Search

Objective: The Inspiris Resilia prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences) has been increasingly used in the pulmonic position with limited performance data. We sought to investigate its durability as a surgical pulmonary valve replacement (PVR)., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent PVR or conduit replacement with an Inspiris or non-Inspiris valve/conduit from 2018 to 2022. The primary end point was freedom from a composite of at least moderate pulmonary regurgitation, pulmonary stenosis, or valve/conduit reintervention. Secondary end points were individual components of the composite outcome. To account for baseline differences, propensity matching identified 70 patient pairs., Results: A total of 227 patients (median age: 19.3 years [interquartile range, 11.8-34.4]) underwent PVR or conduit replacement (Inspiris: n = 120 [52.9%], non-Inspiris: n = 107 [47.1%]). Median follow-up was 26.6 months [interquartile range, 12.4-41.1]. Among matched patients, 2-year freedom from valve failure was lower in the Inspiris group (53.5 ± 9.3% vs 78.5 ± 5.9%, P = .03), as was freedom from at least moderate pulmonary regurgitation (54.2 ± 9.6% vs 86.4 ± 4.9%, P < .01). There was no difference in 2-year freedom from at least moderate pulmonary stenosis (P = .61) or reintervention (P = .92). Inspiris durability was poorer when implanted in the native right ventricular outflow tract compared with as a conduit, with 18-month freedom from valve failure of 59.0 ± 9.5% versus 85.9 ± 9.5% (P = .03)., Conclusions: Early durability of the Inspiris valve is poor when implanted in the native right ventricular outflow tract; its unique design may be incompatible with the compliant pulmonary root. Modified implantation techniques or alternative prostheses should be considered., (Copyright © 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The ideal aortic valve substitute in young adults remains unknown. Prosthetic valves are associated with a suboptimal survival and carry a significant risk of valve-related complications in young patients, mainly reinterventions with tissue valves and, thromboembolic events and major bleeding with mechanical prostheses. The Ross procedure is the only substitute that restores a survival curve similar to that of a matched general population, and permits a normal life without functional limitations. Though the risk of reintervention is the Achilles' heel of this procedure, it is very low in patients with aortic stenosis and can be mitigated in patients with aortic regurgitation by tailored surgical techniques. Finally, the Ozaki procedure and the transcatheter aortic valve implantation are seen by many as future alternatives but lack evidence and long-term follow-up in this specific patient population., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Transcatheter edge-to-edge (TEER) mitral repair may be complicated by residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation. An increasing need for surgical reintervention has been reported, but operative outcomes are ill defined., Objectives: This study evaluated national outcomes of mitral surgery after TEER., Methods: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database was used to identify 524 adults who underwent mitral surgery after TEER between July 2014 and June 2020. Emergencies (5.0%; n = 26), previous mitral surgery (5.3%; n = 28), or open implantation of transcatheter prostheses (1.5%; n = 8) were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality., Results: In the study cohort of 463 patients, the median age was 76 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 67 to 81 years), median left ventricular ejection fraction was 57% (IQR: 48% to 62%), and 177 (38.2%) patients had degenerative disease. Major concomitant cardiac surgery was performed in 137 (29.4%) patients: in patients undergoing isolated mitral surgery, the median STS-predicted mortality was 6.5% (IQR: 3.9% to 10.5%), the observed mortality was 10.2% (n = 23 of 225), and the ratio of observed to expected mortality was 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8 to 1.9). Predictors of mortality included urgent surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.3 to 4.6), nondegenerative/unknown etiology (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 4.5), creatinine of >2.0 mg/dl (OR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.9 to 7.9) and age of >80 years (OR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1 to 4.4). In a volume outcomes analysis in an expanded cohort of 591 patients at 227 hospitals, operative mortality was 2.6% (n = 2 of 76) in 4 centers that performed >10 cases versus 12.4% (n = 64 of 515) in centers performing fewer (p = 0.01). The surgical repair rate after failed TEER was 4.8% (n = 22) and was 6.8% (n = 12) in degenerative disease., Conclusions: This study indicates that mitral repair is infrequently achieved after failed TEER, which may have implications for treatment choice in lower-risk and younger patients with degenerative disease. These findings should inform patient consent for TEER, clinical trial design, and clinical performance measures., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. O’Gara has served on the executive committees of the APOLLO Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Trial for Medtronic and the EARLY TAVR trial for Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gammie is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; the founder of Protaryx Medical, and the founder of HARPOON medical. Dr. Badhwar discloses institutional research support for clinical trials and has served as a consultant (nonremunerative) for Abbott. Dr. Gillinov is a consultant to AtriCure, Medtronic, Abbott, CryoLife, Edwards Lifesicences, and ClearFlow; the Cleveland Clinic has rights to royalties from AtriCure. Dr. Trento has received research support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mack discloses nonfinancial support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr. Adams discloses royalties/research support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Approximately 25% of patients require reoperation within 15 yrs of a Ross procedure. Increasing experience with valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) has led some surgeons to spare the autograft valve. Here, we demonstrate that all valves can be surgically repaired or replaced safely during autograft VSRR. As more patients are considered for this operation, coexistent mitral, tricuspid, and pulmonic valve dysfunction should not preclude salvage of the autograft valve, nor should autograft leaflet prolapse.

