Search

Objective: Anterior mitral anular calcification, particularly in radiation heart disease, and previous valve replacement with destroyed intervalvular fibrosa are challenging for prosthesis sizing and placement. The Commando procedure with intervalvular fibrosa reconstruction permits double-valve replacement in these challenging conditions. We referenced outcomes after Commando procedures to standard double-valve replacements. Methods: From January 2011 to January 2022, 129 Commando procedures and 1191 aortic and mitral double-valve replacements were performed at the Cleveland Clinic, excluding endocarditis. Reasons for the Commando were severe calcification after radiation (n = 67), without radiation (n = 43), and others (n = 19). Commando procedures were referenced to a subset of double-valve replacements using balancing-score methods (109 pairs). Results: Between balanced groups, Commando versus double-valve replacement had higher total calcium scores (median 6140 vs 2680 HU, P = .03). Hospital outcomes were similar, including operative mortality (12/11% vs 8/7.3%, P = .35) and reoperation for bleeding (9/8.3% vs 5/4.6%, P = .28). Survival and freedom from reoperation at 5 years were 54% versus 67% (P = .33) and 87% versus 100% (P = .04), respectively. Higher calcium score was associated with lower survival after double-valve replacement but not after the Commando. The Commando procedure had lower aortic valve mean gradients at 4 years (9.4 vs 11 mm Hg, P = .04). After Commando procedures for calcification, 5-year survival was 60% and 59% with and without radiation, respectively (P = .47). Conclusions: The Commando procedure with reconstruction of the intervalvular fibrosa destroyed by mitral anular calcification, radiation, or previous surgery demonstrates acceptable outcomes similar to standard double-valve replacement. More experience and long-term outcomes are required to refine patient selection for and application of the Commando approach.

Objective(s): Identifying the optimal solution for young adults requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) is challenging, given the variety of options and their lifetime complication risks, impacts on quality of life, and costs. Decision analytic techniques make comparisons incorporating these measures. We evaluated lifetime valve-related outcomes of mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) versus the Ross procedure (Ross) using decision tree microsimulations modeling. Methods: Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs derived from published reports were entered into a Markov model decision tree to explore progression between health states for hypothetical 18-year-old patients. In total, 20,000 Monte Carlo microsimulations were performed to model mortality, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), and health care costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses was performed to identify transition probabilities at which the preferred strategy switched from baseline. Results: From modeling, average 20-year mortality was 16.3% and 23.2% for Ross and mAVR, respectively. Average 20-year freedom from stroke and major bleeding was 98.6% and 94.6% for Ross, and 90.0% and 82.2% for mAVR, respectively. Average individual lifetime (60 postoperative years) utility (28.3 vs 23.5 QALYs) and cost ($54,233 vs $507,240) favored Ross over mAVR. The average ICER demonstrated that each QALY would cost $95,345 more for mAVR. Sensitivity analysis revealed late annual probabilities of autograft/left ventricular outflow tract disease and homograft/right ventricular outflow tract disease after Ross, and late death after mAVR, to be important ICER determinants. Conclusions: Our modeling suggests that Ross is preferred to mAVR, with superior freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortality, and improved cost-utility for young adults requiring aortic valve surgery.