Fate of mild aortic valve disease after mitral valve intervention

The fate of aortic valve after rheumatic mitral valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

Deterioration of the native aortic valve function by a late progression of rheumatic disease is not infrequent in patients who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery; however, this phenomenon has not been clearly quantified.

METHODS

A total of 1155 consecutive patients (age 52.0 ± 12.9 years; 807 female) who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery without concomitant aortic valve surgery from 1997 to 2015 were enrolled. The primary end point was the composite of progression to severe aortic valve dysfunction or a requirement of subsequent aortic valve replacements during follow-up. To determine the risk factors of the primary outcome, we performed the generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

The baseline severities of aortic valve were none to trivial in 880 patients (76.2%), mild in 256 patients (22.2%), and moderate in 19 patients (1.6%). The latest 1062 echocardiographic assessments (91.9%; median, 81.2 postoperative months; interquartile range, 37.3-132.1 months) demonstrated 26 cases (0.33%/patient-year) meeting the primary end point during follow-up. Cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 10 years was 0.4% ± 0.3% and 7.4% ± 2.5% depending on the presence of mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at baseline (P < .01). In multivariable analyses, aortic valve peak pressure gradient (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.20), aortic regurgitation degree (mild over none: odds ratio, 3.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-9.23), and time (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) were significantly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point.

CONCLUSIONS

Progression of severe aortic valve dysfunction and the need for aortic valve replacement are uncommon in patients undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery. However, such events were relatively common among those with mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at the time of mitral valve surgery.

Natural history of mild aortic valve disease untreated at the time of rheumatic mitral valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine long-term clinical outcomes and to assess the eventual need for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with mild aortic valve disease (AVD) at the time of mitral valve replacement.

METHODS

Between 1990 and 2015, 1231 patients undergoing mitral valve replacement were reviewed, stratifying subjects as those with AVD (n = 363) or without AVD (NA; n = 868). Primary end points were progressive AVD (grade ≥ II) and subsequent AVR. Overall mortality and valve-related complications served as secondary end points. Propensity score matching was used for risk adjustment (n = 320 in each group).

RESULTS

No differences in postoperative complications or clinical outcomes were observed between groups. The 20-year overall survival was similar (before matching: NA 86.1% vs AVD 80.8%, P = 0.128; after matching: 83.5% vs 81.1%, P = 0.425). Of the entire cohort, progressive AVD was observed in 162 patients, and significant AVD (grade ≥ III) was observed in only 60 patients. Subsequent AVR was required in 37 patients due to mitral valve (MV) dysfunction or severe aortic stenosis. The 20-year freedom from significant AVD and subsequent AVR was significantly higher in the NA group than in the AVD group before and after matching (before: NA, 96.5% vs 73.7%, P < 0.001; AVD, 98.5% vs 82.3%, P < 0.001; after: 98.1% vs 73.3%, P < 0.001; 99.3% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although progressive AVD did not significantly impact long-term survival during the follow-up period, those patients qualifying initially as mild AVD may eventually progress to significant AVD after the first 5 postoperative years. Therefore, aggressive echocardiography should be performed at 5-year lapse after mitral valve replacement to determine the appropriate timing of AVR.

Surgical options in rheumatic mitral valve disease in children: a surgeon's perspective

In children with rheumatic heart disease, conservative valve surgery is the best option whenever feasible. Surgeons must develop an attitude and interest in valve repair techniques that can be easily learned. Patients who undergo valve repair at an early age are at risk of requiring additional surgery over time. Mechanical valve replacement, nonetheless, should be reserved for situations where more conservative approaches are not feasible.

Attitude after a mild aortic valve lesion during rheumatic mitral valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether rheumatic aortic valve disease of mild degree should be treated in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery.

METHODS

From 1992 to 2010, 197 patients (aged 52 [19-82] years, male:female = 60:137) who had rheumatic mitral valve disease and mild aortic valve disease were enrolled. The aortic valve was untreated in 114 patients (no treatment group), repaired in 40 patients (aortic valvuloplasty group), and replaced in 43 patients (aortic valve replacement group).

