Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation.

OBJECTIVE: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common valvular heart disease with unsatisfactory medical therapeutics and high surgical mortality. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) in high-risk patients with severe TR. METHODS: This was a compassionate multicentre study. Between September 2018 and November 2019, 46 patients with TR who were not suitable for surgery received compassionate TTVR under general anaesthesia and the guidance of trans-oesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopy in four institutions. Access to the tricuspid valve was obtained via a minimally invasive thoracotomy and transatrial approach. Patients' data at baseline, before discharge, 30 days and 6 months after the procedure were collected. RESULTS: All patients had severe TR with vena contracta width of 12.6 (11.0, 14.5) mm. Procedural success (97.8%) was achieved in all but one case with right ventricle perforation. The procedural time was 150.0 (118.8, 180.0) min. Intensive care unit time was 2.0 (1.0, 4.0) days. 6-month mortality was 17.4%. Device migration occurred in one patient (2.4%) during follow-up. Transthoracic echocardiography at 6 months after operation showed TR was significantly reduced (none/trivial in 33, mild in 4 and moderate in 1) and the primary safety end point was achieved in 38 cases (82.6%). Patients suffered from peripheral oedema and ascites decreased from 100.0% and 47.8% at baseline to 2.6% and 0.0% at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed TTVR was feasible, safe and with low complication rates in patients with severe TR.

Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on early and late outcomes after mitral valve replacement: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic significance of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains uncertain because of the limited studies reporting inconsistent or even contrary results. This meta-analysis pooled results of all available studies comparing early and late prognoses between patients with significant mitral PPM and those without. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching Pubmed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Impact of PPM on postoperative hemodynamic results, thirty-day mortality, overall mortality, mortality of thirty-day survivors, and primary morbidity after MVR was evaluated via meta-analysis. Robustness of pooled estimates, source of heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed via sensitivity analyses, meta-regression as well as subgroup analysis stratified according to methodological or clinical heterogeneity, or sequential omission method, and funnel plot or Begg's and Egger's tests, respectively. RESULTS: Nineteen cohort studies involving 9302 individuals (PPM group: n = 5109, Control group: n = 4193) were included for meta-analysis. Total PPM and severe PPM prevalence were 3.8%-85.9% and 1%-27%, with a mean value of 54.9% and 14.1%, respectively. As compared with control group, mitral PPM group demonstrated a poorer postoperative hemodynamic status of higher mean and peak residual transprosthetic pressure gradients (TPG), higher postoperative systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) and less reduction, higher postoperative pulmonary hypertension (PH) prevalence and less PH regression, smaller net atrioventricular compliance, less NYHA class decrease, higher postoperative functional tricuspid regurgitation prevalence and less regression. The PPM group also revealed a higher thirty-day mortality, long-term overall mortality, mortality of thirty-day survivors, and postoperative congestive heart failure prevalence, which were positively correlated with the severity of PPM if it was classified into tri-level subgroups. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence, and the AF regression were analogous between groups. Most pooled estimates were robust according to sensitivity analyses. Male patients and bioprosthesis implantation proportion were prominent source of between-study heterogeneity on thirty-day mortality. Publication bias was not significant in tests for all the outcomes, except for SPAP and TPG. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral PPM would result in poorer postoperative hemodynamics and worse early and late prognosis. Severe PPM must be avoided since deleterious impact of mitral PPM was severity dependent.

Comparison of four risk scores for in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing heart valve surgery: A multicenter study in a Chinese population.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare four risk scores with regard to their validity to predict in-hospital mortality after heart valve surgery in a multicenter patient population of China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2009 to December 2012, data from 12,412 consecutive patients older than 16 years who underwent heart valve surgery at four cardiac surgical centers were collected and scored according to the EuroSCORE II, Ambler risk score, NYC risk score, and STS risk score. The patients were divided into two subgroups according to the types of valve procedures, and the performance of the four risk scores for each group was assessed. Calibration was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test. Discrimination was tested by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Observed mortality was 2.09% overall. The EuroSCORE II, Ambler score, and NYC score overpredicted observed mortality (Hosmer-Lemeshow: P = 0.002, P < 0.0001, and P < 0.0001, respectively) and the STS score underpredicted observed mortality (Hosmer-Lemeshow: P = 0.001). The discriminative power in the entire cohort for in-hospital mortality was highest for the STS score (0.735), followed by the EuroSCORE II score (0.704), NYC score (0.693), and Ambler score (0.674). Meanwhile, the STS score and EuroSCORE II give an accurate prediction in patients undergoing single valve surgery compared with the Ambler score and NYC score. However, all four risk scores give an imprecise prediction in patients undergoing multiple valve surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both the STS score and Euroscore II, especially the STS score, were suitable for individual operative risk in Chinese patients undergoing single valve surgery compared with the Ambler score and NYC score, however, all four risk scores were not suitable for prediction in Chinese patients undergoing multiple valve surgery. Therefore, the creation of a new model which accurately predicts outcomes in patients undergoing multiple valve surgery is possibly required in China.