Prolonged QTc affects short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with normal left ventricular function undergoing cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Although it is known that preoperative decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a risk for morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery, there are no reliable markers of risk in patients with preserved LVEF. This study examines whether a prolonged QTc interval is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with preoperative LVEF greater than 40% undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who had cardiac surgery at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada, between 2004 and 2009, who had a preoperative LVEF greater than 40%, was undertaken. We tested for association of preoperative prolonged QTc interval with mortality and morbidity using unadjusted and adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Five-hundred and fifty-five patients with a preoperative LVEF greater than 40% were included in the study; 496 (89.4%) had cardiopulmonary bypass and the remainder were off pump. Preoperative prolonged QTc was associated with increased mortality at 30 days (P < .01), 90 days (P < .01), and 8 years (P < .01), and these results remained significant after adjusting for the clinical variables significantly associated with mortality (8-year odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.34; P = .003). Similar results were found when the analysis was restricted to the more homogeneous group of patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass (CABG, n = 408). Prolonged QTc was also associated with prolonged intensive care unit stay (P = .02), prolonged hospital stay (P < .01), development of atrial arrhythmias (P = .02), and low cardiac output syndrome (on-pump CABG, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery and a preoperative LVEF greater than 40%, a prolonged QTc interval is associated with increased short-term and long-term mortality and increased perioperative morbidity, and therefore should be considered when assessing risk preoperatively.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation: clinical and hemodynamic outcomes beyond 2 years.

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of transapical valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation into a failed aortic surgical bioprosthesis has been confirmed. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes more than 2 years after transapical valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation. METHODS: From April 2007 to May 2010, 8 consecutive patients underwent transapical valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation of either 23- or 26-mm Edwards-SAPIEN balloon-expandable bioprostheses into failed surgical tissue valves (21- to 25-mm valves). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was performed in all patients. The mean follow-up duration was 27.8 ± 15.7 months (range, 18-55 months). RESULTS: Transapical valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation was successful in all patients (mean age, 84.1 ± 1.6 years). The predicted operative mortality was 42.1% ± 15.7% by logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and 14.4% ± 9.6% using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk calculator. The observed 30-day mortality was 12.5%. No strokes or valve embolization/migrations occurred. The mean hospital stay was 9.0 ± 9.1 days. The New York Heart Association class decreased from preoperative class III-IV to postoperative class I in 6 of 7 survivors. The 2-year survival was 87.5%. No late mortality occurred during the follow-up period. The echocardiographic results at 1 to 4 years of follow-up demonstrated stable valve position and function in all patients. The transaortic valve pressure gradients after valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation were greater than 20 mm Hg and less than 15 mm Hg in patients with 21- or 23-mm and 25-mm surgical valves, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Transapical valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation provides good clinical outcomes and stable valve function beyond 2 years of follow-up. The best hemodynamic and clinical outcomes can be achieved in the patients with a surgical valve size of 25 mm or greater. Valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation could become a viable approach for selected high-risk patients with failed surgical bioprostheses.

Pathology of transcatheter valve therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report on the pathology of transcatheter aortic valves explanted at early and late time points after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. BACKGROUND: Information on pathological findings following transcatheter aortic valve implantation is scarce, particularly late after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS: This study included 20 patients (13 men, median age 80 years [interquartile range: 72 to 84] years) with previous transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a valve explanted at autopsy (n = 17) or surgery (n = 3) up to 30 months after implantation (10 transapical and 10 transfemoral procedures). RESULTS: Structural valve degeneration was not seen, although fibrous tissue ingrowth was observed at later time points with minimal effects on cusp mobility in 1 case. Minor alterations in valve configuration or placement were observed in up to 50% of cases, but they were not accompanied by substantial changes in valve function or reliably associated with chest compressions. Vascular or myocardial injury was common, especially within 30 days of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (about 69%), with the latter associated with left coronary ostial occlusion by calcified native aortic valve tissue in 2 cases. Mild to severe myocardial amyloidosis was present in nearly 33% of cases and likely played a role in the poor outcome of 3 patients. Endocarditis, migration of the valve, and embolization during the procedure led to surgical valve removal. CONCLUSIONS: Structural degeneration was not seen and minor alterations of valve configuration or placement did not affect valve function and were not reliably caused by chest compressions. Vascular or myocardial injury is very common early after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and myocardial amyloidosis represents a relatively frequent potentially significant comorbid condition.

