RESUMEN
Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group (p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations (p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.
RESUMEN
Objectives: As surgical experience with infective endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement is scarce, this study compared the perioperative and short-term outcomes of patients suffering from endocarditis following surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: Between January 2013 and December 2020, 468 consecutive patients were admitted to our center for surgery for IE. Among them, 98 were operated on for endocarditis following surgical aortic valve replacement and 22 for endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Results: The median EuroSCORE II (52.1 (40.6-62.0) v/s 45.4 (32.6-58.1), p = 0.207) and STS-PROM (1.8 (1.6-2.1) v/s 1.9 (1.4-2.2), p = 0.622) were comparable. Endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement accounted for 13.7% of the aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis between 2013 and 2015; this increased to 26.9% in the years 2019 and 2020.Concomitant procedures were performed in 35 patients (29.2%). The operative mortality was 26.5% in the endocarditis following surgical aortic valve replacement group and 9.1% in the endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement group (p = 0.098). Upon follow-up, survival at 6 months was found to be 98% in the group with endocarditis following surgical aortic valve replacement and 89% in the group with endocarditis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (p = 0.081). Conclusions: Patients suffering from endocarditis following surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement present with comparable risk profiles and can be surgically treated with comparable results. Surgery as a curative option should not be rejected even in this intermediate-risk cohort.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients following surgery for infective native valve endocarditis (NVE) and prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). METHODS: We retrospectively identified 633 consecutive patients who had undergone surgery for infective endocarditis at our center between January 2005 and October 2018. The patients were interviewed, and the SF-36 survey was used to assess the HRQOL of survivors. Propensity score matching (2:1) was performed with data from a German reference population. Multivariable analysis incorporated binary logistic regression using a forward stepwise (conditional) model. RESULTS: The median age of the cohort was 67 (55-74) years, and 75.6% were male. Operative mortality was 13.7% in the NVE group and 21.6% in the PVE group (p = 0.010). The overall survival at 1 year was 88.0% and was comparable between the groups. The physical health summary scores were 49 (40-55) for the NVE patients and 45 (37-52) for the PVE patients (p = 0.043). The median mental health summary scores were 52 (35-57) and 49 (41-56), respectively (p = 0.961). On comparison of the HRQOL to the reference population, the physical health summary scores were comparable. However, significant differences were observed with regard to the mental health summary scores (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that there are significant differences in the various domains of HRQOL, not only between NVE and PVE patients, but also in comparison to healthy individuals. In addition to preoperative health status, it is important to consider the patient's expectations regarding surgery. Further prospective studies are required.