Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves.

Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (<65 years, 65 to 75 years, >75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or previous aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2023. A total of 1,452 patients (78.6%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were aged <65 years, 627 (43.2%) were 65 to 75 years, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75 years. For patients who received mechanical valves, 308 (78.0%) were aged <65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65 and 75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were >75 years. The median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 (2.6 to 8.9) years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan-Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, the cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients aged under 65 years who received bioprosthetic than those who received mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of aortic valve reintervention (hazard ratio 3.35, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 6.49, p <0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly, in patients aged <65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.

External validation of the ARCH score in patients undergoing aortic arch reconstruction under circulatory arrest.

BACKGROUND: Aortic arch surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) carries a higher risk of morbidity and mortality compared to routine cardiac surgical procedures. The newly developed ARCH (arch reconstruction under circulatory arrest with hypothermia) score has not been externally validated. We sought to externally validate this score in our local population. METHODS: All consecutive open aortic arch surgeries with HCA performed between 2014 and 2023 were included. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. Model discrimination was assessed by the C-statistic with 95% confidence intervals as part of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Model performance was visualized by a calibration plot and quantified by the Brier score. RESULTS: A total of 760 patients (38.3% females) were included. The mean age was 61 (±13.6) years, with 56.4% of patients' age >60 years. The procedures were carried out mostly emergently or urgently (59.6%). Total arch replacement was performed in 32.5% of the patients, and aortic root procedures were carried out in 74.6%. In-hospital death occurred in 64 patients (8.4%), and stroke occurred in 5.4%. The C-statistic revealed a low discriminatory ability for predicting in-hospital mortality (area under the ROC curve, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.69; P = .002); however, model calibration was found to be excellent (Brier score of 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The ARCH score for in-hospital mortality showed low discriminatory ability in our local population, although with excellent ability for prediction of mortality.

Phase-specific survival after endovascular versus open surgical repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysm.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has gained preference over open surgical repair (OSR) as the intervention of choice for patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTA). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with DTA undergoing OSR and TEVAR with contemporary findings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials or studies utilizing propensity-score analysis or reporting risk-adjusted outcomes. The search was performed up until March 2023. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including 4 studies using propensity-score matching and four studies reporting risk-adjusted outcomes, comprising 14,873 patients with DTA undergoing OSR (N.=10,882) and TEVAR (N.=3991). Operative mortality was similar between the two interventions (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.21, P=0.57, I2=0%). However, overall long-term mortality was significantly higher after TEVAR compared to OSR (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.59, P=0.01, I2=0%). Phase-specific analysis revealed comparable risks of mortality within 1 year and between one and two years after interventions, while the risk of mortality was significantly higher after TEVAR compared to OSR beyond two years (HR 1.77, 95% CI, 1.19-2.63, P=0.01. I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated comparable operative mortality between OSR and TEVAR, but higher long-term mortality associated with TEVAR in patients with DTA. The phase-specific analysis highlighted the survival advantage of OSR beyond 2 years. These findings suggest a need for reconsidering OSR indications in the management of DTA.

Late Outcomes of Surgery Versus Medical Therapy in Patients With Type A Aortic Intramural Hematoma: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

The effect of an initial surgical approach (in comparison with initial medical therapy) in acute type A intramural hematoma remains insufficiently explored. We designed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data from studies with follow-up for overall survival (all-cause death). Restricted mean survival time was calculated to evaluate lifetime gain or loss. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I) was used to assess risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to assess certainty of evidence. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 654 patients (311 patients treated with surgery and 343 patients treated with medical therapy alone). All the studies were non-randomized and observational. The median follow-up was 4.6 years (interquartile range 1.0 to 7.7). Patients who underwent surgery had a significantly lower risk of mortality compared with patients receiving medical therapy alone (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.74, p <0.001). The restricted mean survival time was overall 1.1 years greater with surgery compared with medical therapy, and this difference was statistically significant (p <0.001), which means that surgery is associated with lifetime gain. The overall risk of bias (ROBINS-I) was considered moderate-to-serious and the certainty of evidence (GRADE) was deemed to be low. In conclusion, in the overall follow-up, surgery as the initial approach was associated with better late survival and lifetime gain in comparison with medical therapy alone in the setting of acute type A aortic intramural hematoma; however, high-quality randomized trials are warranted to establish the efficacy of the surgical strategy.

Can we safely expand the donation after circulatory death donor heart pool by extending the donor age limit?

