Epidemiology of Heart Valve Disease in Taiwan.

Studies conducted in developed nations have shown that increase in life expectancy has brought with it a rise in the incidence and treatment of degenerative aortic and mitral heart valve diseases. Current standards recommend valve replacement among even some asymptomatic patients. In this research, we examine the epidemiology of valvular heart disease and rate of valve replacement in Taiwan, where life expectancy now stands at 80.69 years. Patients were enrolled based on claims from a widely used national database and categorized into cohorts defined by type of valve disease and, further, by valve replacements and type of valve (mechanical, porcine, or bovine). Data, including disease type, age, and gender, were analyzed to determine annual and cumulative incidence rates and prosthetic usage from 2000 to 2017. Results showed that across the cohorts, the cumulative incidence rate in 2017 was 3.59%, and in the aortic valve cohort, the percentage of surgical valve replacement for those ≥60 years was 6.99%. Compared with other developed nations, this demonstrates that incidence rates are slightly higher, yet surgical replacements are less than half that of other developed nations. This under-treatment of patients with valvular heart disease presents an important public health challenge in Taiwan.

Early and Two-year Outcomes after Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: a Nationwide Population-based Study.

BACKGROUND: We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data. METHODS: From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs. RESULTS: Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR grouP = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve for Degenerated Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A 3-Center Comparison of Hemodynamic and 1-Year Outcome.

Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is expected to progress into younger patient populations, valve-in-TAVR (ViTAVR) may become a frequent consideration. Data on ViTAVR, however, are limited. This study investigated the outcome of ViTAVR in comparison to valve in surgical aortic valve replacement (ViSAVR), because ViSAVR is an established procedure for higher-risk patients requiring repeated aortic valve intervention. Methods and Results Clinical and procedural data of patients who underwent ViTAVR at 3 sites in the United States and Germany were retrospectively compared with data of patients who underwent ViSAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. A total of 99 consecutive patients, 52.5% women, with a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 7.2 were identified. Seventy-four patients (74.7%) underwent ViSAVR, and 25 patients (25.3%) underwent ViTAVR. Balloon-expandable devices were used in 72.7%. ViSAVR patients presented with smaller index devices (21.0 versus 26.0 mm median true internal diameter; P<0.001). Significantly better postprocedural hemodynamics (median prosthesis mean gradient, 12.5 [interquartile range, 8.8-16.2] versus 16.0 [interquartile range, 13.0-20.5] mm Hg; P=0.045) were observed for ViTAVR compared with the ViSAVR. Device success, however, was not different (79.2% and 66.2% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively; P=0.35), as were rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (16.7% versus 5.4%; P=0.1). One-year-mortality was 9.4% and 13.4% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively (log-rank P=0.38). Conclusions Compared with ViSAVR, ViTAVR provides acceptable outcomes, with slightly better hemodynamics, similar device success rates, and similar 1-year mortality.

