Search

Background: Although, valve sparing is commonly performed in patients with Marfan syndrome, feasibility and results of cusp repair for aortic insufficiency have not been studied., Aim: To report on the outcomes and durability of aortic cusp repair in valve sparing in patients with Marfan syndrome., Methods: All consecutive adult patients with Marfan syndrome who underwent remodelling and annuloplasty with aortic valve repair for aortic insufficiency between May 2005 and December 2020 were included. Patients with Marfan syndrome treated for aortic aneurysm, but without aortic insufficiency, were excluded. Data were collected prospectively and reviewed retrospectively from the Aorticvalve repair International Registry (AVIATOR)., Results: During the study period, 71 patients with Marfan syndrome were referred to surgery. Fifty-five patients with connective tissue disease and aortic insufficiency with aorta aneurysm were treated: 46 underwent aortic valve repair and nine underwent aortic valve replacement (five mechanical aortic valve replacements and four biological aortic valve replacements). The mean age was 42.9±15.4 years, and the mean EuroScore II was 2.5±2.2. No patient died, and no patient had significant aortic insufficiency (grade≥II) at discharge. The 5-year survival rate estimate was 94.4%, which seems statistically similar to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. At 5 years, freedom from reoperation was 94.6%, and the incidence of infective endocarditis was 2.6%. No valve thrombosis, aortic dissection, major bleeding events, thromboembolic events (stroke) or myocardial infarctions were noted during follow-up., Conclusion: Remodelling and aortic valve repair showed excellent durability at 5 years, even in connective tissue disorders., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Results and durability of aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis are well known, but no study has focused on the results of aortic valve replacement in aortic insufficiency., Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to describe our mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency., Methods: All consecutive adult patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency at two European centres (in France and Germany) between May 2005 and December 2020 were analysed., Results: During the study period, 289 patients were included. Mean age was 56.9±12.5 years. Overall operative mortality was 1.5%, and the 10-year survival estimate rate was 75.0%, which was significantly lower than in the age- and sex-matched general population, with a standardized mortality ratio of 2.88 (95% confidence interval 1.96-4.08; P<0001). Freedom from aortic valve-related death was 87.6%, and from aortic valve-related reoperation was 87.4%. No patient aged>60 years was reoperated on during follow-up. Freedom from severe structural valve deterioration at 10 years was 73.3%, and freedom from moderate structural valve deterioration at 10 years was 50.3%. Freedom from major adverse valve-related events at 10 years was 69.7%., Conclusions: Although bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for aortic insufficiency shows good early results, 10-year mortality and major adverse valve-related event rates in young patients may be a concern, with a reduction in life expectancy compared with the general population., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: According to the guidelines, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is recommended in patients at low surgical risk (EuroSCORE II<4%), whereas for other patients, the decision between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgery should be made by the Heart Team, with TAVI being favoured in elderly patients., Aim: The RAC prospective multicentre survey assessed the respective contributions of age and surgical risk scores in therapeutic decision making in elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis., Methods: In September and October 2016, 1049 consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years were included in 32 centres with on-site TAVI and surgical facilities. The primary endpoint was the decision between medical management, TAVI or SAVR., Results: Mean age was 84±5 years and 53% of patients were female. The surgical risk was classified as high (EuroSCORE II>8%) in 18% of patients, intermediate (EuroSCORE II 4-8%) in 34% and low (EuroSCORE II≤4%) in 48%. TAVI was preferred in 71% of patients, SAVR in 19% and medical treatment in 10%. The choice of TAVI over SAVR was associated with older age (P<0.0001) and a higher EuroSCORE II (P=0.008). However, the weight of EuroSCORE II in therapeutic decision making markedly decreased after the age of 80 years. Indeed, 77% of patients aged ≥ 80 years were referred for TAVI, despite a low estimated surgical risk., Conclusions: The impact of risk scores depends strongly on age, and decreases considerably after 80 years, most patients being referred for TAVI, independent of their estimated surgical risk. Despite medical advancements, 10% of patients were still denied any intervention., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Standardization of aortic valve repair by the external ring annuloplasty approach is an alternative to valve replacement to avoid prosthetic valve-related events. Although the benefit of exercise training to improve postoperative exercise tolerance has been demonstrated in many conditions after cardiac surgery, it has never been described after aortic valve repair., Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of an early exercise training programme after aortic valve repair., Methods: Consecutive patients were prospectively included in 13 postoperative centres. Patients underwent an exercise training programme for approximately 3-5 weeks. Transthoracic echocardiography and a cardiopulmonary exercise test were performed before and after the exercise training programme., Results: Fifty patients (mean±standard deviation [SD] age: 50±13 years) were included a mean of 13.6±12.0 days after aortic valve repair. The preoperative degree of aortic insufficiency was moderate to severe in 35 patients (70%) and the aortic valve was bicuspid in 24 patients (48%). Valve-sparing root replacement and isolated aortic valve repair (including 10% supracoronary aorta replacement) were performed in 64% and 36% of patients, respectively. We found no aortic insufficiency occurrence or worsening and no adverse clinical events after the exercise training programme. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction increased significantly (from 54%±8% to 57%±9%; P=0.0007). Mean peak oxygen consumption and first ventilatory threshold increased from 17.0±5.3 to 22.5±7.8mL/kg/min (32% increase) and from 12.0±3.9 to 14.3±5.2mL/kg/min (19% increase), respectively (both P<0.05)., Conclusion: Exercise training early after aortic valve repair is safe and seems to significantly improve exercise capacity., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Oral health is of particular importance in patients with heart valve diseases because of the risk of infective endocarditis. Recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures have been restricted, but the modalities of oral evaluation and dental care are not detailed in guidelines. Therefore, a multidisciplinary working group reviewed the literature to propose detailed approaches for the evaluation and management of buccodental status in patients with valvular disease. Simple questions asked by a non-dental specialist may draw attention to buccodental diseases. Besides clinical examination, recent imaging techniques are highly sensitive for the detection of inflammatory bone destruction directly related to oral or dental infection foci. The management of buccodental disease before cardiac valvular surgery should be adapted to the timing of the intervention. Simple therapeutic principles can be applied even before urgent intervention. Restorative dentistry and endodontic and periodontal therapy can be performed before elective valvular intervention and during the follow-up of patients at high risk of endocarditis. The detection and treatment of buccodental foci of infection should follow specific rules in patients who present with acute endocarditis. Implant placement is no longer contraindicated in patients at intermediate risk of endocarditis, and can also be performed in selected high-risk patients. The decision for implant placement should follow an analysis of general and local factors increasing the risk of implant failure. The surgical and prosthetic procedures should be performed in optimal safety conditions. It is therefore now possible to safely decrease the number of contraindicated dental procedures in patients at risk of endocarditis., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)