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of donor age on outcomes following donation after circulatory death heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to analyze adult recipients who underwent isolated donation after circulatory heart transplantation from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023. The cohort was stratified into 2 groups according to donor age, where advanced donor age was defined as 40 years or more. Outcomes were 90-day and 1-year post-transplant survival. Propensity score matching was performed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of recipient age on 90-day survival among the recipients with advanced-age donors. RESULTS: A total of 994 recipients were included in the study period, and 161 patients (17.1%) received allografts from advanced-age donors. During the study period, the annual incidence of donation after circulatory heart transplantation with advanced-age donors substantially increased. The recipients with advanced-age donors had similar 90-day and 1-year post-transplant survivals compared with the recipients with younger donors. The comparable 90-day survival persisted in a propensity score-matched comparison. In the subgroup analysis among the recipients with advanced-age donors, the recipients aged 60 years or more had significantly reduced 90-day survival compared with the recipients aged less than 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of appropriately selected donation after circulatory donors aged 40 years or more has similar survival compared with that of younger donors. With careful candidate risk stratification and selection, consideration of using donation after circulatory donors aged more than 40 years may further ameliorate ongoing organ shortage with comparable early post-transplant outcomes.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years.

BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

The Clinical Significance of Unplanned Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Aortic Root Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Unexpected coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is occasionally required during aortic root replacement (ARR). However, the impact of unplanned CABG remains unknown. DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective observational study. SETTING: At university-affiliated tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent ARR from 2011 through 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Aortic root replacement with or without unplanned CABG. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent ARR. Among them, 131 (16.5%) underwent planned concomitant CABG, and 34 (4.3%) required unplanned CABG. The most common indication of unplanned CABG was ventricular dysfunction (33.3%), followed by disease pathology (25.6%), anatomy (15.4%), and surgical complications (10.3%). A vein graft to the right coronary artery was the most commonly performed bypass. Infective endocarditis and aortic dissection were observed in 27.8% and 12.8%, respectively. Prior cardiac surgery was seen in 40.3%. The median follow-up period was 4.3 years. Unplanned CABG was not associated with operative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 0.33-7.16, p = 0.58) or long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.89, p = 0.81). Body surface area smaller than 1.7 was independently associated with an increased risk of unplanned CABG (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.85-11.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned CABG occurred in 4.3% of patients during ARR, but was not associated with operative mortality or long-term mortality. A small body surface area was a factor associated with unplanned CABG.

Outcomes of Aortomitral Continuity Reconstruction During Concomitant Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To describe outcomes of reconstruction of the aortomitral continuity (AMC) during concomitant aortic and mitral valve replacement (ie, the "Commando" procedure). DESIGN: A retrospective study of consecutive cardiac surgeries from 2010 to 2022. SETTING: At a single institution. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing double aortic and mitral valve replacement. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were dichotomized by the performance (or not) of AMC reconstruction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 331 patients underwent double-valve replacement, of whom 21 patients (6.3%) had a Commando procedure. The Commando group was more likely to have had a previous aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) (66.7% v 27.4%, p < 0.001), redo cardiac surgery (71.4% v 31.3%, p < 0.001), and emergent/salvage surgery (14.3% v 1.61%, p = 0.001), whereas surgery was more often performed for endocarditis in the Commando group (52.4% v 22.9%, p = 0.003). The Commando group had higher operative mortality (28.6% v 10.7%, p = 0.014), more prolonged ventilation (61.9% v 31.9%, p = 0.005), longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (312 ± 118 v 218 ± 85 minutes, p < 0.001), and longer ischemic time (252 ± 90 v 176 ± 66 minutes, p < 0.001). Despite increased short-term morbidity in the Commando group, Kaplan-Meier survival estimation showed no difference in long-term survival between each group (p = 0.386, log-rank). On multivariate Cox analysis, the Commando procedure was not associated with an increased hazard of death, compared to MVR + AVR (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI: 0.65-2.59, p = 0.496). CONCLUSIONS: Although short-term postoperative morbidity and mortality were found to be higher for patients undergoing the Commando procedure, AMC reconstruction may be equally durable in the long term.

Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single-center 137 patient experience.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 and identified risk factors for in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Adults with CS who were supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 at a single institution were included. Patients were stratified into three groups according to their CS etiology: (1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (2) acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), and (3) postcardiotomy (PC). The primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes included adverse events during Impella support and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with CS secondary to AMI (n = 47), ADHF (n = 86), and PC (n = 4) were included. The ADHF group had the highest survival rates at all time points. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was the most common complication during Impella support in all 3 groups. Increased rates of AKI and de novo renal replacement therapy were observed in the PC group, and the AMI group experienced a higher incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion. Multivariable analysis demonstrated diabetes mellitus, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality, but the etiology of CS did not impact mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Impella 5.0 and 5.5 provide effective mechanical support for patients with CS with favorable outcomes, with nearly two-thirds of patients alive at 180 days. Diabetes, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine are strong risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

Outcomes of Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein as A Second Conduit After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Despite the advantages of multiarterial grafting, saphenous vein (SV) configurations predominate in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In addition, the benefits of radial artery (RA) utilization in multivessel CABG remain unclear. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received RA grafts during CABG with those of patients who received SV grafts. A retrospective, single-institution cohort study was performed in 8,774 adults who underwent isolated CABG surgery with multiple grafts between 2010 and 2022. To balance graft cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using a 1:2 (RA/SV) match ratio. Long-term postoperative survival was compared in RA and SV graft groups. Similarly, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates were compared in the cohorts, with MACCE comprising death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stroke. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed for both mortality and MACCE. A total of 7,218 patients (82.3%) who underwent multivessel CABG were included in this analysis. Of these patients, 341 (4.7%) received RA grafts, and 6,877 (95.3%) received SV grafts secondary to left internal mammary artery use. PSM yielded a cohort of 335 patients with RA and 670 patients with SV. After matching, groups were well balanced across all baseline variables. No significant differences were observed in either immediate postoperative morbidities or long-term survival. However, Kaplan-Meier estimates of long-term postoperative freedom from MACCE were significantly greater in matched patients with SV (73.3%) than in those with RA (67.4%) (p = 0.044, cluster log-rank), with patients with SV also possessing significantly greater freedom from coronary revascularization and MI. In conclusion, RA and SV secondary conduits for CABG were associated with comparable immediate postoperative complications and long-term survival after PSM. SV grafting was associated with significantly decreased rates of postoperative MACCE, likely owing to lower rates of coronary revascularization and MI than in RA grafting.

Radial artery vs right internal mammary artery as a second conduit during coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of radial artery (RA) grafts during CABG to those of right internal mammary artery (RIMA) grafts. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-institution cohort study of isolated CABG with multiple grafts between 2010-2022. To balance graft cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using a 1:1 match ratio. Long-term postoperative survival was compared among RA and RIMA groups. Similarly, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared among both cohorts, with MACCE comprising death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stroke. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed for mortality, while cumulative incidence estimation was utilized for MACCE. RESULTS: A total of 8,774 patients underwent CABG. Of those, 1,674 (19.1%) patients who underwent multiarterial CABG were included in this analysis. 326 (19.5%) patients received RA grafts and 1,348 (80.5%) received RIMA grafts. PSM yielded a cohort of 323 RA patients and 323 RIMA patients. After matching, groups were well-balanced across all baseline variables. No significant differences were observed in immediate postoperative complications or long-term survival, with 5-year survival estimates of 89.5% for the RA group vs 90.1% for the RIMA group. There was a nonsignificant trend toward a higher incidence of MACCE at 5 years in the RA group compared to the RIMA group (31.3% in the RA group vs 24.1% in the RIMA group), especially after 1-year follow-up (21.6% in the RA group vs 15.1% in the RIMA group). Specifically, for RA patients, there were higher rates of repeat revascularization in the 5-year postoperative period (14.7% in the RA group vs 5.3% in the RIMA group), particularly in the territory revascularized by the RA during the index operation (45.7% in the RA group vs 10.3% in the RIMA group). CONCLUSION: Overall, RA and RIMA secondary conduits for CABG were associated with comparable immediate postoperative complications, 5-year MACCE, and 5-year survival after PSM. RA grafting was associated with significantly higher rates of repeat coronary revascularization at 5 years, specifically in the territory revascularized by the RA during the index operation.

Midterm Outcomes After Aortic Valve Neocuspidization (Ozaki Procedure) in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Trileaflet aortic valve neocuspidization (AVN) using autologous pericardium (Ozaki procedure) is an emerging surgical treatment option for aortic valve diseases. Although excellent results have been reported from Japan, data pertaining to its use in the United States are sparse. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent AVN (AVN group) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve (SAVR group) between 2015 and 2022 were identified. Propensity score matching was used to adjust the baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients underwent AVN, and 1816 patients underwent SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve. None in the AVN group required conversion to SAVR. Before matching, mean age in the AVN group was 68.5 ± 8.8 years, and 56 patients (55.4%) underwent concomitant procedures. Preoperatively, 3 (3%) had endocarditis. Bicuspid valve was observed in 38 (38.4%). None died at 30 days in the AVN group. The median follow-up duration was 3.2 years. After propensity score matching, the expected survival and freedom from at least moderate aortic regurgitation at 5 years was 91.7% ± 3.1% and 97.6% ± 1.7%, respectively. Propensity score matching yielded 77 patients in each group. The Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated equivalent survival at 5 years between the 2 groups (P = .95). Additionally, freedom from at least moderate aortic regurgitation was comparable at 5 years (P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: AVN can be safely performed for a variety of aortic valve diseases, with or without concomitant operations. AVN demonstrated similar midterm outcomes compared with SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve in the United States adult population.

