Search

Background: Predicting risk for aortic and mitral valve surgery is important both for informed consent of patients and objective review of surgical outcomes. Development of reliable prediction rules requires large data sets with appropriate risk factors that are available before surgery.Methods: Data from eight Northern New England Medical Centers in the period January 1991 through December 2001 were analyzed on 8,943 heart valve surgery patients aged 30 years and older. There were 5,793 cases of aortic valve replacement and 3,150 cases of mitral valve surgery (repair or replacement). Logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between risk factors and in-hospital mortality.Results: In the multivariable analysis, 11 variables in the aortic model (older age, lower body surface area, prior cardiac operation, elevated creatinine, prior stroke, New York Heart Association [NYHA] class IV, congestive heart failure [CHF], atrial fibrillation, acuity, year of surgery, and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting) and 10 variables in the mitral model (female sex, older age, diabetes, coronary artery disease, prior cerebrovascular accident, elevated creatinine, NYHA class IV, CHF, acuity, and valve replacement) remained independent predictors of the outcome. The mathematical models were highly significant predictors of the outcome, in-hospital mortality, and the results are in general agreement with those of others. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the aortic model was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.77), and for the mitral model, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.81). The goodness-of-fit statistic for the aortic model was χ2 [8 df] = 11.88, p = 0.157, and for the mitral model it was χ2 [8 df] = 5.45, p = 0.708.Conclusions: We present results and methods for use in day-to-day practice to calculate patient-specific in-hospital mortality after aortic and mitral valve surgery, by the logistic equation for each model or a simple scoring system with a look-up table for mortality rate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: The optimal approach and choice of initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) is evolving in the growing era of transcatheter AVR. Further survival and hemodynamic data are needed to compare the emerging role of rapid deployment (rdAVR) versus stented (sAVR) valve options for AVR., Methods: The Northern New England Cardiovascular Database was queried for patients undergoing either isolated AVR or AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with rdAVR or sAVR aortic valves between 2015 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, mechanical valves, dissection, emergency case status, and prior sternotomy. This resulted in a cohort including 1,616 sAVR and 538 rdAVR cases. After propensity weighting, procedural characteristics, hemodynamic variables, and survival outcomes were examined., Results: The breakdown of the overall cohort (2,154) included 1,164 isolated AVR (222 rdAVR, 942 sAVR) and 990 AVR + CABG (316 rdAVR, 674 sAVR). After inverse propensity weighting, cohorts were well matched, notable only for more patients <50 years in the sAVR group (4.0% vs 1.9%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.12). Cross-clamp (89 vs 64 min, SMD = -0.71) and cardiopulmonary bypass (121 vs 91 min, SMD = -0.68) times were considerably longer for sAVR versus rdAVR. Immediate postreplacement aortic gradient decreased with larger valve size but did not differ significantly between comparable sAVR and rdAVR valve sizes or overall (6.5 vs 6.7 mm Hg, SMD = 0.09). Implanted rdAVR tended to be larger with 51% either size L or XL versus 37.4% of sAVR ≥25 mm. Despite a temporal decrease in pacemaker rate within the rdAVR cohort, the overall pacemaker frequency was less in sAVR versus rdAVR (4.4% vs 7.4%, SMD = 0.12), and significantly higher rates were seen in size L (10.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.002) and XL (15% vs 5.6%, P < 0.004) rdAVR versus sAVR. No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (4.6% vs 4.6%, SMD = 0.01), 30-day survival (1.5% vs 2.6%, SMD = 0.08), or long-term survival out to 4 years were seen between sAVR and rdAVR., Conclusions: Rapid deployment valves offer a safe alternative to sAVR with significantly decreased cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Despite larger implantation sizes, we did not appreciate a comparative difference in immediate postoperative gradients, and although pacemaker rates are improving, they remain higher in rdAVR compared with sAVR. Longer-term hemodynamic and survival follow-up are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is prevalent in patients with aortic stenosis (AS); however, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent results regarding the association of PH with adverse outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative PH on outcomes after AVR. We performed a regional prospective cohort study using the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group database to identify 1,116 consecutive patients from 2005 to 2010 who underwent AVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting for severe AS with a preoperative assessment of pulmonary pressures by right-sided cardiac catheterization. PH was defined as a mean pulmonary artery pressure of ≥25 mm Hg, with severity based on the pulmonary artery systolic pressure-mild, 35 to 44 mm Hg; moderate, 45 to 59 mm Hg; and severe, ≥60 mm Hg. We found that PH was present in 536 patients (48%). Postoperative acute kidney injury, low-output heart failure, and in-hospital mortality increased with worsening severity of PH. In multivariate logistic regression, severe PH was independently associated with postoperative acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 10, p = 0.002) and in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 6.9, 95% CI 2.5 to 19.1, p <0.001). There was a significant association between PH and decreased 5-year survival (adjusted log-rank p value = 0.006), with severe PH being associated with the poorest survival (adjusted hazard ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.2, p = 0.003). In conclusion, severe PH in patients with severe AS is associated with increased rates of in-hospital adverse events and decreased 5-year survival after AVR., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)