Perioperative care differences of surgical aortic valve replacement between North America and Europe.

OBJECTIVE: To describe differences between North America and Europe in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: Patients with moderate or greater aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring SAVR were enrolled in a prospective observational cohort evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new stented bioprosthesis at 25 centres in North America (Canada and the USA) and 13 centres in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Switzerland and Italy). While all patients underwent implantation with the same bioprosthetic model, perioperative management was left to the discretion of participating centres. Perioperative care was described in detail including outcomes up to 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Among 1118 patients, 643 (58%) were implanted in North America, and 475 (42%) were implanted in Europe. Patients in Europe were older, had a lower body mass index, less bicuspid disease and worse degree of aortic stenosis at baseline. In Europe, anticoagulant therapy at discharge was more aggressive, whereas length of stay was longer, and discharges directly to home were less common. Rehospitalisation risk was lower in Europe at 30 days (8.5% vs 15.9%) but converged at 1-year follow-up (26.5% vs 28.1%). Within continents, there were major differences between individual countries concerning perioperative management. CONCLUSION: Contemporary perioperative management of SAVR patients varies between North America and Europe in patient selection, procedural techniques, antithrombotic regimen and discharge management. Furthermore, rehospitalisation differed largely between continents and countries. Hence, geographical setting must be considered during design and interpretation of trials on SAVR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02088554.

Preoperative Anticoagulation Management in Everyday Clinical Practice: An International Comparative Analysis of Work-as-Done Using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method.

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative anticoagulation management (PAM) is a complex, multidisciplinary process important to patient safety. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) is a novel method to study how complex processes usually go right at the frontline (labeled Safety-II) and how this relates to predefined procedures. This study aimed to assess PAM in everyday practice and explore the usability and utility of FRAM. METHODS: The study was conducted at an Australian and European Cardiothoracic Surgery Department. A FRAM model of work-as-imagined was developed using (inter)national guidelines. Semistructured interviews with 18 involved professionals were used to develop models reflecting work-as-done at both sites, which were presented to staff for validation. Workload in hours was estimated per process step. RESULTS: In both centers, work-as-done differed from work-as-imagined, such as in the division of tasks among disciplines (e.g., nurses/registrars rather than medical specialists), but control mechanisms had been developed locally to ensure safe care (e.g., crosschecking with other clinicians). Centers had organized the process differently, revealing opportunities for improvement regarding patient information and clustering of clinic visits. Presenting FRAM models to staff initiated discussion on improvement of functions in the model that are vital for success. Overall workload was estimated at 47 hours per site. CONCLUSIONS: This FRAM analysis provided insight into PAM from the perspective of frontline clinicians, revealing essential functions, interdependencies and variability, and the relation with guidelines. Future studies are warranted to study the potential of FRAM, such as for guiding improvements in complex systems.

The fallacy of indexed effective orifice area charts to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch after prosthesis implantation.

AIMS: Indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) charts are used to determine the likelihood of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study is to validate whether these EOAi charts, based on echocardiographic normal reference values, can accurately predict PPM. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNt (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial, 986 patients with aortic valve stenosis/regurgitation underwent AVR with an Avalus valve. Patients were randomly split (50:50) into training and test sets. The mean measured EOAs for each valve size from the training set were used to create an Avalus EOAi chart. This chart was subsequently used to predict PPM in the test set and measures of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value) were assessed. PPM was defined by an EOAi ≤0.85 cm2/m2, and severe PPM was defined as EOAi ≤0.65 cm2/m2. The reference values obtained from the training set ranged from 1.27 cm2 for size 19 mm up to 1.81 cm2 for size 27 mm. The test set had an incidence of 66% of PPM and 24% of severe PPM. The EOAi chart inaccurately predicted PPM in 30% of patients and severe PPM in 22% of patients. For the prediction of PPM, the sensitivity was 87% and the specificity 37%. For the prediction of severe PPM, the sensitivity was 13% and the specificity 98%. CONCLUSION: The use of echocardiographic normal reference values for EOAi charts to predict PPM is unreliable due to the large proportion of misclassifications.

An in vitro comparison of internally versus externally mounted leaflets in surgical aortic bioprostheses.

OBJECTIVES: To improve haemodynamic performance, design modifications of prosthetic valves have been proposed with each new generation of valves. These different designs also impact the amount of mechanical wear, because mechanical stresses are distributed differently. Because long-term evidence for new prosthetic valves is lacking, this in vitro study compared hydrodynamic performance and durability among 3 currently available bioprosthetic valves with internally (IMLV) or externally mounted leaflets (EMLV). METHODS: Prostheses of the internally mounted Medtronic Avalus and Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valves were compared to prostheses of the externally mounted Abbott Trifecta valve. For each labelled size (e.g. 19, 21 and 23) of the 3 types, 3 valves underwent accelerated wear testing for up to 600 million cycles, corresponding to ∼15 years of simulated wear. The valves underwent hydrodynamic testing and visual inspection. RESULTS: EMLV had the largest effective orifice area and lowest pressure gradient for each labelled size at baseline and 600 million cycles; the effective orifice area and the pressure gradient were equivalent for the 2 types of IMLV. Five of 9 EMLVs had at least 1 hole or tear in the leaflet tissue around the stent posts, which resulted in severe regurgitation at 500 million cycles in 2 cases. All IMLVs were intact at 600 million cycles with minimal tissue wear. CONCLUSIONS: EMLV showed superior hydrodynamic performance but inferior mechanical durability compared to IMLV after 600 million cycles of testing. The primary failures were because of significant mechanical abrasion in the commissural region, which may warrant close monitoring of EMLV during long-term follow-up.

Reported Outcome After Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement for Aortic Root Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Valve-sparing aortic root techniques have progressively gained ground in the treatment of aortic root aneurysm and aortic insufficiency. By avoiding anticoagulation therapy they offer a good alternative to composite graft replacement. This systematic review describes the reported outcome of valve-sparing aortic root replacement, focusing on the remodeling and reimplantation technique. A systematic literature search on the characteristics of and outcomes after valve-sparing aortic root replacement revealed 1,659 articles. The inclusion criteria were a focus on valve-sparing aortic root replacement in adults with aortic root aneurysm, presentation of survival data, and inclusion of at least 30 patients. Data were pooled by inverse variance weighting and analyzed by linear regression. Of 1,659 articles published between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2014, 31 were included (n = 4,777 patients). The mean age at operation was 51 ± 14.7 years, and 14% of patients had a bicuspid aortic valve. The reimplantation technique was used in 72% and remodeling in 27% (1% other). No clinical advantage in terms of survival and reoperation of one technique over the other was found. Cusp repair was performed in 33%. Pooled early mortality was 2% (n = 103). During follow-up (21,716 patient-years), 262 patients died (survival 92%), and 228 (5%) underwent reoperation, mainly valve replacement. Major adverse valve-related events were low (1.66% patient-years). Preoperative severe aortic valve regurgitation showed a trend toward higher reoperation rate. Remodeling and reimplantation techniques show comparable survival and valve durability results, providing a valid alternative to composite valve replacement. The heterogeneity in the data underlines the need for a collaborative effort to standardize outcome reporting.