Donation after circulatory death improves probability of heart transplantation in waitlisted candidates and results in post-transplant outcomes similar to those achieved with brain-dead donors.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitate the impact of heart donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor utilization on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify all adult waitlisted and transplanted candidates between October 18, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Waitlisted candidates were stratified according to whether they had been approved for donation after brain death (DBD) offers only or also approved for DCD offers. The cumulative incidence of transplantation was compared between the 2 cohorts. In a post-transplant analysis, 1-year post-transplant survival was compared between unmatched and propensity-score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. RESULTS: A total of 14,803 candidates were waitlisted, including 12,287 approved for DBD donors only and 2516 approved for DCD donors. Overall, DCD approval was associated with an increased sub-hazard ratio (HR) for transplantation and a lower sub-HR for delisting owing to death/deterioration after risk adjustment. In a subgroup analysis, candidates with blood type B and status 4 designation received the greatest benefit from DCD approval. A total of 12,238 recipients underwent transplantation, 11,636 with DBD hearts and 602 with DCD hearts. Median waitlist times were significantly shorter for status 3 and status 4 recipients receiving DCD hearts. One-year post-transplant survival was comparable between unmatched and propensity score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DCD hearts confers a higher probability of transplantation and a lower incidence of death/deterioration while on the waitlist, particularly among certain subpopulations such as status 4 candidates. Importantly, the use of DCD donors results in similar post-transplant survival as DBD donors.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement With Reimplantation vs Remodeling: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) with reimplantation vs remodeling in patients undergoing aortic root surgery remains a controversial subject. METHODS: This study was a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived data from comparative studies published by December 31, 2022. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 3044 patients (1991 in the reimplantation group and 2018 in the remodeling group). Patients who underwent VSARR with remodeling had a higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03; P = .002, log-rank test P < .001). Landmark analysis (with 4 years as the landmark time point) demonstrated that survival was lower in patients who underwent VSARR with remodeling (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.43-3.24; P < .001) in the first 4 years. Beyond the 4-year time point, no difference in survival was observed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.50; P = .822). The risk for need of aortic valve and/or root reintervention was higher in patients undergoing VSARR with remodeling (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.07-2.07; P = .019, log-rank test P < .001). We did not find statistically significant coefficients for the covariates of age, female sex, connective tissue disorders, bicuspid aortic valve, aortic dissection, coronary bypass surgery, total arch replacement, or annular stabilization, which means that these covariates did not modulate the effects observed in our pooled analyses. CONCLUSIONS: VSARR with reimplantation is associated with better overall survival and lower risk of need for reintervention over time compared with VSARR with remodeling. Regarding overall survival, we observed a time-varying effect that favored the reimplantation technique up to 4 years of follow-up, but not beyond this time point.

The impact of reoperative surgery on aortic root replacement in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Reoperative sternotomy is associated with poor outcomes after cardiac surgery. We aimed to investigate the impact of reoperative sternotomy on the outcomes after aortic root replacement. METHODS: All patients who underwent aortic root replacement from January 2011 to June 2020 were identified using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. We compared outcomes between patients who underwent first-time aortic root replacement with those with a history of sternotomy undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement using propensity score matching. Subgroup analysis was performed among the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group. RESULTS: A total of 56,447 patients underwent aortic root replacement. Among them, 14,935 (26.5%) underwent reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement. The annual incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement increased from 542 in 2011 to 2300 in 2019. Aneurysm and dissection were more frequently observed in the first-time aortic root replacement group, whereas infective endocarditis was more common in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group. Propensity score matching yielded 9568 pairs in each group. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (215 vs 179 minutes, standardized mean difference = 0.43). Operative mortality was higher in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (10.8% vs 6.2%, standardized mean difference = 0.17). In the subgroup analysis, logistic regression demonstrated that individual patient repetition of (second or more resternotomy) surgery and annual institutional volume of aortic root replacement were independently associated with operative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement might have increased over time. Reoperative sternotomy is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality in aortic root replacement. Referral to high-volume aortic centers should be considered in patients undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.