A high-risk period for cerebrovascular events exists after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: This study assesses if there exists a high-risk period for cerebrovascular events (CeV) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: Even though acute strokes after TAVI have been described, it is uncertain if stroke rates continue to remain high in the early months after TAVI. Furthermore, the optimal dose and duration of thromboprophylaxis is unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent TAVI were evaluated at baseline, at discharge, at 1 and 6 months, and yearly. Risk factors for CeV events, procedural details, and antithrombotic therapy were recorded. Outcomes assessed were CeV events and death. The timing of such events, predictors, and impact on survival were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients were assessed. Median age was 85 years. The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 8.1% (interquartile range [IQR]: 5.5% to 12.0%). Risk factors included smoking (47%), hypertension (70%), dyslipidemia (66%), and diabetes mellitus (25%). Twenty-three percent had known cerebrovascular disease and 39% had atrial fibrillation. Median follow-up was 455 days (IQR: 160 to 912 days) at which time 23 patients experienced a CeV event. The incidence was highest in the first 24 h but remained high for 2 months. In-hospital mortality rate after a CeV event was 21%. A prior history of CeV disease was an independent predictor of an event (hazard ratio: 4.23, 95% CI: 1.60 to 11.11, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CeV events is highest within 24 h of TAVI, but this risk may remain elevated for up to 2 months. A prior history of cerebrovascular disease is an independent predictor. This may have implications for patient selection and antithrombotic strategies.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the presence of a mitral prosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: We review our experience with transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (AVI) in patients with functioning mitral prostheses, and describe the technical considerations. BACKGROUND: Transcatheter AVI for aortic stenosis in patients with mitral prostheses is technically challenging. METHODS: Ten patients (7 mechanical and 3 bioprosthetic mitral valves) received the Edwards SAPIEN balloon-expandable valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) during 2006 to 2010. All patients were declined conventional surgery and prospectively followed. The mean patient age was 77.6 ± 7.1 years (range: 67 to 88 years). The logistic EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-predicted operative mortality were 30.3 ± 18.6% (range: 11.4% to 70.4%), and 9.9 ± 4.8% (range: 4.6% to 18.7%), respectively. RESULTS: All valves were successfully implanted, with no 30-day mortality or mitral prosthetic dysfunction. Nine patients had none to mild residual aortic paravalvular leak. The overall survival was 60% at a mean follow-up of 12.2 ± 10.4 months (range: 2 to 33 months), with 4 nonvalve-related deaths. Seven patients improved to New York Heart Association functional class I to II. The mean transvalvular gradient and effective orifice area improved from 40.0 ± 17.4 mm Hg to 8.2 ± 2.1 mm Hg, and 0.6 ± 0.1 cm² to 1.3 ± 0.2 cm², respectively (p < 0.0001). The mitral bioprosthetic strut predisposes to device "shift" during deployment. An "unfavorable" mechanical mitral prosthetic cage or pivot strut can also cause shifts. Balloon shifts during valvuloplasty warn of a high likelihood of prosthesis shift. CONCLUSIONS: This report details the technical lessons learned thus far from our first 10 patients. Excellent procedural success and early outcomes in patients with functioning mitral prosthesis can be achieved.

