Aortic root management in acute type A aortic dissection: A nationwide analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening condition and surgical repair often includes aortic valve replacement (AVR). Aortic valve repair (AVr) is increasingly being reported with favorable outcomes from single-center experiences. This study examined national trends and outcomes of AVr in patients with ATAAD. METHODS: Adults with a primary diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection who underwent proximal aortic surgery from January 2016 to December 2017 were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were stratified into an isolated aortic surgery group (no aortic valve procedure), concomitant AVR, or concomitant AVr groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included stroke, acute kidney injury, heart block, and bleeding. Propensity score matching was used to address patient and hospital-level confounders between AVR and AVr groups. RESULTS: In total, 5115 patients underwent surgery for ATAAD and were included. Overall, 3220 (63%) underwent isolated ATAAD repair, while 1120 (22%) had concomitant AVR, and 775 (15%) had concomitant AVr. In 455 propensity-matched pairs, there was no difference in mortality or stroke between AVr and AVR groups, however, heart block (1.1% vs. 7.5%, p < .001) and bleeding (65.9% vs. 81.3%, p < .001) were significantly less common among those who underwent AVr. Patients who underwent AVr had shortest LOS (11.9 vs. 13.5 days, p < .001). There were no differences in outcomes of AVr in ATAAD based on hospital size or teaching status. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, AVr is being performed safely in the setting of ATAAD with mortality and composite outcomes comparable to AVR.

Evolving Concept of Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) has been gaining attention ever since the results of the Early Surgery Versus Conventional Treatment in Very Severe Aortic Stenosis (RECOVERY) and Aortic Valve replacement versus conservative treatment in Asymptomatic seveRe aortic stenosis (AVATAR) trials showed survival benefits with early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This study analyzed the long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of SAVR in asymptomatic severe AS. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2020, 272 patients with asymptomatic severe AS and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% underwent SAVR with or without concomitant aortic surgery and met the study criteria. The median follow-up was 8.5 years (interquartile range, 6-12.8 years), for a total of 2584 patient-years. The time course of the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and the average E/E' (ratio of the Doppler-derived E wave to the tissue Doppler-derived E' wave) were assessed using 594 postoperative echocardiograms. The association of preoperative LVMI and average E/E' with survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: There was no operative mortality. On longitudinal analyses, LVMI improved in patients who presented with moderate or severe preoperative left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). However, after the early decline in average E/E', there was a late increase to greater than upper limit normal, particularly in patients with a preoperative average E/E'≥14. Postoperative survival was 100%, 94%, 84%, and 76% at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively, comparable to age- and sex-matched expected survival on the basis of the US general population. On adjusted Cox survival analysis, only moderate to severe LVH was associated with a survival penalty (hazard ratio], 2.32; 95% CI, 1.02-5.27; P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients with AS, SAVR restores survival and improves LVH, but patients with diastolic dysfunction are left with persistent dysfunction. Presentation with moderate or severe LVH at the time of surgery translated to a survival penalty. This observational study supports early SAVR in this population before development of LVH, although further investigation is needed.

Minimally invasive, surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In addition to full-sternotomy (FS), recent reports have shown successful minimally-invasive SAVR approaches, including mini-sternotomy (MS) and mini-thoracotomy (MT). This network-meta-analysis (NMA) seeks to provide an outcomes comparison based on these different modalities (MS, MT, TAVR) compared with FS as a reference arm for the management of aortic valve disease. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify studies that compared minimally-invasive SAVR (MS/MT) to conventional FS-SAVR, and/or TAVR. Bayesian NMA was performed using the random effects model. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker (PPM), and paravalvular leak (PVL). We also assessed long-term mortality at the latest follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 27,117 patients (56 studies) were included; 10,397 patients had FS SAVR, 9523 had MS, 5487 had MT, and 1710 had TAVR. Compared to FS, MS was associated with statistically-significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.59-0.98), stroke (RR, 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97), AKI (RR, 0.76, 95%CI 0.61-0.94), and long-term mortality (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.72-0.97) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 10.4 years, while MT showed statistically-significantly higher rates of 30-day PVL (RR, 3.76, 95%CI 1.31-10.85) and major bleeding (RR 1.45; 95%CI 1.08-1.94). TAVR had statistically significant lower rates of 30-day AKI (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.31-0.77), but showed statistically-significantly higher PPM (RR 2.50; 95%CI 1.60-3.91) and 30-day PVL (RR 12.85, 95%CI 5.05-32.68) compared to FS. CONCLUSIONS: MS was protective against 30-day mortality, stroke, AKI, and long-term mortality compared to FS; TAVR showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and PPM but was protective against AKI. Conversely, MT showed higher rates of 30-day PVL and major bleeding. With the emergence of TAVR, the appropriate benchmarks for SAVR comparison in future trials should be the minimally-invasive SAVR approaches to provide clinical equipoise.

Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of reintervention after mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair.

OBJECTIVE: The use of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) is growing substantially, and reintervention after TEER by way of repeat TEER or mitral valve surgery (MVS) is increasing as a result. In this nationally representative study we examined the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of reintervention after index TEER. METHODS: Between July 2013 and November 2017, we reviewed 11,396 patients who underwent index TEER using Medicare beneficiary data. These patients were prospectively tracked and identified as having repeat TEER or MVS. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, 30-day composite morbidity, and cumulative survival. RESULTS: Among 11,396 patients who underwent TEER, 548 patients (4.8%) required reintervention after a median time interval of 4.5 months. Overall 30-day mortality was 8.6%, 30-day readmission was 20.9%, and 30-day composite morbidity was 48.2%. According to reintervention type, 294 (53.7%) patients underwent repeat TEER, and 254 (46.3%) underwent MVS. Patients who underwent MVS were more likely to be younger and female, but had a similar comorbidity burden compared with the repeat TEER cohort. After adjustment, there were no differences in 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.65-2.45]) or 30-day readmission (AOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.72-1.81]). MVS was associated with higher 30-day morbidity (AOR, 4.76 [95% CI, 3.17-7.14]) compared with repeat TEER. Requirement for reintervention was an independent risk factor for long-term mortality in a Cox proportional hazard model (hazard ratio, 3.26 [95% CI, 2.53-4.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention after index TEER is a high-risk procedure that carries a significant mortality burden. This highlights the importance of ensuring procedural success for index TEER to avoid the morbidity of reintervention altogether.

Comparison of Postdischarge Outcomes Between Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement and Reoperative Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement.

Limited data are available comparing the postdischarge perioperative outcomes of isolated valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (VIV-TMVR) versus surgical reoperative mitral valve replacement (re-SMVR) on a nationwide scale. The objective of this study was to perform a robust head-to-head assessment of contemporary postdischarge outcomes between isolated VIV-TMVR and re-SMVR using a large national multicenter longitudinal database. Adult patients aged ≥18 years with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves who underwent either isolated VIV-TMVR or re-SMVR were identified in the 2015 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. The risk-adjusted differences in 30-, 90-, and 180-day outcomes were compared using propensity score weighting with overlap weights to mimic the results of a randomized controlled trial. The differences between a transeptal and transapical VIV-TMVR approach were also compared. A total of 687 patients with VIV-TMVR and 2,047 patients with re-SMVR were included. After the overlap weighting to attain balance between treatment groups, VIV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower major morbidity within 30 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.0.31 [0.22 to 0.46]), 90 (0.34 [0.23 to 0.50]), and 180 (0.35 [0.24 to 0.51]) days. The differences in major morbidity were primarily driven by less major bleeding (0.20 [0.14 to 0.30]), new onset complete heart block (0.48 [0.28 to 0.84]) and need for permanent pacemaker placement (0.26 [0.12 to 0.55]). The differences in renal failure and stroke were not significant. VIV-TMVR was also associated with shorter index hospital stays (median difference [95% CI] -7.0 [4.9 to 9.1] days) and an increased ability for patients to be discharged home (odds ratio [95% CI] 3.35 [2.37 to 4.72]). There were no significant differences in total hospital costs; in-hospital or 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality; or readmission. The findings remained similar when stratifying the VIV-TMVR access using a transeptal versus a transapical approach. The changes in outcomes over time suggest marked improvements for patients with VIV-TMVR relative to stagnant results for patients with re-SMVR from 2015 to 2019. In this large nationally representative cohort of patients with failed/degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, VIV-TMVR appears to confer a short-term advantage over re-SMVR in terms of morbidity, discharge home, and length of stay. It yielded equivalent outcomes for mortality and readmission. Longer-term studies are needed to assess further follow-up beyond 180 days.