Ross procedure or mechanical aortic valve, which is the best lifetime option for an 18-year-old? A decision analysis.

Objectives: 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.

Are adult thoracic patient education materials designed with patients in mind?

OBJECTIVE: Patients are increasingly using the internet to obtain health care information. US News and World Report Best Hospital rankings received more than 103 million views in 2021. Considering 21% of thoracic surgery patients are minorities, 27.9% are in the bottom quartile of household income, and 70% have Medicare/Medicaid or no insurance, online patient educational materials (PEMs) should be accessible and written at a level easily understood by majority of patients. We performed a comprehensive analysis of readability of websites containing patient-centered resources across all adult thoracic surgery areas. METHODS: Online PEMs on thoracic surgical procedures were collected from top 50 hospitals for pulmonology and lung surgery ranked by US News and World Report Best Hospital as of December 1, 2021. Text pertaining to thoracic surgical procedures was collected and divided into 4 procedural genres: esophageal, lung, transplant procedures, and other. Texts were analyzed using OleanderSoftware's Readability Suite through the Raygor readability test. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-two articles met criteria for analysis. Websites were difficult to read; mean (standard deviation) readability score for all content required a 13.9 (3.6) grade level for comprehension. The mean (standard deviation) readability for esophageal, lung, lung transplant, and other surgeries were 14.5 (3.6), 13.1 (3.6), 11.5 (3.9), and 13.4 (3.7), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Online PEMs required at least a college reading level to comprehend, well exceeding the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association. As digital health becomes increasingly relevant, improving the readability of online PEMs in adult cardiac surgery will facilitate equitable access to high-quality care.

Contemporary experience with the Commando procedure for anterior mitral anular calcification.

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.

The decreasing risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement: Implications for valve choice and transcatheter therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing use of bioprostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in younger patients, together with wider use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, necessitates understanding risks associated with surgical valve reintervention. Therefore, we sought to identify risks of reoperative SAVR compared with those of primary isolated SAVR. METHODS: From January 1980 to July 2017, 7037 patients underwent nonemergency isolated SAVR, with 753 reoperations and 6284 primary isolated operations. These 2 groups were propensity score-matched on 46 preoperative variables, yielding 581 patient pairs for comparing outcomes. RESULTS: Among propensity score-matched patients, aortic clamp time (median 63 vs 52 minutes; P < .0001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (median 88 vs 67 minutes; P < .0001), and postoperative stay (median 7.1 vs 6.9 days; P = .003) were longer for reoperative SAVR than primary isolated SAVR. Hospital mortality after reoperative SAVR decreased from 3.4% in 1985 to 1.3% in 2011, similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Occurrence of stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and new renal dialysis was similar. Blood transfusion (67% vs 36%; P < .0001) and reoperations for bleeding/tamponade (6.4% vs 3.1%; P = .009) were more common after reoperative SAVR. Survival at 1, 5, 10, and 20 years was 94%, 82%, 64%, and 33% after reoperative SAVR and 95%, 86%, 72%, and 46% after elective primary isolated SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of mortality and morbidity after reoperative SAVR has declined and is now similar to that of primary isolated SAVR. Decisions regarding prosthesis choice and SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement should be made in the context of lifelong disease management rather than avoidance of reoperation.

Redefining "low risk": Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines suggest aortic valve replacement (AVR) for low-risk asymptomatic patients. Indications for transcatheter AVR now include low-risk patients, making it imperative to understand state-of-the-art surgical AVR (SAVR) in this population. Therefore, we compared SAVR outcomes in low-risk patients with those expected from Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) models and assessed their intermediate-term survival. METHODS: From January 2005 to January 2017, 3493 isolated SAVRs were performed in 3474 patients with STS predicted risk of mortality <4%. Observed operative mortality and composite major morbidity or mortality were compared with STS-expected outcomes according to calendar year of surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for these outcomes. Patients were followed for time-related mortality. RESULTS: With 15 observed operative deaths (0.43%) compared with 55 expected (1.6%), the observed:expected ratio was 0.27 for mortality (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.42), stroke 0.65 (95% CI, 0.41-0.89), and reoperation 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.60). Major morbidity or mortality steadily declined, with probabilities of 8.6%, 6.7%, and 5.2% in 2006, 2011, and 2016, respectively, while STS-expected risk remained at approximately 12%. Mitral valve regurgitation, ventricular hypertrophy, pulmonary, renal, and hepatic failure, coronary artery disease, and earlier surgery date were residual risk factors. Survival was 98%, 91%, and 82% at 1, 5, and 9 years, respectively, superior to that predicted for the US age-race-sex-matched population. CONCLUSIONS: STS risk models overestimate contemporary SAVR risk at a high-volume center, supporting efforts to create a more agile quality assessment program. SAVR in low-risk patients provides durable survival benefit, supporting early surgery and providing a benchmark for transcatheter AVR.

Improvements in Outcomes and Expanding Indications for the Commando Procedure. Comment on Giambuzzi et al. Surgical Aortic Mitral Curtain Replacement: Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Early and Long-Term Results. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3163.

We read with interest the authors' review and metanalysis of the Commando procedure in "Surgical Aortic Mitral Curtain Replacement: Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Early and Long-Term Results" [...].