Impact of leaflet thrombosis on hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Leaflet thrombosis (LT, also called cusp thrombosis) detected by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is common in bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR). However, it remains contradictory whether MDCT-defined LT following bAVR is associated with hemodynamic deterioration and stroke. Thus, we performed the first meta-analysis to assess hemodynamic outcomes and updated the latest researches on the clinical outcomes of MDCT-defined LT after bAVR. HYPOTHESIS: MDCT-defined LT might be associated with worse hemodynamic and clinical outcomes after bAVR. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrial.gov were searched from inception to 15th April 2019. The fix-effect model was utilized to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcomes were hemodynamic stability indexes, including mean pressure gradient (MPG), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), paravalvular leak (PVL), and clinical heart failure. The secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), which consisted of myocardial infarction, all-cause death, stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA). RESULTS: Twelve studies with 4820 patients were included. The total prevalence of MDCT-defined LT was 9.7%. MDCT-defined LT was associated with a significantly increased risk of MPG (inverse variance 0.43, 95% CI: [0.30, 0.57]), MACCEs (OR 2.43, 95% CI: [1.45, 4.06]), stroke (OR 1.79, 95% CI: [1.03, 3.11]), and TIA (OR 4.09, 95% CI: [1.59, 10.54]). There were no differences for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MDCT-defined LT after bAVR is associated with increased MPG and increased risk of adverse cerebrovascular events, including TIA and stroke. While LVEF, PVL, and clinical heart failure were similar between patient with and without LT.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for thromboembolic prevention, are they safe in congenital heart disease? Results of a worldwide study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines consider vitamin K antagonists (VKA) the oral anticoagulant agents of choice in adults with atrial arrhythmias (AA) and moderate or complex forms of congenital heart disease, significant valvular lesions, or bioprosthetic valves, pending safety data on non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Therefore, the international NOTE registry was initiated to assess safety, change in adherence and quality of life (QoL) associated with NOACs in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD). METHODS: An international multicenter prospective study of NOACs in ACHD was established. Follow-up occurred at 6 months and yearly thereafter. Primary endpoints were thromboembolism and major bleeding. Secondary endpoints included minor bleeding, change in therapy adherence (≥80% medication refill rate, ≥6 out of 8 on Morisky-8 questionnaire) and QoL (SF-36 questionnaire). RESULTS: In total, 530 ACHD patients (mean age 47 SD 15 years; 55% male) with predominantly moderate or complex defects (85%), significant valvular lesions (46%) and/or bioprosthetic valves (11%) using NOACs (rivaroxaban 43%; apixaban 39%; dabigatran 12%; edoxaban 7%) were enrolled. The most common indication was AA (91%). Over a median follow-up of 1.0 [IQR 0.0-2.0] year, thromboembolic event rate was 1.0% [95%CI 0.4-2.0] (n = 6) per year, with 1.1% [95%CI 0.5-2.2] (n = 7) annualized rate of major bleeding and 6.3% [95%CI 4.5-8.5] (n = 37) annualized rate of minor bleeding. Adherence was sufficient during 2 years follow-up in 80-93% of patients. At 1-year follow-up, among the subset of previous VKA-users who completed the survey (n = 33), QoL improved in 6 out of 8 domains (p ≪ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Initial results from our worldwide prospective study suggest that NOACs are safe and may be effective for thromboembolic prevention in adults with heterogeneous forms of congenital heart disease.

Outcomes following bioprosthetic valve replacement in prior non-cardiac transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: We report on overall survival and valve-related outcomes after bioprosthetic valve replacement in prior transplant recipients. METHODS: From January 2004 to December 2018, 20 consecutive patients (mean age 65.7-years, 90% male) with prior non-cardiac transplantation underwent bioprosthetic aortic (n = 18) or combined aortic and mitral (n = 2) valve replacement. Patients consisted of kidney (n = 14), lung (n = 2), liver (n = 3), and bone-marrow (n = 2) transplants with the most common indication for valve replacement being calcific degeneration (n = 12). Outcomes were measured over a 12-year span, with a median follow-up duration of 3.9 years. RESULTS: Overall survival at 30 days was 100% and at median follow-up was 60%. Acute kidney injury occurred in 50% (n = 10) with temporary dialysis required in 5% (n = 1) and 15% (n = 3) suffered respiratory failure. No patients experienced major bleeding, heart failure, or sternal wound infection. No patients required redo valve replacement during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide contemporary data demonstrating that patients with prior transplant can undergo bioprosthetic valve replacement with acceptable inhospital mortality rates and long-term survival, with a low rate of major morbidity. Furthermore, bioprosthetic valve replacement is a viable option in this group of patients with no redo valve replacement and acceptable long-term hemodynamic valvular function.

Trends, characteristics, in-hospital outcomes and mortality in surgical mitral valve replacement among patients with and without COPD in Spain (2001-2015).

PURPOSE: We examined trends, characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in mechanical and bioprosthetic surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) among patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Spain from 2001 to 2015. We also identified factors associated with in-hospital mortality (IHM) in both groups of patients according to the implanted valve type. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database for patients aged 40 years or over. We selected admissions of patients whose medical procedures included SMVR. We grouped hospitalizations by COPD status. RESULTS: Over 43,024 patients identified, 83.63% underwent mechanical mitral valve replacement and 16.37% bioprosthetic valve (6.71% and 7.78% with COPD, respectively). The incidence of SMVR decreased for mechanical valves and increased for bioprosthetic valves over time in both groups of patients. The incidence of SMVR admissions was lower among COPD patients than in those without COPD, both for mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. IHM decreased significantly over time, regardless of the type of valve, in both groups of patients. COPD was associated with a significant increase in IHM, but only among patients who underwent bioprosthetic SMVR (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01-1.73). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of mechanical SMVR decreased while that of bioprosthetic SMVR increased over time in both groups of patients. COPD patients were less surgically operated than non-COPD patients for both valve types. In COPD patients, bioprosthetic SMVR was proportionally more used than mechanical SMVR. Mortality decreased over time for both valve types in patients with and without COPD. COPD increased in-hospital mortality among patients undergoing a biological SMVR.

