Search

Background: Tricuspid valve surgical procedures (TVS) concomitant with mitral valve (MV) surgical procedures for less than severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) remains controversial. This study examined the long-term outcomes of patients with moderate or mild to moderate TR undergoing MV surgical procedures with or without TVS. Methods: Patients with moderate or mild to moderate TR undergoing MV replacement or repair between January 2002 and June 2021 were included. Primary outcomes of reoperation and long-term survival were compared for patients undergoing MV replacement or repair with or without TVS before and after stratifying by mitral disease cause. Results: The study included 505 patients. Mean age was 69 ± 12.7 years. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for MV replacement (3.71 vs 4.39; P = .34) and repair (1.73 vs 1.67; P = .84) was similar for patients who did and did not undergo TVS. Operative mortality was similar for replacement (4.2% vs 6.1%; P = .77) or repair (0% vs 0%) with or without TVS. Patients undergoing MV replacement or repair with or without TVS had similar 10-year survival (67.1% vs 73.2% [P = .37]; 68.7% vs 78.8% [P = .052]) and rates of reoperation (2.1% vs 0.8% [P = .69]; 4.9% vs 4.6% [P = .99]). Cox proportional hazards modeling confirmed that TVS did not decrease the risk of death after MV replacement (hazard ratio, 0.839 [0.479-1.467]) or repair (hazard ratio, 0.852 [0.516-1.408]). The findings were unchanged after stratifying by MV disease cause or restricting the analysis to patients with moderate TR only, with no differences in survival or reoperation (all P > .05). Conclusions: Concomitant TVS for moderate or mild to moderate TR did not improve survival or decrease reoperation. Parameters beyond the degree of TR may aid in surgical decision-making.

Objectives: The use of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is inherently associated with a risk of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and the need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention. We sought to evaluate whether AV reintervention, in the form of repeat surgical AVR (SAVR) or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), negatively affects patients’ subsequent long-term survival after index SAVR. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone bioprosthetic SAVR from 2002 to 2017 at our institution. Median longitudinal follow-up after index SAVR was 7.3 years (10.9 years for those with and 7.2 years for those without AV reintervention), and median follow-up after AV reintervention was 1.9 years. Cox regression analyses using AV reintervention (re-SAVR and ViV-TAVR) as a time-varying covariate were used to determine the impact of reintervention on subsequent survival. Results: Of 4167 patients who underwent index SAVR, 139 (3.3%) required AV reintervention for SVD, with re-SAVR being performed in 65 and ViV-TAVR in 74. Median age at the index SAVR was 73 years (interquartile range, 64-79 years), and 2541 (61%) were male. Overall, there were total of 1171 mortalities observed, of which 13 occurred after re-SAVR and 9 after ViV-TAVR. AV reintervention was associated with a greater risk of subsequent mortality compared with those patients who did not require AV reintervention (hazard ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.88, P

Objective: With expanding eligibility criteria, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is being performed on patients with longer life expectancy, and subsequent procedures after index transcatheter aortic valve replacement are inevitable. This study examines the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing subsequent procedural readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: All patients who underwent index transcatheter aortic valve replacement and were discharged alive from January 2012 to December 2019 at a single institution were evaluated. Study end points were mortality and readmission for procedure with more than 1-day hospital stay. Effect on survival was evaluated by treating procedural readmission as a time-dependent variable by Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk analysis. Results: A total of 1092 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up time of 34 months. A total of 218 patients (20.0%) had 244 subsequent procedural readmissions. During the 244 procedural readmissions, there were 260 procedures; 96 (36.9%) were cardiac (most commonly pacemaker implantation, percutaneous coronary interventions, and surgical aortic valve replacements), and 164 (63.1%) were noncardiac (most commonly orthopedic and gastrointestinal procedures). The overall procedural readmission rates were 32%, 39%, and 42%, and all-cause mortality was 27%, 44%, and 54% at 20, 40, and 60 months, respectively. Procedural readmissions were not associated with a survival penalty in any surgical risk group or on Cox regression (hazard ratio, 1.25; 0.91-1.64, P = .17). Conclusions: After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, procedural interventions are seen frequently, with most procedures occurring within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, subsequent procedural readmissions do not appear to have a survival penalty for patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. After transcatheter aortic valve replacement with resolution of aortic stenosis, subsequent procedures can and should be pursued if they are needed.