Search

Background: Aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) for trileaflet aortic valve reconstruction using autologous pericardium (Ozaki procedure) offers an alternative treatment modality to overcome drawbacks of conventional prosthetic aortic valve replacement., Methods: Between October 2016 and April 2019, 103 patients underwent surgery. Mean follow-up was 426 ± 270 days. Aortic stenosis was the leading diagnosis in 80 patients (77.7%) and aortic regurgitation in 23 (22.3%), respectively. Mean age was 54.0 ± 16.4 years (range, 13.8-78.5). A bicuspid valve was found in 81 patients (78.6%). Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at discharge and at 6 to 12 months after surgery. During AVNeo surgery valve sizing for an Abbott/St Jude Trifecta bioprosthesis (virtually implanted Trifecta bioprosthesis; St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN) was performed to compare pressure gradients and effective orifice area with published data., Results: Trileaflet aortic valve reconstruction was achieved in all patients. In 38 patients neocommissures were created (36.9%). Mean cross-clamp time was 135 ± 20 minutes. Four patients underwent reoperation; the overall freedom from reoperation was 96.1%. Echocardiographic 6- to 12-months follow-up after surgery was available in 93.8% of patients and did not show any change in hemodynamic parameters compared with discharge. Comparison between AVNeo and virtually implanted Trifecta Bioprosthesis revealed a significantly lower mean pressure gradient (8.5 ± 3.7 mm Hg vs 10.2 ± 2.0 mm Hg, P < .001) and higher mean effective orifice area (2.2 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 2.1 ± 0.4 cm 2 , P = .037) for AVNeo., Conclusions: AVNeo shows low reoperation rates after surgery within the first 2 years. The hemodynamic performance is excellent, and the effective orifice area and mean pressure gradient remain stable within the first year., (Copyright © 2021 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: We sought to determine the long-term outcome of high-risk patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with first-generation devices with a focus on the identification of predictors for mortality and valve durability., Methods and Results: Consecutive patients in our prospective single-centre registry undergoing TAVR with first-generation devices (n=214 CoreValve; n=86 SAPIEN) between 06/2007 and 07/2009 were retrospectively analysed (n=300, mean age 81.43±6.55 years, mean STS score 6.5±4.5%). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival and the Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify independent predictors of all-cause-mortality. At 1, 5, and 7 years, estimated survival rates were 76.0%, 40.2%, and 23.2%, respectively. Age-adjusted baseline predictors of mortality included atrial fibrillation, impaired kidney function, peripheral artery disease, and mitral regurgitation (≥moderate). Baseline risk-adjusted procedure-related predictors for all-cause mortality included acute kidney injury, neurological events, major vascular complications, and major/life-threatening bleeding. At both five and six years, 78.2% of surviving patients were in NYHA Class I or II. PVL was ≤mild in the majority of patients at discharge and throughout follow-up. At seven years, the overall crude cumulative incidence of structural valve deterioration according to the 2017 EAPCI/ESC/EACTS definition was 14.9% (CoreValve 11.8% vs. SAPIEN 22.6%; p=0.01)., Conclusions: Seven years after TAVR, 23.2% of high-risk patients were still alive. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality included both patient- and procedure-related factors. With a cumulative incidence of 14.9% at seven years, there is some suggestion that SVD post TAVR may become increasingly relevant during longer-term follow-up.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS)., Objectives: This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry., Methods: Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria., Results: Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28)., Conclusions: Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)