Aortic Valve Repair Using HAART 300 Geometric Annuloplasty Ring: A Review and Echocardiographic Case Series.

Aortic valve repair (AVr) aims to preserve the native aortic leaflets and restore normal valve function. In doing so, AVr is a more technically challenging approach than traditional aortic valve replacement. Some of the complexity of repair techniques can be attributed to the unique structure of the functional aortic annulus (FAA), which, unlike the well-defined mitral annulus, is comprised of virtual and functional components. Though stabilizing the ventriculo-aortic junction (VAJ), a component of the FAA, is considered beneficial for patients with chronic aortic insufficiency (AI), the ideal AVr technique remains a subject of much debate. The existing AVr techniques do not completely stabilize the VAJ which may increase susceptibility to recurrent AI due to VAJ dilation. An emerging new technique showing promise for the treatment of both isolated and complex AI is AVr using HAART 300TM geometric annuloplasty ring (GAR). The GAR is implanted below the valve leaflets in the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), providing stability and creating a neo-annulus. As with other AVr subtypes, this procedure has a learning curve. There are unique surgical and echocardiographic aspects of AVr with GAR, including the appearance of the LVOT, the aortic valve leaflets, and their motion which cardiac anesthesiologists and echocardiographers must be familiar with. In this work, using an eight-patient echocardiographic case series, we provide an overview of this novel AVr technique, including some unique aspects of device sizing, patient selection, expected post-repair echocardiographic features, and a review of outcomes data.

Procedural, Short-Term, and Intermediate-Term Outcomes in Propensity-Matched Patients With Severe Mitral Valve Regurgitation Undergoing Urgent Versus Elective MitraClip Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair.

OBJECTIVE: The study authors sought to compare outcomes in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) undergoing urgent, as compared to elective, mitral valve repair employing MitraClip. They hypothesized that, compared to elective cases, MitraClip procedures performed for urgent indications would be associated with increased intraoperative and postoperative complications but have similar long-term outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review with 3:1 propensity score matching of elective-to-urgent cases. SETTING: A single, large-volume tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive patients with severe MR who underwent elective or urgent MitraClip procedures between December 15, 2015, and October 26, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: MR repair with MitraClip. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: As expected, patients in the urgent MitraClip group required a higher level of preprocedural care, and there were significant differences in baseline demographic and clinical variables as compared to the elective group. To reduce baseline characteristics heterogeneity, propensity matching was performed for age, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking histories, using the nearest-neighbor matching with a caliper of 0.2 and with replacement. The final study cohort included 89 urgent and 252 matched elective cases, with a suitable alignment between the treatment groups. Propensity-matched urgent MitraClip patients experienced a longer hospital length of stay (p < 0.001), increased intensive care unit admissions (19% v 4%, p < 0.001) and mechanical ventilation (6.7% v 1.6%, p = 0.023), postprocedural atrial fibrillation (11% v 4.4%, p = 0.036), pericardial effusion (10% v 2.4%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (7.9% v 2%, p = 0.016). Furthermore, patients in the urgent cohort incurred significantly higher 30-day cardiovascular mortality (6.7% v 2%, p = 0.039), increased 30-day (16% v 5.6%, p = 0.006), and 1-year (33% v 20%, p = 0.021) readmission rates. However, there were no statistically significant differences in 30-day and 1-year overall and 1-year cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent MitraClip repairs can be performed successfully, when needed, in critically ill patients with severe MR. Despite the procedural success, patients undergoing urgent MitraClip repair remain at high risk for adverse outcomes in the short- and intermediate-term and incur increased cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Further efforts are required to develop strategies to optimize short and intermediate outcomes in this vulnerable group of patients.