Aortic root management in acute type A aortic dissection: A nationwide analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening condition and surgical repair often includes aortic valve replacement (AVR). Aortic valve repair (AVr) is increasingly being reported with favorable outcomes from single-center experiences. This study examined national trends and outcomes of AVr in patients with ATAAD. METHODS: Adults with a primary diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection who underwent proximal aortic surgery from January 2016 to December 2017 were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were stratified into an isolated aortic surgery group (no aortic valve procedure), concomitant AVR, or concomitant AVr groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included stroke, acute kidney injury, heart block, and bleeding. Propensity score matching was used to address patient and hospital-level confounders between AVR and AVr groups. RESULTS: In total, 5115 patients underwent surgery for ATAAD and were included. Overall, 3220 (63%) underwent isolated ATAAD repair, while 1120 (22%) had concomitant AVR, and 775 (15%) had concomitant AVr. In 455 propensity-matched pairs, there was no difference in mortality or stroke between AVr and AVR groups, however, heart block (1.1% vs. 7.5%, p < .001) and bleeding (65.9% vs. 81.3%, p < .001) were significantly less common among those who underwent AVr. Patients who underwent AVr had shortest LOS (11.9 vs. 13.5 days, p < .001). There were no differences in outcomes of AVr in ATAAD based on hospital size or teaching status. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, AVr is being performed safely in the setting of ATAAD with mortality and composite outcomes comparable to AVR.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes.

AIMS: We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. METHODS AND RESULTS: We utilized the nationally weighted 2012-16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3-2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.78) compared to re-SAVR. CONCLUSION: In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

Efficacy of opioid-sparing analgesia after median sternotomy with continuous bilateral parasternal subpectoral plane blocks.

OBJECTIVES: Regional anesthetic techniques, traditionally underutilized in cardiac surgery, may play a role in multimodal analgesia, effectively improving pain control and reducing opioid consumption. We investigated the efficacy of continuous bilateral ultrasound-guided parasternal subpectoral plane blocks following sternotomy. METHODS: We reviewed all opioid-naïve patients who underwent cardiac surgery via median sternotomy under our enhanced recovery after surgery protocol between May 2018 and March 2020. Patients were grouped based on postoperative pain management strategy-those who received standard Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) multimodal analgesia alone (no nerve block group) versus those receiving ERAS multimodal analgesia plus continuous bilateral parasternal subpectoral plane blocks (block group). In the block group, parasternal subpectoral plane catheters were placed under ultrasound-guidance on each side of the sternum with initial 0.25% ropivacaine bolus, followed by continuous 0.125% bupivacaine infusions. Postoperative patient-reported numerical rating scale pain scores and opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents were compared through postoperative day 4. RESULTS: Of 281 patients included in the study, the block group comprised 125 (44%) patients. Although baseline characteristics, type of surgery, and length of stay were similar between groups, average numerical rating scale pain scores and opioid consumption were significantly lower in the block group through postoperative day 4 (all P values < .05). We also observed a 44% reduction in total opioid consumption after surgery in the block group (75.1 vs 133.1 MME; P = .001) and 1 less hospital day requiring opioids (4.2 vs 3 days; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous bilateral parasternal subpectoral plane blocks may further reduce poststernotomy pain and opioid consumption within the context ERAS multimodal analgesia.

Debunking the July Effect in Transcatheter Interventions in Structural Heart Disease: Truth or Myth?

