Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Duration of Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Fever Type Duration After Last Attack* Rheumatic fever with carditis and residual heart disease (persistent VHD†) 10 y or until patient is 40 y of age (whichever is longer) Rheumatic fever with carditis but no residual heart disease (no valvular disease†) 10 y or until patient is 21 y of age (whichever is longer) Rheumatic fever without carditis 5 y or until patient is 21 y of age (whichever is longer) *Lifelong prophylaxis may be recommended if the patient is at high risk of group A streptococcus exposure. Systemic Fibrinolysis Versus Surgery for Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis Favor Surgery Favor Fibrinolysis Readily available surgical expertise No surgical expertise available Low surgical risk High surgical risk Contraindication to fibrinolysis No contraindication to fibrinolysis Recurrent valve thrombosis First-time episode of valve thrombosis NYHA class IV NYHA class I, II, or III Large clot (>0.8 cm 2) Small clot (<=0.8 cm 2) LA thrombus No LA thrombus Concomitant CAD in need of revascularization No or mild CAD Other valve disease No other valve disease Possible pannus Thrombus visualized Patient choice Patient choice CAD indicates coronary artery disease; The threshold for valve operation for valve regurgitation is higher in the asymptomatic patient who might ever become pregnant than in patients who will not become pregnant because there always is the possibility that valve repair will not be successful and a prosthetic valve will be needed. Consultation with or referral to a Primary or Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is reasonable when treatment options are being discussed for 1) asymptomatic patients with severe VHD, 2) patients who may benefit from valve repair versus valve replacement, or 3) patients with multiple comorbidities for whom valve intervention is considered. [Extracted from the article]

Aim: This executive summary of the valvular heart disease guideline provides recommendations for clinicians to diagnose and manage valvular heart disease as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and other selected database relevant to this guideline. Structure: Many recommendations from the earlier valvular heart disease guidelines have been updated with new evidence and provides newer options for diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease. This summary includes only the recommendations from the full guideline which focus on diagnostic work-up, the timing and choice of surgical and catheter interventions, and recommendations for medical therapy. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in developing these guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an update of the "2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease" report of the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. It discusses basic principles of medical therapy for infective endocarditis, aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation, among other valvular heart diseases. It also explains the term "guideline-directed management and therapy."