Clinical outcomes and hospital readmission rates in mechanical vs bioprosthetic mitral valves.

OBJECTIVE: Recent national trends have demonstrated increased use of bioprosthetic mitral valves. The primary objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes as well as readmission rates for mechanical vs bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (mMVR vs bMVR). METHODS: All patients undergoing MVR from 2011-2017 were included in a single center data set that was obtained retrospectively from a prospectively maintained cardiac surgical database. RESULTS: The total MVR patient cohort consisted of 828 patients, including bMVR (n = 522) and mMVR (n = 306). There was no significant difference in the operative (30-day) mortality between bMVR and mMVR (8.6% vs 6.5%; P = .31). The unadjusted estimated 1-year mortality was significantly higher for the bMVR group (19.8% vs 13.7%, P = .04) and this trend continued for the estimated 5-year mortality (35.1% vs 18.7%; P = .001). Valve prosthesis choice (bMVR vs mMVR) did not have a risk-adjusted impact on operative mortality at 30 days (P = .58); however 1-year (P = .05) and 5-year (P = .05) mortality remained significantly higher for the bMVR group. Propensity matching revealed a higher mortality rate on follow-up in the bMVR (26.7% vs 18.2%, P = .03) but no difference at 30 days or 1 year. There was no difference in hospital readmissions over 5 years CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical prostheses may confer a survival benefit in patients undergoing MVR. With emphasis on patient education and anticoagulation compliance, mMVR remains an efficacious option.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture: Technical insights from a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) can result in high residual gradients that are associated with increased mortality. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) has been shown to improve residual gradients following VIV TAVR; however, factors influencing the results of BVF have not been studied. METHODS: BVF was performed in 75 patients at 21 centers. Hierarchical multiple linear regression was performed to identify variables that were associated with lower final transvalvular gradient. RESULTS: Surgical valves with a median true internal diameter of 18.5 mm (interquartile range, 17.0-20.5 mm) were treated with VIV TAVR in conjunction with BVF using balloon-expandable (n = 43) or self-expanding (n = 32) transcatheter heart valves with a median size of 23 mm (interquartile range, 23-23 mm). There were no aortic root disruptions, coronary occlusions, or new pacemakers; in-hospital or 30-day mortality was 2.6% (2 out of 75). Final mean transvalvular gradient was 9.2 ± 6.3 mm Hg, but was significantly lower when BVF was performed after VIV TAVR compared with BVF first (8.1 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 16.9 ± 10.1 mm Hg; P < .001). After adjusting for timing of BVF (ie, before or after VIV TAVR), transcatheter heart valve size/type, surgical valve mode of failure, true internal diameter, and baseline gradient and BVF balloon size, performing BVF after VIV TAVR (P < .001) and using a larger BVF balloon (P = .038) were the only independent predictors of lower final mean gradient. CONCLUSIONS: BVF can be performed safely and results in reduced residual transvalvular gradients. Performing BVF after VIV TAVR and using larger balloon appears to achieve the best hemodynamic results.

Gender differences in incidence and in-hospital outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in Spain, 2001-15.

BACKGROUND: we aim to examine trends in the incidence of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among women and men in Spain from 2001 to 2015; compare in-hospital outcomes for mechanical and bioprosthetic SAVR by gender and; to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality (IHM) after SAVR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database, 2001-15. We included patients that had SAVR as procedure in their discharge report. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to assess the impact of gender on the outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic SAVR. RESULTS: We identified 86 578 patients who underwent SAVR (40% women). Incidence of SVAR was higher in men (incidence rate ratio 1.57; 95%CI 1.55-1.59). In 2001, 73.36% of the men and 71.57% of women received a mechanical prosthesis; these proportions decreased to 43.04% in men and 35.89% in women in 2015, whereas bioprosthetic SAVR increased to 56.96% and 64.11%. After PSM we found that IHM was higher in women than in matched men for mechanical (8.94% vs. 6.79%; P < 0.001) and bioprosthetic (6.51 vs. 5.42%; P = 0.001) SAVR. The mean length of hospital stay was longer (19.54 vs. 18.74 days; P < 0.001) among females than males undergoing mechanical SAVR. Higher IHM after SAVR was associated with older age, comorbidities (except diabetes and atrial fibrillation), concomitant coronary artery bypass graft and emergency room admission. CONCLUSIONS: This nation-wide analysis over 15 years of gender-specific outcomes after SAVR showed that, after PSM women have significantly higher IHM after mechanical and bioprosthetic SAVR than men.