Background: The "July effect", the perception of worse outcomes in the first month of training, has been previously demonstrated in critical care medicine and general surgery. However, the July effect in the context of structural heart interventions (i.e., transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] and MitraClip) remains unknown. Methods: All adult patients undergoing TAVR or MitraClip in the 2012-2016 National Inpatient Sample were included. Outcomes were compared by procedure month and academic year quartiles (i.e., between the first academic year quartile [Q1] vs. the fourth quartile [Q4]). Outcomes between teaching and nonteaching hospitals were compared using risk-adjusted logistic difference-in-difference regression. Results: During the study period, 94,170 TAVR (Q1: 25,250; Q4: 23,170) and 8750 MitraClip (Q1: 2220; Q4: 2150) procedures were performed. In-hospital mortality did not vary as per academic year quartiles for either procedure, even after risk adjustment. These findings persisted in sensitivity analysis by procedure month and newer device era (2015-2016; all p > 0.05). In the subgroup analysis, the unadjusted and adjusted Q1 vs. Q4 in-hospital mortality between teaching and nonteaching hospitals were similar for either procedure. In-hospital mortality also did not vary by procedure month when stratified by hospital teaching status for both procedures. However, postprocedural complication rates appeared to be improving among the TAVR teaching hospitals for stroke, major bleeding, and vascular complications (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this large, nationwide study, the July effect was not evident for structural heart interventions. With increasing interest and growth in transcatheter procedures, early resident and fellow teaching can be achieved with appropriate supervision.

Risk Stratification of New Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Previous studies reported that new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) was related to worse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, these results can be confounded by the presence of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation before and after TAVI. Long-term outcomes and the risk stratification of NOP-LBBB not having PPM implantation before and after TAVI have not been fully investigated. This is an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent TAVI from July 31, 2007, to May 8, 2020. A total of 2,240 patients were included, and 17.5% of patients developed NOP-LBBB. NOP-LBBB was associated with cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.419, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.014 to 1.985, p = 0.041) and the composite outcomes of cardiac mortality and/or heart failure readmission (aHR 1.313, 95% CI 1.027 to 1.678, p = 0.030). Patients who developed NOP-LBBB with pre-TAVI left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% were significantly associated with cardiac mortality (aHR 2.049, 95% CI 1.039 to 4.041, p = 0.038), heart failure (aHR 3.990, 95% CI 2.362 to 6.741, p <0.001), and the composite outcome (aHR 2.729, 95% CI 1.703 to 4.374, p <0.001). Although NOP-LBBB with pre-TAVI LVEF >40% had a significant decrease in LVEF 6 to 12 months after TAVI (-1.8 ± 9.7% vs +0.6 ± 8.1%, p = 0.003), NOP-LBBB with pre-TAVI LVEF <40% had a significant increase in LVEF 6 to 12 months after TAVI (+9.7 ± 13.6% vs +13.0 ± 11.7%, p = 0.157). In conclusion, patients with NOP-LBBB without pre-TAVI and post-TAVI PPM developed significantly worse long-term outcomes, especially in patients with pre-TAVI LVEF <40%. Further prospective investigation should be undertaken.

Early outcomes following transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement in patients with severe mitral annular calcification.

OBJECTIVE: Implantation of a transcatheter valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) has emerged as an alternative to traditional surgical mitral valve (MV) replacement. Previous studies evaluating ViMAC aggregated transseptal, transapical, and transatrial forms of the procedure, leaving uncertainty about each technique's advantages and disadvantages. Thus, we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes specifically for transatrial ViMAC from the largest multicenter registry to-date. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic MV dysfunction and severe MAC who underwent ViMAC were enrolled from 12 centers across the United States and Europe. Clinical characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were abstracted from the electronic record. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed 126 patients who underwent ViMAC (median age 76 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 70-82 years], 28.6% female, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 6.8% [IQR, 4.0-11.4], and median follow-up 89 days [IQR, 16-383.5]). Sixty-one (48.4%) had isolated mitral stenosis, 25 (19.8%) had isolated mitral regurgitation (MR), and 40 (31.7%) had mixed MV disease. Technical success was achieved in 119 (94.4%) patients. Thirty (23.8%) patients underwent concurrent septal myectomy, and 8 (6.3%) patients experienced left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (7/8 did not undergo myectomy). Five (4.2%) patients of 118 with postprocedure echocardiograms had greater than mild paravalvular leak. Thirty-day and 1-year all-cause mortality occurred in 16 and 33 patients, respectively. In multivariable models, moderate or greater MR at baseline was associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.99, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Transatrial ViMAC is safe and feasible in this selected, male-predominant cohort. Patients with significant MR may derive less benefit from ViMAC than patients with mitral stenosis only.