Early clinical outcomes after transapical aortic valve implantation: a propensity-matched comparison with conventional aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement remains the standard treatment for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. However, catheter-based approaches have recently emerged as therapeutic options for high-risk surgical candidates. The objective of this study is to use propensity scoring to compare early clinical outcomes after transapical aortic valve implantation and conventional aortic valve replacement. METHOD: Propensity scoring based on logistic regression modeling of 16 preoperative patient characteristics was used to identify a group of very high-risk patients undergoing isolated conventional aortic valve replacement comparable to those patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation. McNemar's test was used to compare early clinical outcomes between the 2 treatment groups, including 30-day mortality and in-hospital postoperative complications. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients receiving transapical aortic valve implantation between October 2005 and April 2010 met inclusion criteria for this study. Half of these patients were successfully matched 1:1 to a patient receiving conventional aortic valve replacement. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 treatment groups after propensity matching. There were 4 perioperative deaths (8.7%) in the conventional aortic valve replacement group and 6 perioperative deaths (13%) in the transapical aortic valve implantation group (P > .05). There were no significant differences in the rates of cerebrovascular accidents, wound infections, reoperation for bleeding, or length of postoperative hospital stay between the 2 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk propensity-matched patients, early clinical outcomes are similar after transapical aortic valve implantation and conventional aortic valve replacement. However, given the likelihood of residual selection bias, a prospective randomized trial is necessary to adequately compare the clinical outcomes after these 2 aortic valve procedures.

Transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantations for a failed bioprosthesis: a case series.

OBJECTIVES: Mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves is becoming more common. The incidence of structural valve deterioration and the need for reoperative mitral surgery are expected to increase. The operative mortality and morbidity associated with redo mitral surgery remains high. Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation might offer an alternate and safer approach for high-risk patients. METHODS: From July 2007 to April 2010, 11 patients with symptomatic mitral prosthetic valve dysfunction underwent transapical transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation in our institution. Data were collected and entered into a database prospectively. The mean age was 81 ± 5 years, with 64% being female. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 16.1% ± 5.8%. RESULTS: All patients had successful transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation with no 30-day mortality. One patient died 45 days after surgical intervention from respiratory failure, and 1 patient died on day 135. All other patients were alive and in New York Heart Association class I/II at a median follow-up of 357 days. The median postprocedural transvalvular gradient was 7 mm Hg, and minimal transvalvular or paravalvular regurgitation was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter transapical valve-in-valve implantations into a failed mitral bioprosthesis is technically feasible with acceptable results. It might be a viable approach for selected high-risk patients.

Influence of patient gender on mortality after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of gender on mortality after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on data prospectively collected from all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of 22 preoperative and operative variables on early, late, and overall mortality. RESULTS: Aortic valve replacement was performed in 3343 patients with aortic stenosis between 1982 and 2003. The female patients were older, with a smaller body mass index. The women were less likely to have diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction, or left ventricular ejection fraction <35% but were more likely to have hypertension or a New York Heart Association III-IV classification. The female patients received a smaller prosthetic valve, with a smaller effective orifice area index (EOAI). The mean follow-up period was 6.18 ± 4.96 years, with a total of 2066.142 years of follow-up. The independent predictors of early mortality for the male patients included age, concomitant surgical revascularization, congestive heart failure, and valve size of ≤21 mm. The independent predictors of late mortality for the male patients included age, concomitant surgical revascularization, diabetes, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and a bioprosthetic valve. The independent predictors of overall mortality for the male patients included age, concomitant surgical revascularization, diabetes, renal failure, heart failure, and valve size of ≤21 mm. For the female patients, the risk factors for early mortality included body mass index <25 kg/m(2); for late mortality included age, concomitant surgical revascularization, New York Heart Association class III-IV, and diabetes; and for overall mortality included age, concomitant surgical revascularization, New York Heart Association class III-IV, and renal failure. Furthermore, male gender was an independent predictor of late (but not early or overall) mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The independent predictors of mortality after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis differed between the male and female patients. Male gender increased the risk of late mortality, and a valve size of ≤21 mm increased the risk of early and overall mortality among the male patients only. These differences need to be taken into consideration preoperatively and require consideration during operative management.

