78%, and 61% in 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Patients with endocarditis were significantly more morbid, and more often than other patients had to undergo an emergency operation. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of early and late survival. In the overall cohort, the EuroSCORE II value, increased pulmonary artery pressure, decreased glomerular filtration, and length of the operation displayed a negative correlation with survival.

Conclusions:

Despite the challenging nature of multivalvular heart disease, surgery is a safe method of treatment with good short- and long-term outcomes.

Mitral valve prosthesis choice in patients <70 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 219 patients

BACKGROUND

The optimal mitral prosthesis in young patients is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes between bileaflet mechanical mitral valve replacement (mMVR) and bioprosthesis mitral valve replacement (bioMVR) for MVR patients aged less than 70 years.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2018 for studies comparing surgical outcomes of mMVR vs bioMVR.

RESULTS

There were 14 observational studies with 20 219 patients (n = 14 658 mMVR and n = 5561 bioMVR). Patients receiving an mMVR were younger with fewer comorbidities including renal failure, dialysis, and less-infective endocarditis (P < .001). The estimated 10-year mortality ranged from 19% to 49% for mMVR and 22% to 58% for bioMVR among studies. Comparing matched or adjusted data, mMVR was associated with lower operative (risk ratio [RR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.94; P = .03) and long-term (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.92; P = .002) mortality at a median follow-up of 8 years (IQR: 6-10 years). Estimated 10-year risk for mitral valve reoperation ranged from 0% to 8% for mMVR and 8% to 22% for bioMVR among matched/adjusted studies. mMVR was associated with lower matched/adjusted risk of reoperation (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.65; P = .001) but with greater risk of bleeding (HR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.13; P = .002) and a trend to greater risk of stroke and embolism (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.92, 3.15; P = .09).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical MVR in patients aged less than 70 years is associated with a lower risk of operative mortality as well as a 20% lower risk of long-term death and 65% lower risk of mitral valve reoperation but 60% greater risk of bleeding compared with bioMVR in matched or adjusted data.

Aortic and mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched patients

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have superior outcomes compared with aortic valve replacement (AVR) for high-risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR). Considering significant MR is frequently addressed with a mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR) at the time of open aortic valve replacement, this study compares TAVR and AVR/MVR in propensity-matched pairs of patients with significant MR.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients presenting with moderate or greater MR undergoing either TAVR or AVR/MVR at a single institution from 2002 to 2012. Patients who underwent other cardiac operations or had preoperative endocarditis were excluded. Of 306 patients in the AVR/MVR group and 147 patients in the TAVR group, propensity analysis matched 40 pairs of patients. Standard univariate, logistic regression, and propensity matching techniques were used.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between TAVR patients and AVR/MVR patients, respectively, in preoperative average age (76 ± 7.4 versus 78 ± 6.9 years, p = 0.68), ejection fraction (53 ± 15 versus 51 ± 17, p = 0.68), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (9.9 ± 3.1 versus 9.3 ± 3.4, p = 0.61), or 30-day mortality (7.5% versus 2.5%, p = 0.6). Postoperative MR was significantly improved for both TAVR and AVR/MVR, but AVR/MVR showed significantly greater improvement (-2.33 ± 1.23 versus -0.88 ± 0.79, p < 0.001). Among 30-day survivors, midterm survival was significantly better in the AVR/MVR group compared with the TAVR group (log rank p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In a propensity-matched analysis of patients with significant MR, AVR/MVR and TAVR had equivalent perioperative outcomes, but AVR/MVR had more reduction in MR and may have superior midterm survival when compared with TAVR among 30-day survivors.

Early and late results of combined mitral-aortic valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study was designed to assess the early morbidity and mortality as well as long-term mortality of combined aortic-mitral valve procedures at a single centre.

METHODS

Patients were identified by analysing the intensive care and perfusion databases, from 1989 to 2003, with 113 receiving aortic-mitral valve procedures. Eighty-four percent of patients received a mechanical bileaflet valve. Survival was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier method, and determinants of survival with the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

There were 57 men and 56 women, median age 59 (18-84) years. The 30-day mortality was 9% (n=10). This cohort contained a number of high risk patients, 38% were classified as New York Heart Association class IV, 33.5% had at least moderate ventricular impairment, 20% were redo procedures and 17% urgent procedures. Survival estimates at 5 and 10 years were 85% (0.76-0.90) and 65% (0.49-0.77), respectively. Multivariate pre-operative predictors of death included renal dysfunction (creatinine >200 micromol/L) and hypertension. Rheumatic aetiology was associated with improved survival.

CONCLUSION

This study shows acceptable short and long-term survival in patients undergoing combined aortic-mitral valve surgical procedures at a single centre. Renal impairment and hypertension were associated with a poorer long-term prognosis and rheumatic aetiology was associated with improved survival. Age, LVEF and NYHA class were not associated with a worse outcome. This may affect future decision making in light of an aging population.