RESUMEN
Background: International guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) as Class I triggers in high-gradient severe aortic stenosis (HGSAS) patients with symptoms and/or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. The association between waiting for these triggers and postoperative survival penalty is poorly studied. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of guideline-based Class I triggers on long-term postoperative survival in HGSAS patients. Methods: 2,030 patients operated for HGSAS were included and classified as follows: no Class I triggers (no symptoms and LVEF >50%, n = 853), symptoms with LVEF >50% (n = 965), or LVEF <50% regardless of symptoms (n = 212). Survival was compared after matching (inverse probability weighting) for clinical differences. Restricted mean survival time was analyzed to quantify lifetime loss. Results: Ten-year survival was better without any Class I trigger than with symptoms or LVEF <50% (67.1% ± 3% vs 56.4% ± 3% vs 53.1% ± 7%, respectively, P < 0.001). Adjusted death risks increased significantly in operated patients with symptoms (HR: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.15-1.82]) or LVEF <50% (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.05-2.06]) than in those without Class I triggers. Performing AVR with LVEF >60% produced similar outcomes to that of the general population, whereas operated patients with LVEF <60% was associated with a 10-year postoperative survival penalty. Furthermore, according to restricted mean survival time analyses, operating on symptomatic patients or with LVEF <60% led to 8.3- and 11.4-month survival losses, respectively, after 10 years, compared with operated asymptomatic patients with a LVEF >60%. Conclusions: Guideline-based Class I triggers for AVR in HGSAS have profound consequences on long-term postoperative survival, suggesting that HGSAS patients should undergo AVR before trigger onset. Operating on patients with LVEF <60% is already associated with a 10-year postoperative survival penalty questioning the need for an EF threshold recommending AVR in HGSAS patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is ambiguity in the literature regarding the continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR). At our center, there has been a gradual shift towards CST over the interrupted pledgeted technique (IPT). This study aims at comparing outcomes for both techniques. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center study of patients undergoing AVR between January 2011 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Continuous suture technique and interrupted pledget-reinforced sutures. The pre-operative and In-hospital clinical characteristics and echocardiographic hemodynamics (i.e. transvalvular gradients and paravalvular leakage) were compared between CST and IPT. RESULTS: We compared 791 patients with CST to 568 patients with IPT (median age: 73 and 74 years, respectively, p = 0.02). In CST there were 35% concomitant procedure vs. 31% in IPT (p = 0.16). Early mortality was 3.2% in CST versus 4.8% in IPT (p = 0.15), and a second cross-clamp due to a paravalvular-leak in 0.5% vs. 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.22). The CST was not associated with new-onset conduction-blocks mandating pacemaker implants(OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.14; P = 0.85). The postoperative gradients on echocardiography were lower in CST compared to IPT, especially in smaller annuli (peak gradients: 15.7mmHg vs. 20.5mmHg, in valve size < 23 mm, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The continuous suture technique was associated with lower postoperative gradients and shorter cross-clamp time compared to interrupted pledgeted technique. Differences in paravalvular leaks were non-significant, although slightly less in the continuous suture technique. There were no further differences in valve-related complications. Hence, continues suture technique is safe, with better hemodynamics compared to the interrupted pledgeted technique. This may be of clinical importance, especially in smaller size annular size.