Transatrial transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation of balloon expandable bioprosthesis.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation into failing mitral and aortic bioprosthetic valves have been reported. This strategy avoids performing high-risk repeat cardiac surgery in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities. Tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation has not been described. We report a case of failing bioprosthetic tricuspid valve in a 48-year-old woman with carcinoid syndrome. We attempted a transatrial transcatheter approach and we successfully deployed a 26-mm Edwards Sapien balloon expandable bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) into a severely stenotic tricuspid bioprosthesis. This case demonstrates the technical feasibility and safety of this approach. Therefore, tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation may be a viable treatment alternative in carefully selected patients.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: follow-up to 3 years.

BACKGROUND: We performed the first human case of successful transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation on a beating heart in October 2005, and therefore we have the longest follow-up on transapical aortic valve implantation in humans. We now report clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of transapical aortic valve implantation in 71 patients. METHODS: Between October 2005 and February 2009, 71 patients (44 female) underwent transcatheter transapical aortic valve implantation with either 23- or 26-mm Edwards Lifesciences transcatheter bioprostheses. All patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis were declined for conventional aortic valve replacement owing to unacceptable operative risks and were not candidates for transfemoral aortic valve implantation because of poor arterial access. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-ups were performed before discharge, at 1 and 6 months, and then yearly. The mean follow-up was 12.9 +/- 11.5 months with a total of 917.3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Mean age was 80.0 +/- 8.1 years and predicted operative mortality was 34.5% +/- 20.4% by logistic EuroSCORE and 12.1% +/- 7.7% by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Calculator. Valves were successfully implanted in all patients. Twelve patients died within 30 days (30-day mortality: 16.9% in all patients, 33% in the first 15 patients, and 12.5% in the remainder), and 10 patients died subsequently. Overall survival at 24 and 36 months was 66.3% +/- 6.4% and 58.0% +/- 9.5%, respectively. Among 59 patients who survived at least 30 days, 24- and 36-month survivals were 79.8% +/- 6.4% and 69.8% +/- 10.9%, respectively. Late valve-related complications were rare. New York Heart Association functional class improved significantly from preoperative 3.3 +/- 0.8 to 1.8 +/- 0.8 at 24 months. The aortic valve area and mean gradient remained stable at 24 months (1.6 +/- 0.3 cm(2) and 10.3 +/- 5.9 mm Hg, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our outcome suggests that transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation provides sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefits for up to 36 months in selected high-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthetic heart valves.

BACKGROUND: The majority of prosthetic heart valves currently implanted are tissue valves that can be expected to degenerate with time and eventually fail. Repeat cardiac surgery to replace these valves is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Transcatheter heart valve implantation within a failed bioprosthesis, a "valve-in-valve" procedure, may offer a less invasive alternative. METHODS AND RESULTS: Valve-in-valve implantations were performed in 24 high-risk patients. Failed valves were aortic (n=10), mitral (n=7), pulmonary (n=6), or tricuspid (n=1) bioprostheses. Implantation was successful with immediate restoration of satisfactory valve function in all but 1 patient. No patient had more than mild regurgitation after implantation. No patients died during the procedure. Thirty-day mortality was 4.2%. Mortality was related primarily to learning-curve issues early in this high-risk experience. At baseline, 88% of patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV; at the last follow-up, 88% of patients were in class I or II. At a median follow-up of 135 days (interquartile range, 46 to 254 days) and a maximum follow-up of 1045 days, 91.7% of patients remained alive with satisfactory valve function. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is a reproducible option for the management of bioprosthetic valve failure. Aortic, pulmonary, mitral, and tricuspid tissue valves were amenable to this approach. This finding may have important implications with regard to valve replacement in high-risk patients.