Aortic Root Replacement to Accommodate Future Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Coronary obstruction is a feared complication associated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) that may prevent patients with high anatomical risk from being considered. Aortic root replacement at the time of the index TAVR allows higher coronary implantation and augmentation of transcatheter heart valve to coronary ostial distance. This approach permits future valve-in-valve TAVR and may be an important strategy in lifetime valve selection management, particularly in young patients.

A step-by-step guide to transseptal valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

With the recent success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), transcatheter options for the management of mitral valve pathology have also gained considerable attention. Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is one such technique that has emerged as a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with degenerated mitral valve bioprostheses at high-risk for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement. Several access strategies, including trans-apical, transseptal, trans-jugular, and trans-atrial access have been described for ViV-TMVR. Initial experiences were performed primarily via a trans-apical approach through a left mini-thoracotomy because it offers direct access and coaxial device alignment. With the advancements in TMVR technology, such as the development of smaller delivery catheters with high flexure capabilities, the transseptal approach via the femoral vein has emerged as the preferred option. This technique offers the advantages of a totally percutaneous approach, avoids the need to enter the thoracic cavity or pericardial space, and provides superior outcomes compared to a trans-apical approach. In this review, we outline key aspects of patient selection, imaging, procedural techniques, and examine contemporary clinical outcomes of transseptal ViV-TMVR.

Nationally Representative Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes: Report From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine real-world experience with repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a population-based national database. BACKGROUND: Repeat TAVR is a growing option in patients requiring reintervention for TAVR. However, large-scale studies with longitudinal follow-up are limited. METHODS: All Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 were included. Outcomes included 30-day and longitudinal mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, stroke, pacemaker insertion, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or cardiac arrest. Outcomes of repeat TAVR were compared with surgical explantation after TAVR (TAVR explantation) in a matched analysis. RESULTS: Of 133,250 patients who underwent TAVR, 617 (0.46%) underwent subsequent repeat TAVR at a median interval of 154 days (interquartile range: 58-537 days). Mortality at 30 days and 1 year was 6.0% and 22.0%, respectively. Rates of 30-day stroke and pacemaker insertion were 1.8% and 4.2%. Mortality at 30 days was lower in those who underwent their first TAVR during the later era (2015-2017) compared with earlier years (2012-2014) (4.6% vs 8.7%; P = 0.049). Repeat TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with a matched group undergoing TAVR explantation (6.2% vs 12.3%; P = 0.05), although 1-year mortality was similar (21.0% vs 20.8%; P = 1.000). The incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events was higher with TAVR explantation compared with repeat TAVR (risk ratio: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.88-4.99; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat TAVR was performed with acceptable 30-day mortality in this high-risk population. Short-term outcomes were superior to surgical explantation, but 1-year outcomes were similar. Repeat TAVR will likely be an important option for aortic valve reintervention after TAVR.

A step-by-step guide to trans-axillary transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The application of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded rapidly over the last decade as a less invasive option for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. In order to perform successful TAVR, vascular access must be obtained with a large-bore catheter to deliver the transcatheter valve to the aortic annulus. Several techniques have been developed for this purpose including transfemoral (TF), trans-aortic, trans-apical, trans-caval, trans-carotid, and trans-axillary (TAx) with varying degrees of success. Among them, TF access is the most common and preferred method owing to its superior and well-established outcomes. However, in the setting of diseased iliofemoral arterial vessels, severe tortuosity, or iliofemoral arteries of insufficient caliber, TF access may not be possible. In these scenarios, one of the aforementioned alternative access routes needs to be considered. TAx-TAVR is an attractive alternative because it can be accomplished via access to a peripheral vessel as opposed to needing to enter the pericardial space or thoracic cavity. In addition, the open surgical cut-down procedure used to expose the axillary artery is familiar to cardiac surgeons who are accustomed to cannulating it for cardiopulmonary bypass. With advancements in TAVR technology including the evolution of delivery systems and corresponding smaller sheath sizes, total percutaneous access via the axillary artery is gaining substantial attention. In this review, we outline key aspects of patient selection, imaging and procedural techniques, and examine contemporary clinical outcomes with this approach.