Background: In patients undergoing aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement, either a mechanical or biologic prosthesis is used. Biologic prostheses have been increasingly favored despite limited evidence supporting this practice., Methods: We compared long-term mortality and rates of reoperation, stroke, and bleeding between inverse-probability-weighted cohorts of patients who underwent primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement with a mechanical or biologic prosthesis in California in the period from 1996 through 2013. Patients were stratified into different age groups on the basis of valve position (aortic vs. mitral valve)., Results: From 1996 through 2013, the use of biologic prostheses increased substantially for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic-valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral-valve replacement. Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15-year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01). The incidence of reoperation was significantly higher among recipients of a biologic prosthesis than among recipients of a mechanical prosthesis. Patients who received mechanical valves had a higher cumulative incidence of bleeding and, in some age groups, stroke than did recipients of a biologic prosthesis., Conclusions: The long-term mortality benefit that was associated with a mechanical prosthesis, as compared with a biologic prosthesis, persisted until 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement and until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).

Background: We examined the feasibility and efficacy of a "repair-all" strategy applied in all patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation, regardless of valve complexity, risk profile, and surgical approach., Methods: Between 2002 and 2011, 4,241 patients underwent mitral operations at our institution. Analysis was limited to 525 consecutive patients with mitral regurgitation due to leaflet prolapse (posterior, 75%; anterior, 5%; bileaflet, 20%) who underwent isolated mitral operations. A right minithoracotomy was used in 46% of procedures. Propensity scores identified 153 well-matched patient pairs for evaluation of the effect of surgical approach on valve reparability., Results: Mitral repair was successful in 99% (520 of 525) of patients. The location of the leaflet prolapse did not significantly influence the repair rate or the need for intraoperative revision of the initial repair. The repair rate and the need for intraoperative repair revision also did not significantly differ by surgical approach. Intraoperative revision did not confer a greater risk of perioperative morbidity or longer length of stay. At 8 years, freedom from severe mitral regurgitation was 97% ± 2%. Development of residual mitral regurgitation did not differ by location of the leaflet prolapse, need for repair revision, or surgical approach. After discharge, the survival trend did not differ between patients who did and did not require intraoperative repair revision., Conclusions: In experienced centers, a "repair-all" strategy for degenerative mitral regurgitation can be used with nearly 100% repair rates and excellent outcomes, regardless of valve complexity. When necessary, intraoperative revision of the initial repair may be performed in most patients without a significant incremental risk, thereby further enhancing repair rates., (Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cardiac surgery is in the midst of a practice revolution. Traditionally, surgery for valvular heart disease consisted of valve replacement via conventional sternotomy using cardiopulmonary bypass. However, over the past 20 years, the increasing popularity of less-invasive procedures, accompanied by advancements in imaging, surgical instrumentation, and robotic technology, has motivated and enabled surgeons to develop and perform complex cardiac surgical procedures through small incisions, often eliminating the need for sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass. In addition to the benefits of improved cosmesis, minimally invasive mitral valve surgery was pioneered with the intent of reducing morbidity, postoperative pain, blood loss, hospital length of stay, and time to return to normal activity. This article reviews the current state-of-the-art of minimally invasive approaches to the surgical treatment of valvular heart disease., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Delayed pulmonary autograft failure is the principal limitation of the Ross procedure. Although reoperation typically includes replacement of the neoaortic valve, strategies for autograft valve preservation are becoming increasingly employed. However, leaflet prolapse and asymmetry are deterrents to valve preservation in this technically complex surgical population. The present report illustrates the technical considerations in performing an autograft valve preserving aortic root replacement with direct leaflet repair for the surgical correction of aortic insufficiency and root aneurysm late after a successful Ross procedure., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: Feasibility and efficacy of mitral repair in the elderly remain controversial. This study aims to compare outcomes of mitral repair and replacement in octogenarians., Methods and Results: We compared the outcomes of 322 consecutive octogenarian patients (mean age 82.6 ± 2.2 years) who underwent mitral repair (n = 227, 70%) or replacement (n = 95, 30%) at Mount Sinai Medical Center and Leipzig Herzzentrum between 1998 and 2008 using propensity score adjustment and univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were excluded. Coronary bypass was performed in 47.5% (n = 153), and 31.1% (n = 100) required tricuspid repair. Propensity score adjustment yielded comparable groups. Thirty-day mortality in patients undergoing primary elective mitral repair for degenerative disease was 5.1% (2/39). Overall 90-day mortality was 18.9% (43/227) for repair compared with 31.6% (30/95) for replacement (P = 0.014). Pre-discharge echocardiography revealed less than moderate residual regurgitation in 99% of patients (231/232). Adjusted 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival for patients undergoing mitral repair was 71 ± 3, 61 ± 4, and 59 ± 4%, respectively, compared with 56 ± 5, 50 ± 6, and 45 ± 6% for patients undergoing mitral replacement (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis demonstrated emergency surgery, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery, and mitral replacement to be strong independent predictors of early mortality; mitral valve replacement was an independent predictor of reduced survival in degenerative patients., Conclusion: Elective mitral repair can be performed with low operative mortality and good long-term outcomes in selected octogenarians with degenerative mitral disease, and is associated with better long-term survival than mitral replacement. The survival benefit associated with surgery for non-degenerative disease is more questionable.