Technical considerations to avoid pitfalls during transapical aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVE: Transapical aortic valve implantation is a recent therapeutic advance for aortic valvular disease. We sought to identify complications--and the relevant technical and management considerations--from our learning curve with this procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed perioperative complications during the first 60 transapical aortic valve implantations at a single institution, performed under compassionate release for patients who were candidates neither for conventional aortic valve replacement nor for transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Access was through a small left anterolateral thoracotomy. Particular attention was paid to securing the apical access site. Rapid ventricular pacing to reduce cardiac forward flow was used during balloon valvuloplasty and valve deployment. Careful positioning was guided by echocardiography and fluoroscopy. RESULTS: This was a select, high-risk (mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 12.3% +/- 7.8% mortality) cohort. Mean age was 81.1 +/- 7.8 years. Technical success was achieved in 59 (98.3%) cases. One valve was malpositioned too far toward the ventricle, necessitating that a second device be implanted within it. In-hospital, 30-day mortality was 18.3% (11 deaths) overall, decreasing from 33.3% in the first 15 patients to 13.3% in the subsequent 45 patients. The only intraoperative death probably resulted from left main ostial obstruction by extensively calcified aortic cusps. Significant left ventricular apical bleeding occurred in 3 (5.0%) patients. Other complications included stroke in 2 (3.3%) patients and permanent atrioventricular block in 3 (5.0%). There were 4 (6.6%) cases of late pseudoaneurysm of the left ventricular apical access site. CONCLUSIONS: Important lessons have been learned from our early experience with transapical aortic valve implantation, and these may guide others as this technology is adopted more broadly.

Effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival with aortic valve replacement: assessment to 15 years.

BACKGROUND: The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement has received considerable attention but there remains controversy. This study was performed to determine the predictors of mortality after aortic valve replacement and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival. METHODS: Contemporary mechanical prostheses and bioprostheses were implanted in 3,343 patients with aortic valve replacement between 1982 and 2003. The mean age was 68.06 +/- 11.20 years (median 70.06; range, 19 to 94), and the mean follow-up was 6.18 +/- 4.96 years, for a total of 20,666 years of follow-up. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was classified by effective orifice area index categories: normal (> 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)), 1,547 (46.3%); mild-to-moderate (> 0.65 cm(2)/m(2) to < or = 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)), 1,584 (47.4%); and severe (< 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)), 212 (6.3%). RESULTS: The predictors of overall mortality were age, age categorization, New York Heart Association functional class III/IV, concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery, prosthesis type, preoperative congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All categories of effective orifice area indexes were not predictive of overall mortality, late mortality, or early mortality. The 15-year overall survival was differentiated by effective orifice area index categories: 38.1% +/- 2.1%, 37.0% +/- 2.2%, and 22.1% +/- 6.5%, respectively, for the three categories. Survival adjusted for the covariates (effective orifice area index, age, basal mass index, and ejection fraction) determined no effect except severe effective orifice area index when adjusted for ejection fraction more than 50% (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis-patient mismatch is not a predictor of overall standard unadjusted mortality to 15 years after aortic valve replacement, regardless of the category of effective orifice area index.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation: 16-month follow-up.

Off-pump transcatheter, transapical valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation into a failed surgically implanted aortic valve was successfully performed in an 85-year-old man. He was discharged on postoperative day 5, and remained well at his 16-month follow-up. Echocardiography at 12 months showed normal prosthetic valve function without displacement, recoil, or regurgitation. Transcatheter transapical valve-in-valve aortic valve implantation is feasible and could be a viable approach for selected patients.

