Search

Symptomatic aortic valve stenosis (AS) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are critical clinical conditions, increasingly more prevalent with aging of the population. Calcific aortic stenosis is the most common structural cardiac disease in the elderly population, and medical management of severe aortic stenosis of the elderly population is associated with poor outcomes as compared to surgical treatment. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment of choice in inoperable, often elderly, patients with symptomatic severe AS and in intermediate-to-high surgical risk patients. It is not yet clarified the incidence of AAA and its impact on procedural and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing TAVR. It is known that after AS resolution with aortic valve replacement or TAVR there is an increase in blood pressure that increases the risk of dissection or abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture if AAA repair is delayed. The purpose of this report is to describe the anatomical details and technical and procedural considerations when proposing totally endovascular strategies dedicated to the treatment of patients with AS and AAA., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Trans-catheter valve-in-valve (ViV) is a treatment option for patients affected by bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) failure. Both aortic and mitral ViV procedures present several challenges compared to native valve replacement. To date, no data concerning the balloon-expandable MyVal (Meril, Vapi, India) trans-catheter heart valve (THV) use in ViV procedure have been provided. In this case series, we described for the first time its use in five different BHV failures., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses., Methods and Results: A total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-1.88]; P =0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P =0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 0.56-3.21]; P =0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 [95% CI, 0.60-1.06]; P =0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.16±1.2 versus 2.13±2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI, -1.22 to -0.75]; P =0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 [95% CI, 1.44-4.17]; P =0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42±1.73 versus 22.8±1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.62-1.18]; P =0.001), even during follow-up (10.98±5.7 versus 13.06±6.2; mean difference: -2.08 [95% CI, -3.96 to -0.21]; P =0.030). We found no difference in 1-year mortality., Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high-risk patients., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Objectives: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless valves., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed., Results: No randomized controlled trials were identified. Six comparative studies using propensity score matching met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis identified 1462 patients in that 731 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless valves (SU) and 731 patients underwent a TAVI. The 30-day or in-hospital mortality was lower in the SU group [odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.80; P = 0.003]. In the TAVI group, the incidence of postoperative stroke was higher (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.79; P = 0.01). The incidence of moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation was higher in the TAVI group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.35; P = 0.001). There were neither differences in the postoperative renal failure (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.46-4.58; P = 0.53) nor in the number of patients requiring postoperative pacemaker implantation (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.54-2.08; P = 0.86). Patients in the SU group required more transfusions (OR 4.47, 95% CI 2.77-7.21; P = 0.0001), whereas those in the TAVI group had higher major vascular complications (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.25; P = 0.0001). Intensive care unit stay was not different (mean difference 0.99, 95% CI - 1.22 to 1.40; P = 0.53). One-year survival was better in the SU group (Peto OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.67; P = 0.001), as was the 2-year survival (Peto OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.86; P = 0.001)., Conclusions: Surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless valves is associated with better early and mid-term outcomes compared with TAVI in high- or intermediate-risk patients., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)