RESULTS

Operative mortality occurred in 4 patients (2.0%). There were no differences in early mortality and postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Overall survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 96.3%, 92.1%, and 85.7%, respectively. In the no treatment group, progression-free survival in significant aortic valve disease at 5, 10, and 15 years was 98.7%, 91.3%, and 81.1%, respectively. This was not superior in the aortic valvuloplasty group (85.9%, 77.6%, and 69.8%, respectively) than in the no treatment group. Freedom from aortic valve disease was lower in patients with aortic stenosis than in those with aortic regurgitation in univariate and multivariable analyses (P < .001). Reoperation was performed in 19 patients, including 2 aortic valve reoperations. Aortic valve-related event-free survival was similar among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild aortic valve disease in patients undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery could be left untreated, because preventive aortic valve operation does not result in better clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

Short-term Changes in Aortic Regurgitation after Percutaneous Mitral Valvuloplasty

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- term effects of percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) on coexisting AR.

METHODS

Clinical, echocardiographic and catheterization data from hospital records of a total of 327 patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis who underwent PMV at a tertiary centre were retrospectively reviewed and aortic regurgitation changes 48 hours post PMV was recorded.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 282 females and 45 males. Mean age at the time of intervention was 47.13±11 years. Before PMV, 142 (43.3%) patients had no AR, 124 (37.9%) had mild AR and 61 (18.7%) had moderate AR. There was no change in AR severity in post- PMV follow-up. AR progression after PMV and during the follow-up was not significant and there was no increase in the need for aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicated that a considerable number of patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis had concurrent AR. At the time of PMV concomitant AR does affect procedural success and is not associated with inferior outcomes. Patients with moderate degrees of AR remain good candidates for PMV.

Natural History of Aortic Regurgitation following Percutaneous Mitral Valvuloplasty

Background:

Objectives:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Cusp shaving for concomitant mild to moderate rheumatic aortic insufficiency

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the early and mid-term results of patients who underwent cardiac operations due to cardiac pathologies other than aortic valve (AV) disease, but also had mild-to-moderate aortic valve insufficiency that was repaired during the same session.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients who underwent AV repair for mild-to-moderate aortic insufficiency between January 2003 and February 2009, in addition to the procedure performed for their main pathology necessitating the surgical intervention, were included in the present study. Cardiac function was evaluated, before and after the operation.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality rate was 4.6% (two patients). After the operations, significant improvements were observed in aortic insufficiency (0.57 +/- 0.50 vs. 2.86 +/- 0.48, p = 0.001), New York Heart Association class (1.08 +/- 0.28 vs. 3.03 +/- 0.44, p = 0.001), and left atrial diameter (47.37 +/- 9.28 vs. 42.35 +/- 7.02; p = 0.001). However, left ventricular end diastolic and end-systolic diameters remained unchanged. Two patients were re-operated for AV disease during the follow-up period; thus, at five years, the rate of freedom from re-operation due to AV pathology was 90.7 +/- 6.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Cusp shaving is a feasible option that can be performed with low risk for concomitant aortic insufficiency.

Impact of concomitant aortic regurgitation on percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty: Immediate results, short-term, and long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to examine the effect of concomitant aortic regurgitation (AR) on percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) procedural success, short-term, and long-term clinical outcome. No large-scale study has explored the impact of coexistent AR on PMV procedural success and outcome.

METHODS

Demographic, echocardiographic, and procedure-related variables were recorded in 644 consecutive patients undergoing 676 PMV at a single center. Mortality, aortic valve surgery (replacement or repair) (AVR), mitral valve surgery (MVR), and redo PMV were recorded during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 676 procedures performed, 361 (53.4%) had no AR, 287 (42.5%) mild AR, and 28 (4.1%) moderate AR. There were no differences between groups in the preprocedure characteristics, procedural success, or in the incidence of inhospital adverse events. At a median follow-up of 4.11 years, there was no difference in the overall survival rate (P = .22), MVR rate (P = .69), or redo PMV incidence (P = .33). The rate of AVR was higher in the moderate AR group (0.9% vs 1.9% vs 13%, P = .003). Mean time to AVR was 4.5 years and did not differ significantly between patients with no AR, mild AR, or moderate AR (2.9 +/- 2.1 vs 5.7 +/- 3.6 vs 4.1 +/- 2.5 years, P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant AR at the time of PMV does not influence procedural success and is not associated with inferior outcome. A minority of patients with MS and moderate AR who undergo PMV will require subsequent AVR on long-term follow-up. Thus, patients with rheumatic MS and mild to moderate AR remain good candidates for PMV.