The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that low-ejection fraction (EF), low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS) is a predictor of major morbidity after aortic valve replacement (AVR). We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 597 consecutive patients with AS (mean age 72 +/- 11 years) who had undergone AVR or combined AVR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from 1998 to 2006 (EF < or =30% in 73 [12%]). The outcome measures included hospital mortality, major complications, and long-term survival. The overall hospital mortality rate was 4% (low-EF AS 5%; low-EF AS plus CABG 8%; AS controls 4%; AS plus CABG controls 3%; p = 0.42). Low-EF, low-gradient AS was not an independent risk factor for hospital mortality but predicted stroke (odds ratio [OR] 4.3), deep sternal wound infection (OR 10.0), sepsis (OR 6.8), gastrointestinal complications (OR 4.2), and respiratory failure (OR 4.4). The survival rate at 1, 3, and 5 years was 69 +/- 8%, 69 +/- 8%, and 65 +/- 8% in the low-EF, low-gradient, AVR plus CABG group and 95 +/- 4%, 92 +/- 5%, and 82 +/- 7% in the low-EF, low-gradient AVR group compared to 93 +/- 2%, 88 +/- 2%, and 78 +/- 3% in the AVR plus CABG control group and 93 +/- 2%, 89 +/- 2%, and 85 +/- 3% in the AVR control group (p = 0.001), respectively. In the patients with low-EF AS who experienced major postoperative morbidity, the 1-year survival rate was significantly reduced (54 +/- 14%) compared to those who did not (95 +/- 3%, p <0.001). In conclusion, low-EF, low-gradient AS is a predictor of increased major morbidity after AVR, which nonetheless remains the treatment of choice for most patients because of the excellent early and late survival. However, patients with strong risk factors for postoperative renal and respiratory failure might derive less benefit from conventional surgical AVR.

Background: In patients undergoing aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement, either a mechanical or biologic prosthesis is used. Biologic prostheses have been increasingly favored despite limited evidence supporting this practice.Methods: We compared long-term mortality and rates of reoperation, stroke, and bleeding between inverse-probability-weighted cohorts of patients who underwent primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement with a mechanical or biologic prosthesis in California in the period from 1996 through 2013. Patients were stratified into different age groups on the basis of valve position (aortic vs. mitral valve).Results: From 1996 through 2013, the use of biologic prostheses increased substantially for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic-valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral-valve replacement. Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15-year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01). The incidence of reoperation was significantly higher among recipients of a biologic prosthesis than among recipients of a mechanical prosthesis. Patients who received mechanical valves had a higher cumulative incidence of bleeding and, in some age groups, stroke than did recipients of a biologic prosthesis.Conclusions: The long-term mortality benefit that was associated with a mechanical prosthesis, as compared with a biologic prosthesis, persisted until 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement and until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]