Seven-year results with the St Jude Medical Silzone mechanical prosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: The Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial was stopped on January 21, 2000, due to a higher incidence of paraprosthetic leak in the St Jude Medical Silzone prosthesis compared with the conventional prosthesis. The Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial investigators reported the 2-year results in 2002. This retrospective study assessed the influence on thromboembolism and paraprosthetic leak to 7 years. METHODS: A total of 253 patients had 254 operations: 80 aortic valve replacements, 139 mitral valve replacements, and 35 multiple replacements with placement of Silzone prostheses. The mean age was 58.6 years (range 21-84 years, median age 59.8 years), and there were 126 women (49.8%) and 74 concomitant procedures (coronary artery bypass 28.9%). RESULTS: Major paraprosthetic leak (repair, re-replacement, or mortality) occurred in 10 of the original procedures after 30 days (3 aortic valve replacements, 3 mitral valve replacements, 4 multiple replacements). Nine occurrences in 8 patients-5 early (2 years)-were managed. Seven were managed with definitive re-replacement. One was an early nonoperative fatality. There was 1 late fatality after the second late paraprosthetic leak reoperation. One of the 10 procedures occurring after 2 years had mild to moderate aortic valve replacement paraprosthetic leak managed as an incidental re-replacement at the time of correction of supra valvular patch stenosis. One additional occurrence, in addition to the 8 patients (<30 days), was considered a technical error and not related to the Silzone prosthesis and was replaced with a Silzone prosthesis. The linearized rate of paraprosthetic leak within the first 2 years of follow-up was 1.3%/patient-year and after 2 years was 0.4%/patient-year. The linearized occurrence rate for major thromboembolism was 0.42%/patient-year for aortic valve replacement and 1.71%/patient-year for mitral valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Paraprosthetic leak with the St Jude Medical Silzone prosthesis was managed both during the early (2years) intervals with re-replacement. Late managed events may be manifestations of earlier occurring paraprosthetic leak. Follow-up echocardiograms should meet standards of care, 6 to 12 months after surgery and at the slightest suspicion of dysfunction. There is no advanced continuing risk of the St Jude Medical Silzone prosthesis.

Effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival with mitral valve replacement: assessment to 15 years.

BACKGROUND: The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after mitral valve replacement (MVR) has received limited attention. This study was performed to determine the predictors of mortality after MVR and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival. METHODS: Contemporary mechanical prostheses and bioprostheses were implanted in 2,440 patients with MVR between 1982 and 2002. The mean age was 63.9 +/- 12.1 years and the mean follow-up was 6.1 +/- 4.6 years, a total of 14,797.7 years of follow-up. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was classified by effective orifice area index categories: normal, greater than 1.2 cm(2)/m(2) (345, 14.2%); mild-to-moderate, equal to or less than 1.2 to greater than 0.9 cm(2)/m(2) (1,696, 69.5%); and severe, equal to or less than 0.9 cm(2)/m(2) (399, 16.4%). RESULTS: The predictors of overall mortality were age, age categorization, New York Heart Association III-IV, concomitant coronary artery bypass, ventricular dysfunction, prosthesis type, body mass index, and pulmonary hypertension. All categories of effective orifice area indices (EOAIs) were not predictive of overall mortality, late mortality, or early mortality. The 15-year survival was not differentiated by EOAI categories; 32.0 +/- 4.4%, 32.9 +/- 2.1%, and 36.6 +/- 6.3%, respectively, for the three categories. Pulmonary hypertension influenced mortality by EOAI categories; normal versus mild-to-moderate (p = 0.0317) and normal versus severe (p = 0.0320). The EOAI was not an independent predictor of mortality in the consideration of patients with pulmonary hypertension but there is an interaction between pulmonary hypertension and mild-to-moderate (p = 0.023) and severe (p = 0.031) EOAI. CONCLUSION: Prosthesis-patient mismatch is not a predictor of overall mortality to 15 years after MVR regardless of the category of effective orifice area index. The preoperative variable, pulmonary hypertension, influences overall mortality in the presence of mild-to-moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch in the survival analysis.

Transapical transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation in a human.

We describe a human transcatheter transapical mitral valve implant within a mitral bioprosthesis (valve-in-valve). A high-risk, 80-year-old man with symptomatic bioprosthetic mitral stenosis was positioned for anterior minithoracotomy. Left ventricular apical access was obtained. After balloon valvuloplasty, a cuffed, 26-mm Cribier-Edwards transcatheter valve (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA) was deployed within the mitral xenograft, using rapid ventricular pacing. The transcatheter valve functioned properly postoperatively; however, the patient died of multiple organ dysfunction.

