Left atrial volume index predicts adverse events in asymptomatic moderate or severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: In aortic stenosis (AS), chronic pressure overload on left ventricle (LV) leads to LV hypertrophy, impaired relaxation, increased chamber stiffness, fibrosis and left atrial (LA) dilatation. An enlarged LA may be a marker of longstanding diastolic dysfunction (DD) and more advanced disease in AS. We aimed to assess the impact of LA volume index (LAVI) on events in patients with moderate or severe AS. METHODS: A total of 324 patients (mean age 69 ± 13 years, 61% men) were included. LA volume was measured by biplane Simpson's method using apical four- and two-chamber views and indexed to body surface area. An increased LAVI was defined as > 34 ml/m2 . RESULTS: The mean EF was 64 ± 8%, LAVI 35 ± 14 ml/m2 and flow rate 244 ± 70 ml/s. The number of total events was 275 (85%): 243 (75%) aortic valve replacement and 32 (10%) deaths. Mean follow-up 23.7 ± 23.8 months (median 15.2 months). An increased LAVI (45% [n = 145]) was associated with adverse events (HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.24-2.82, p = 0.003) independent of age, smoking, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, LV ejection fraction, LV mass, aortic valve area, and low flow rate (<200 ml/s). In the same multivariate model, when increased LAVI was replaced by E/e' ratio ≥14 cm, no association was found between E/e' ratio ≥14 cm and adverse events (HR 1.18; 95% CI .78-1.78, p = 0.430). CONCLUSION: LAVI was an independent predictor of adverse events in patients with moderate or severe AS and preserved ejection fraction. Including LAVI in the risk assessment of AS patients may further improve risk stratification.

Specialist valve clinic in a cardiac centre: 10-year experience.

Aims: Guidelines recommend specialist valve clinics as best practice for the assessment and conservative management of patients with heart valve disease. However, there is little guidance on how to set up and organise a clinic. The aim of this study is to describe a clinic run by a multidisciplinary team consisting of cardiologists, physiologist/scientists and a nurse. Methods: The clinical and organisational aims of the clinic, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and links with other services are described. The methods of training non-clinical staff are detailed. Data were prospectively entered onto a database and the study consisted of an analysis of the clinical characteristics and outcomes of all patients seen between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018. Results: There were 2126 new patients and 9522 visits in the 10-year period. The mean age was 64.8 and 55% were male. Of the visits, 3587 (38%) were to the cardiologists, 4092 (43%) to the physiologist/scientists and 1843 (19%) to the nurse. The outcomes from the cardiologist clinics were cardiology follow-up in 460 (30%), referral for surgery in 354 (23%), referral to the physiologist/scientist clinic in 412 (27%) or to the nurse clinic in 65 (4.3%) and discharge in 230 (15%). The cardiologist needed to see 6% from the nurse clinic and 10% from the physiologist/scientist clinic, while advice alone was sufficient in 10% and 9%. Conclusion: A multidisciplinary specialist valve clinic is feasible and sustainable in the long term.

EDUCATIONAL SERIES ON THE SPECIALIST VALVE CLINIC: What is a valve clinic?

The prevalence of heart valve disease is increasing as the population ages. A series of studies have shown current clinical practice is sub-optimal. Some patients are referred for surgery at advanced stages of disease with impaired ventricular function or not even considered for surgery. Valve clinics seek to improve patient outcomes by providing an expert-led, patient-centred framework of care designed to provide an accurate diagnosis with active surveillance of valve pathology and timely referral for intervention at guideline directed trigger points. A range of different valve clinic models can be adopted depending on local expertise combining the skill set of cardiologist, physiologist/scientist and nurses. Essential components to all clinics include structured clinical review, echocardiography to identify disease aetiology and severity, patient education and access to both additional diagnostic testing and a multi-disciplinary meeting for complex case review. Recommendations for training in heart valve disease are being developed. There is a growing evidence base for heart valve clinics providing better care with increased adherence to guideline recommendations, more timely referral for surgery and better patient education than conventional care.

A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare rates of redo surgery for the Medtronic Mosaic 305 A Porcine Prosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis 2900. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective observational study. We included all 1018 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Mosaic (n = 216) or Perimount (n = 809) bioprosthesis between October 2000 and August 2008. The total follow-up was 1508 patient-years for the Mosaic valve and 5813 for the Perimount valve. The maximal follow-up and interquartile range were 14.8 and 7.0 years for the Mosaic valve and 15.1 and 5.6 years for the Perimount valve, respectively. A propensity score-weighted version of the Cox model, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate regression model was used. RESULTS: Despite no statistical difference in the number of non-structural valve deterioration cases between valves, redo surgery occurred earlier in 10 (4.6%) Mosaic than for 17 (2.1%) Perimount valves (P = 0.02) and was required for structural valve deterioration in 5 (2.3%) Mosaic valves when compared with 7 (0.9%; P = 0.04) Perimount valves. Four of 5 Mosaic failures occurred before 5 years, whereas all Perimount failures occurred after 5 years. Redo surgery for non-structural valve deterioration occurred in 3 patients with Mosaic valves (1.4%) and no patients with Perimount valves. Surgery for the remaining patients with Perimount valves was due to infection or aortic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Early redo surgery for structural valve degeneration was uncommon but occurred earlier for the Mosaic porcine than the Perimount bovine pericardial replacement aortic valve.

The CryoLife-O'Brien stentless replacement aortic valve: patterns of valve failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The study aim was to describe patterns of failure in a consecutive series of patients with the CryoLife-O'Brien stentless porcine aortic bioprosthesis. METHODS: The records of patients requiring redo surgery were reviewed. All surviving patients were contacted and questioned about clinical events since implantation of the valve. RESULTS: The early mortality was 7%, whilst 4% of patients died between 30 days and one year after surgery, and 31% died beyond one year. Six cases of structural deterioration were identified; five of these cases were due to a cusp tear (usually of the right coronary cusp), and one case was due to valve calcification. There were five cases of non-structural dysfunction; dehiscence was present in three of these cases, with progression of minor periprosthetic regurgitation seen immediately after surgery. Three failures occurred as a result of infective endocarditis. Structural valve deterioration or dehiscence occurred at a mean of 52 months after surgery, with no step-up in incidence at any time-point. Primary failure occurred in three of 49 (6%) bioprostheses manufactured after June 2003, and in eight of 117 (7%) manufactured before June 2003. CONCLUSION: The incidence of primary valve failure at 52 months after implantation was found to be 7%. It is suggested that routine echocardiography be performed at least annually, particularly in those patients with even minor paraprosthetic regurgitation on the postoperative study.

Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves.

OBJECTIVE: A stented bovine pericardial valve might be less obstructive than a stented porcine valve. This study compared early hemodynamic function in a prospective series of 99 patients randomized to receive either a Mosaic or Perimount replacement aortic valve. METHODS: Echocardiography was performed early after surgery and at 1 year after surgery. Patients also filled in psychologic questionnaires and underwent a 6-minute walk. RESULTS: The groups were matched demographically. The Perimount valve was significantly less obstructive in terms of mean pressure difference (11 +/- 5 vs 17 +/- 7 mm Hg; P < .0001), with a trend in favor of a larger effective orifice area (1.47 +/- 0.45 vs 1.28 +/- 0.46 cm(2); P = .05) postoperatively. There were no differences in left ventricular mass regression, aortic regurgitation, 6-minute walk, psychologic questionnaires, or mortality and clinical events. CONCLUSION: The stented bovine pericardial valve was less obstructive than the stented porcine valve. Both valves were associated with similar and significant improvements in quality of life, exercise ability, and regression of left ventricular mass.