The hospital results and 1-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve procedures and transcatheter aortic valve implantations in the native valves: the results from the Swiss-TAVI Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The SwissTAVI Registry includes all consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and valve-in-valve (VinV) procedures for a failed bioprosthesis in Switzerland. We report the real world, all-comers, 30-day and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing VinV and standard TAVI procedures. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the 2 groups (VinV and standard TAVI patients) were retrospectively analysed. In an adjusted analysis, in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of VinV patients were compared with those of patients undergoing TAVI for native aortic valve disease in the same registry. A subanalysis of VinV procedures in stenotic or regurgitant bioprosthesis was also performed. RESULTS: Between February 2011 and December 2016, 4599 and 157 consecutive patients underwent TAVI in native aortic valves and VinV procedures in degenerate bioprosthesis, respectively. VinV patients were younger (78 ± 9.1 years vs 82.2 ± 6.3 years; P < 0.001) but at a higher risk for surgery (the logistic EuroSCORE: 28.48 ± 15.3% vs 18.2 ± 13.6%; P < 0.001; the Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score: 6.4 ± 5% vs 5.5 ± 4.3%; P = 0.008). Valve predilatation was less frequently performed during VinV procedures (22.9% vs 69.1%; P < 0.001), and the hospital stay was shorter after VinV procedure (8.46 ± 4.2 days vs 9.83 ± 6 days; P = 0.005). VinV patients showed higher predischarge transvalvular mean gradients (14.14 ± 7.9 mmHg vs 8.42 ± 5.0 mmHg; P < 0.001), smaller mean valve surface area (1.54 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.83 ± 0.5 cm2; P < 0.001) and a lower risk of moderate/severe paravalvular leak (1.3% vs 5%). Post-procedural kidney injury (1.3% vs 4.8%; P = 0.06) and new pacemakers for conduction abnormalities (3.3% vs 18.5%; P < 0.001) were higher after TAVI. All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality at 30 days were similar between the 2 groups (1.9% vs 3.8%; P = 0.242 and 1.9% vs 3.4%; P = 0.321), whereas after 1 year, all-cause mortality was lower for VinV patients (6.8% vs 13%; P = 0.035). The bioprosthetic valve size correlated inversely with postoperative gradients after VinV procedures. CONCLUSIONS: VinV aortic procedures showed favourable 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes compared with TAVI procedures for the native aortic valve disease. Despite higher transvalvular mean gradients following VinV implants, this appears not to impact the early clinical outcomes.

Outcomes of valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis versus bioprosthesis in dialysis patients: A 16-year multicenter experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of heart valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis (MP) versus bioprosthesis (BP) in patients on dialysis. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed at 7 hospitals. Patients on dialysis who underwent valve replacement were included. Survival, reoperation, bleeding, and embolic events were compared across the MP and BP groups. RESULTS: Between April 2000 and April 2016, 312 patients on dialysis were enrolled in our study (MP: 94 patients [30.1%], BP: 218 patients [69.9%]). Mean follow-up was 3.4 ± 3.6 years. Five-year and 10-year survival rates were similar in both groups (MP: 57.4 ± 5.5% at 5 years and 46.3 ± 6.4% at 10 years, BP: 50.2 ± 4.1% at 5 years and 38.8 ± 4.5% at 10 years, P = .305). Multivariate Cox hazard analysis demonstrated that diabetic nephropathy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.73, P < .001), New York Heart Association functional classification ≥III (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.37-3.35, P = .001), and mitral valve replacement (HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.58-3.49, P < .001) were significant risk factors for late death. Valve selection was not a significant risk factor. Freedom from valve-related embolic event at 5 years was significantly lower in the MP group (MP: 88.3 ± 4.3% at 5 years, BP: 97.2 ± 1.6% at 5 years, P = .007). Freedom from valve-related reoperation or hemorrhagic events was similar across both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Valve selection was not associated with late survival outcomes in patients on dialysis. However, BP may have an advantage in preventing embolic events without increasing the incidence of valve-related reoperation when compared with MP.

