True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To produce a universally accepted waiting time definition for cardiovascular surgery, present the rationale for this definition, and compare data on current waiting times in British Columbia based on this definition versus the current definition in patients waiting for aortic stenosis surgery. STUDY DESIGN: The present study is a retrospective data analysis. SETTING: The fixed-dollar, single-payer health care delivery system in British Columbia. PATIENTS: All residents of British Columbia who were at least 22 years of age and who were placed on a waiting list for aortic valve surgery with the diagnosis of aortic stenosis between January 1, 1991, and December 31, 2000, were eligible for the present study. INTERVENTIONS: Dates of physician visits, procedures and surgery were obtained from the British Columbia Cardiac Registries and Medical Services Plan databases. True waiting times from physician visits to procedures and surgery were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 2516 patients booked for aortic valve surgery with a primary diagnosis of aortic stenosis, 2237 subjects (88.9%) were eligible for analysis after exclusions. The eligible patients ranged in age from 22 to 95 years, and 36.8% were female. The true median waiting time was 243 days (148 days [25th percentile], 397 days [75th percentile]), which was 3.2 times the interval currently reported as the waiting time (75 days [42, 127]). Thirty-nine patients died while waiting for surgery. Patients used more resources while waiting for surgery than after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: True waiting times for surgery for aortic stenosis in British Columbia are significantly longer than reported waiting times. The authors propose that the wait list time for cardiovascular surgery be redefined as "the time interval between the patient's first contact with a medical care provider with symptoms or signs which ultimately lead to cardiovascular surgery and the date of that surgery".

Percutaneous transvenous mitral annuloplasty: initial human experience with device implantation in the coronary sinus.

BACKGROUND: Mitral annuloplasty is the most common surgical procedure performed for ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR). Surgical mitral annuloplasty is limited by morbidity, mortality, and MR recurrence. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of a transvenous catheter-delivered implantable device to provide a percutaneous alternative to surgical mitral annuloplasty. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five patients with chronic ischemic MR underwent percutaneous transvenous implantation of an annuloplasty device in the coronary sinus. Implantation was successful in 4 patients. Baseline MR in the entire group was grade 3.0+/-0.7 and was reduced to grade 1.6+/-1.1 at the last postimplantation visit when the device was intact or the last postprocedural visit in the patient in whom the device was not successfully implanted. Separation of the bridge section of the device occurred in 3 of 4 implanted devices and was detected at 28 to 81 days after implantation. There were no postprocedural device-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous implantation of a device intended to remodel the mitral annulus is feasible. Initial experience suggests a possible favorable effect on MR. Percutaneous transvenous mitral annuloplasty warrants further evaluation as a less invasive alternative to surgical annuloplasty.

Percutaneous aortic valve implantation retrograde from the femoral artery.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous aortic valve implantation by an antegrade transvenous approach has been described but is problematic. Retrograde prosthetic aortic valve implantation via the femoral artery has potential advantages. Percutaneous prosthetic aortic valve implantation via the femoral arterial approach is described and the initial experience reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: The valve prosthesis is constructed from a stainless steel stent with an attached trileaflet equine pericardial valve and a fabric cuff. After routine aortic balloon valvuloplasty, a 22F or 24F sheath is advanced from the femoral artery to the aorta. A steerable, deflectable catheter facilitates manipulation of the prosthesis around the aortic arch and through the stenotic valve. Rapid ventricular pacing is used to reduce cardiac output while the delivery balloon is inflated to deploy the prosthesis within the annulus. Percutaneous aortic prosthetic valve implantation was attempted in 18 patients (aged 81+/-6 years) in whom surgical risk was deemed excessive because of comorbidities. Iliac arterial injury, seen in the first 2 patients, did not recur after improvement in screening and access site management. Implantation was successful in 14 patients. After successful implantation, the aortic valve area increased from 0.6+/-0.2 to 1.6+/-0.4 cm2. There were no intraprocedural deaths. At follow-up of 75+/-55 days, 16 patients (89%) remained alive. CONCLUSIONS: This initial experience suggests that percutaneous transarterial aortic valve implantation is feasible in selected high-risk patients with satisfactory short-term outcomes.

Percutaneous closure of an aortic prosthetic paravalvular leak with an Amplatzer duct occluder.

Following aortic valve replacement, up to 5% of patients may develop clinically significant paravalvular leaks. Reoperation is associated with higher mortality and an excess risk of recurrent paravalvular insufficiency. No specifically designed transcatheter device is available for paravalvular leak repair. We describe in a patient with severe aortic prosthetic paravalvular leak the use of an Amplatzer duct occluder device resulting in effective closure and symptomatic improvement.

Outcome of mitral valve repair or replacement: a comparison by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized trials comparing outcomes after mitral valve (MV) repair and replacement. Propensity scoring is a powerful tool that has the potential to reduce selection bias in nonrandomized studies. METHODS: From the BC Cardiac Registries, 2,060 patients presented for MV surgery, with or without CABG between 1991 and 2000. We then identified 322 MV repairs who were then matched by propensity score to an equal number of MV replacement patients. We compared survival and freedom from re-operation outcomes using Cox proportional hazards model analysis. Multivariable analysis was then used to compare outcomes in 358 MV repair patients with 352 MV replacement patients who had undergone chordal sparing surgery. RESULTS: The comparison groups generated using propensity scores were well balanced with respect to all collected baseline risk factors. Median follow-up time was 3.4 years. Patients undergoing MV repair had significantly improved survival (RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.75) but a trend toward more re-operations (RR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.47) compared with patients undergoing replacement. Mitral valve repair patients still had better survival (RR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.85) compared with MV replacement patients who had undergone chordal sparing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We used propensity score methods to reduce selection bias in a population-based cohort of patients undergoing MV repair/replacement. Repair was associated with better survival, but a trend to increased re-operation.