Predictors of recurrence and reoperation for prosthetic valve endocarditis after valve replacement surgery for native valve endocarditis.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical treatment of native valve endocarditis remains challenging, especially in cases with paravalvular destruction. Basic principles include complete debridement and reconstruction. This study is designed to evaluate the outcomes of surgical reconstruction of complex annular endocarditis using standard techniques and materials, including autologous and bovine pericardium. METHODS: From 1975 to 2000, 358 cases (357 patients, mean age 49 +/- 16 years, range 18-88 years) of native valve endocarditis were surgically managed. Bioprosthetic valves were implanted in 189 cases, and mechanical prostheses were implanted in 169 cases. A total of 78 cases of paravalvular destruction were identified: 62 annular abscesses, 8 fistulas, and 8 combined abscesses/fistulas. These were managed with 46 pericardial patches and 32 isolated suture reconstructions after radical debridement and prosthetic valve replacement. RESULTS: The overall early mortality was 8.4% (n = 30). The mortality with paravalvular destruction was 17.9%, and the mortality with simple leaflet infection was 5.7% (P = .001). The unadjusted survival at 20 years was 26.4% +/- 4.9% for bioprosthetic valves and 56.5% +/- 8.1% for mechanical prostheses (P = .007). The freedom from recurrent prosthetic valve endocarditis was 78.9% +/- 4.4% at 15 years. The freedom from reoperation for recurrent prosthetic valve endocarditis was 85.8% +/- 4.2% at 15 years. The freedom from reoperation after reconstruction for paravalvular destruction was 88.2% +/- 6.9% at 15 years. The freedom from mortality for recurrent prosthetic valve endocarditis was 92.7% +/- 3.4% at 15 years. The independent predictors of reoperation were age (hazard ratio 0.930, P = .005) and intravenous drug use/human immunodeficiency virus plus surgical technique (hazard ratio 12.8, P = .003 for patch reconstruction plus valve and hazard ratio 3.6, P = .038 for valve replacement only). Prosthesis type was not predictive when separated from intravenous drug use/human immunodeficiency virus (hazard ratio 3.268, P = .088). CONCLUSION: Paravalvular destruction is associated with a higher operative mortality. Native valve endocarditis can be managed with reasonable long-term survival and low rates of reinfection with radical debridement and pericardial reconstruction with bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses. The type of prosthesis implanted does not influence long-term outcome. Patients with a history of intravenous drug use and human immunodeficiency virus are at increased risk for recurrent infection and reoperation.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 1-year outcome in 26 patients.

BACKGROUND: We reported the first case of successful transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a human subject in 2005 and have now completed a 12-month follow-up on our first 26 patients. This is, to date, the longest follow-up of patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation. METHODS: Between October 2005 and January 2007, 26 patients (13 female) underwent transcatheter transapical aortic valve implantation with either 23- or 26-mm Edwards Lifesciences transcatheter bioprostheses. All patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis were declined for conventional aortic valve replacement because of unacceptable operative risks and were not candidates for transfemoral aortic valve implantation because of poor arterial access. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was performed before discharge and at 1, 6, and 12 months. Data from the 17 patients who survived over 12 months were used for comparisons of the baseline and follow-up results. RESULTS: The mean age was 80 +/- 9 years, and the predicted operative mortality was 37% +/- 20% by using logistic EuroSCORE and 11% +/- 6% by using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Calculator. Valves were successfully implanted in all patients. Six patients died within 30 days (30-day mortality, 23%), and 3 patients died from noncardiovascular causes after 30 days (late mortality, 12%). Among patients who survived at least 30 days, 12-month survival was 85%. There were no late valve-related complications. New York Heart Association functional class improved significantly. The aortic valve area and mean gradient remained stable at 12 months (1.6 +/- 0.3 cm(2) and 9.6 +/- 4.8 mm Hg, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our 1-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes suggest that transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a viable alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk patients.