Laparoscopic repair of type III/IV giant para-oesophageal herniae with biological prosthesis: a single centre experience.

PURPOSE: Repair of giant paraoesophageal herniae (GPEH) is technically challenging and requires significant experience in advanced foregut surgery. Controversy continues on suture versus mesh cruroplasty with the most recent systematic review and meta-analysis putting the onus on the operating surgeon. Study aim was to review whether the biological prosthesis (non-cross-linked bovine pericardium and porcine dermis) and the technique adopted for patients with GPEH had an influence on clinical and radiological recurrences. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data of 60 consecutive patients with confirmed 5 cm hiatus hernia and ≥ 30% stomach displacement in the thorax that were operated in the upper gastrointestinal unit of a large district general hospital between September 2010 and August 2017. Pre and post-surgery Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire [(GORD-HRQOL)] and a follow up contrast study were completed. RESULTS: 60 included 2 (3%) and 58 (97%) emergency and elective procedures respectively with a male: female ratio of 1:3, age 71* (Median) (42-89) years, BMI 29* (19-42) and 26 (43%) with ASA III/IV. Investigations confirmed 46* (37-88) mm and 42* (34-77) mm transverse and antero-posterior hiatal defect respectively with 60* (30-100)% displacement of stomach into chest. Operative time and length of stay was 180* (120-510) minutes and 2* (1-30) days respectively. One (2%) converted for bleeding and 2 (3%) peri-operative deaths. Five (8%), 5 (8%) and 4 (7%) have dysphagia, symptomatic and radiological recurrences respectively. GORD-HRQOL recorded preoperatively was 27* (10-39) dropping significantly postoperatively to 0* (0-21) (P < 0.005) with 95% patient satisfaction at a follow up of 60* (36-84) months. CONCLUSIONS: Our technique of laparoscopic GPEH repair with biological prosthesis is safe with a reduced symptomatic and radiological recurrence and an acceptable morbidity and mortality.

The Ross procedure versus prosthetic and homograft aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Young adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) have decreased life expectancy compared to matched controls. The Ross procedure aims to improve valve lifespan while avoiding anticoagulation. We prepared a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the Ross procedure compared to conventional AVR. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies evaluating the Ross procedure versus any conventional AVR in adult patients. We performed screening, full-text assessment, risk of bias evaluation and data collection independently and in duplicate. We evaluated the risk of bias with the ROBINS-I and Cochrane tools and quality of evidence with the GRADE framework. We pooled data using the random- and fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Thirteen observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified (n = 5346). No observational study was rated as having low risk of bias. The Ross procedure was associated with decreased late mortality in observational and RCT data [mean length of follow-up 2.6 years, relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.84, I2 = 58%, very low quality]. The RCT estimate of effect was similar (mean length of follow-up 8.8 years, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-0.96, I2 = 66%, very low quality). No difference was observed in mortality <30 days after surgery. All-site reintervention was similar between groups in cohorts and significantly reduced by the Ross procedure in RCTs (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.89-2.24, I2 = 55%, very low quality and RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.78, I2 = 68%, high quality, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Observational data, with residual confounding, and RCT data suggest a late survival benefit with the Ross procedure with no increased risk of reintervention when compared to conventional AVR. Considering the quality of available evidence and limited follow-up, additional high-quality randomized studies are required to strengthen these findings. Systematic review PROSPERO registration: CRD42016052512.

Stented Versus Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Aortic Root: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare hemodynamic and perioperative outcomes of stented against stentless aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic root (21 mm or less). METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing stentless to stented bioprosthetic valves in small aortic root patients. Odds ratios, weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of seven studies with a total of 965 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in preoperative baselines including mean age between both groups (P = 0.08), peak aortic valve gradient (P = 0.06), and effective orifice area (P = 0.28), whereas higher mean aortic valve gradient in the stented group (P = 0.007). No difference in cardiopulmonary bypass time (P = 0.74), aortic cross-clamp times (P = 0.88), intensive care unit stay (P = 0.13), and stroke rate (P = 0.56) were noted. However, stented group of patients showed higher rate of patient prosthesis mismatch (P = 0.0001) and longer total hospital stay (P = 0.002). Postoperatively, stentless group showed lower peak and mean aortic valve gradient (P = 0.003 and P = 0.008, respectively) with a better effective orifice area (P < 0.00001) at 6 months of follow-up. Mortality rates while in-hospital and at 1 year were similar in both groups (P = 0.94 and P = 0.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Stentless aortic valves offer superior short-term hemodynamic outcomes in patients with small aortic root when compared with stented aortic valves. Although both groups have similar perioperative complications rates, stentless valves bring about a shorter hospital stay. A further large multicenter randomized controlled trial should address the longer-term benefit of stentless aortic valve over stented valve.