Incidence, Characteristics, Predictors, and Outcomes of Surgical Explantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a paucity of information on surgical explantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence, patient characteristics, predictors, and outcomes of surgical explantation after TAVR using a population-based, nationally representative database. METHODS: We analyzed the Medicare Provider profile to include all U.S. patients undergoing TAVR from 2012 to 2017. Time to surgical explant was calculated from the index TAVR discharge to surgical explantation. Post-operative survival was assessed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and landmark analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of surgical explantation was 0.2% (227 of 132,633 patients), and was 0.28% and 0.14% in the early and newer TAVR era, respectively. The median time to surgical explant was 212 days, whereas 8.8% and 70.9% underwent surgical explantation within 30 days and 1 year, respectively. The primary indication for reintervention was bioprosthetic failure (79.3%). Compared with the no-explant cohort, the explant cohort was significantly younger (mean age 73.7 years vs. 81.7 years), with a lower prevalence of heart failure (55.9% vs. 65.8%) but more likely a lower-risk profile cohort (15% vs. 2.4%; all p < 0.05). The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 13.2% and 22.9%, respectively, and did not vary by either time to surgical explant or TAVR era, or between patients with versus without endocarditis (all p > 0.05). The time-dependent Cox regression analysis demonstrated a higher mortality in those with surgical explantation (hazard ratio: 4.03 vs. no-explant group; 95% confidence interval: 1.81 to 8.98). Indication, time-to-surgical-explant, and year of surgical explantation were not associated with worse post-explantation survival (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides updated evidence on the incidence, timing, and outcomes of surgical explantation of a TAVR prosthesis. Although the overall incidence was low, short-term mortality was high. These findings stress the importance of future mechanistic studies on TAVR explantation and may have implications on lifetime management of aortic stenosis, particularly in younger patients.

Reoperative Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves.

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic aortic valve use has increased steadily according to The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database analyses. One of the momentums toward this trend is the future utilization of transcatheter valve-in-valve (TViV) techniques when bioprosthetic valves fail. We compared the results of reoperative TViV to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for degenerated bioprosthetic valves. METHODS: From January 2002 to January 2015, we identified 91 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves who underwent isolated AVR (SAVR n = 69, TViV n = 22). Patients with prior homografts or active endocarditis were excluded. The STS risk score was used to create 22 matched pairs of SAVR and TViV for comparison. RESULTS: Before matching, mean STS risk scores were 4.36 ± 3.1 and 7.54 ± 3.0 for SAVR and TViV, respectively (p = 0.001), but were 7.70 ± 3.4 and 7.54 ± 3.0, respectively (p = 0.360), after matching. Mean age was 74.5 ± 10.4 years for SAVR and 75.0 ± 9.6 years for TViV (p = 0.749). Operative mortality was 4.3% (1 of 22) in the SAVR group and zero for TViV (p = 1.00). Mean postoperative gradient was 13.5 ± 13.2 mm Hg for SAVR and 12.4 ± 6.2 mm Hg for TViV (p = 0.584). There was no coronary obstruction in either group, but 22% of TViV (5 of 22) had mild paravalvular leaks versus none in the SAVR group (p = 0.048). Postoperative stroke rate was 9% (2 of 22) for SAVR and zero for TViV (p = 0.488). The TViV group had shorter median length of stay (5 versus 11 days, p = 0.001). Actuarial survival at 3 years was 76.3% (95% confidence interval: 58.1 to 94.5) versus 78.7 (95% confidence interval: 56.2 to 100) for SAVR and TViV, respectively (p = 0.410). CONCLUSIONS: For degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, TViV has similar operative mortality, strokes rates, and survival as SAVR in this high-risk cohort. Therefore, TViV is a viable alternative to SAVR, although studies using registry data are needed to establish noninferiority.