Magna Ease Versus Trifecta Early Hemodynamics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis compares the early echocardiographic outcomes of aortic valve replacement using the two most commonly implanted stented bioprostheses. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until 2017 for studies comparing Magna or Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA USA) versus Trifecta (St Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN USA) aortic bioprosthetic valves. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome of mean gradient on echocardiography and secondary outcomes of effective orifice area, indexed effective orifice area, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: There were two randomized controlled trial, three matched, and six unmatched retrospective observational studies with 2119 patients [median reported follow-up = 6 months (interquartile range = 6 to 12)]. The Magna/Magna Ease valve was associated with higher early mean gradient (mean difference = 4.09, 95% confidence interval = 3.48 to 4.69, P < 0.0001) and smaller effective orifice area (mean difference = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = -0.38 to -0.22, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality between Magna/Magna Ease and Trifecta (relative risk = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 2.50, P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Trifecta may offer a small hemodynamic advantage compared with the Magna/Magna Ease valve with no differences in early mortality. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether these differences persist and translate into differences in clinical outcomes.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement of Failed Surgically Implanted Bioprostheses: The STS/ACC Registry.

BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be feasible, yet the safety and efficacy in relation to native valve (NV) TAVR are not known. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ViV TAVR for failed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by comparing it with the benchmark of NV TAVR. METHODS: Patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 1,150) were matched 1:2 (on sex, high or extreme risk, hostile chest or porcelain aorta, 5-m-walk time, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for reoperation) to patients undergoing NV-TAVR (n = 2,259). Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were obtained from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were obtained from linked Medicare administrative claims data. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (2.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001), stroke (1.7% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.003), and heart failure hospitalizations (2.4% vs. 4.6%; p < 0.001) in the ViV-TAVR compared with NV-TAVR group. Adjusted analysis revealed lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio: 0.503; 95% confidence interval: 0.302 to 0.839; p = 0.008), lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.653; 95% confidence interval: 0.505 to 0.844; p = 0.001), and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio: 0.685; 95% confidence interval: 0.500 to 0.939; p = 0.019) in the ViV-TAVR group. Patients in the ViV-TAVR group had higher post-TAVR mean gradient (16 vs. 9 mm Hg; p < 0.001), but less moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.001). Post-TAVR gradients were highest in small SAVRs and stenotic SAVRs. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison with the benchmark NV-TAVR shows ViV-TAVR to be a safe and effective procedure in patients with failed SAVR who are at high risk for repeat surgery.

High incidence of late infective endocarditis in bovine jugular vein valved conduits.

BACKGROUND: Bovine jugular vein (BJV) grafts (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) are used to restore right ventricle-to-pulmonary artery continuity. Recent studies have associated these grafts with the development of infective endocarditis. The purpose of this study was to report the incidence of endocarditis in BJV grafts. METHODS: All BJV grafts placed in the right ventricle-to-pulmonary artery position between 2001 and 2017 at our institution were included. Freedom from endocarditis was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and parametric survival regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 228 patients underwent placement of 253 BJV grafts. The median duration of conduit follow-up was 6 years (5 months to 14 years). Twenty-five conduits developed endocarditis, yielding an incidence of 10% at a median of 7.5 years after surgery. Median duration of symptoms before the diagnosis of endocarditis was 21 days (3-180 days). The most common infectious agents were viridans streptococci (n = 13; 52%). Freedom from endocarditis at 5 and 10 years was 97% and 77%, respectively. After controlling for confounders, BJV grafts had a higher incidence of endocarditis compared with homografts (P < .001). Twenty-three (92%) of the conduits that developed endocarditis were managed surgically, with no mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of late endocarditis affecting BJV is high. Increased surveillance and a high index of suspicion for endocarditis are warranted in patients who have undergone implantation of BJV grafts, especially if the graft has been in place for more than 7 years. When infective endocarditis has been diagnosed in these grafts, surgical replacement is recommended, with excellent outcomes.