Esperanza de vida después del recambio valvular debido a estenosis aórtica de bajo gradiente con función ventricular conservada / Life expectancy after surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction

Introducción y objetivos: El recambio valvular aórtico (RVAo) quirúrgico puede modificar la historia natural de la estenosis aórtica grave (EAoG). Sin embargo, comparado con la población general, estos pacientes tienen una pérdida en su esperanza de vida. La esperanza de vida de los pacientes intervenidos de RVAo debido a EAoG de bajo gradiente con fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI) conservada se desconoce. Métodos: Se incluyó a todos los pacientes entre 50 y 65 años sometidos a RVAo quirúrgico aislado en 27 centros durante 18 años. Analizamos la supervivencia observada y esperada a los 18 años de pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada y todos los otros tipos de EAoG. Mediante emparejamiento basado en índice de propensión, comparamos la esperanza de vida de los pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada vs EAoG de alto gradiente con FEVI conservada. Resultados: Se analizó a 5.084 pacientes, 413 con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada. En estos pacientes, la supervivencia observada a 10, 15 y 18 años fue 86,6% (IC95%, 85,3-87,8), 75% (IC95%, 72,7-77,2) y 63,5% (IC95%, 58,8-67,8). La supervivencia esperada a 10, 15 y 18 años fue 90,2%, 82,1% y 75,7%. En la muestra emparejada, la supervivencia de los pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente con FEVI conservada fue similar a la de aquellos con EAoG de alto gradiente con FEVI conservada, test de log-rank p=0,95, HR=1 (IC95%, 0,7–1,4; p=0,95). Conclusiones: Existe una pérdida en la esperanza de vida en todos los tipos de EAoG después del RVAo. Esta pérdida es mayor en los pacientes con disfunción ventricular y menor en los pacientes con EAoG de bajo gradiente o alto gradiente con FEVI conservada. El beneficio de la cirugía es similar entre estos 2 últimos grupos.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) can modify the natural history of severe aortic stenosis (SAS). However, compared with the general population, these patients have a loss of life expectancy. The life expectancy of patients who undergo SAVR due to low-gradient SAS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. Methods: We included all patients between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated SAVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We analyzed observed and expected survival at 18 years in patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF and all other types of SAS. We used propensity score matching to compare the life expectancy of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF vs those with high-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. Results: We analyzed 5084 patients, of whom 413 had low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. For these patients, observed survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 86.6% (95%CI, 85.3-87.8), 75% (95%CI, 72.7-77.2), and 63.5% (95%CI, 58.8-67.8). Expected survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 90.2%, 82.1%, and 75.7%. In the matched sample, survival of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF was similar to that of patients with high-gradient with preserved LVEF, log-rank test, P=.95; HR=1 (95%CI, 0.7–1.4; P=.95). Conclusions: There is a loss of life expectancy in patients with all types of SAS undergoing SAVR. This loss is higher in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and lower in patients with low-gradient or high-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF. The benefit of surgery is similar between these last 2 groups.(AU)

Biological versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term real-world outcomes are critical for informing decisions about biological (Bio) or mechanical (Mech) prostheses for aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients aged between 50 and 65 years. The objective was to compare long-term survival and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (ie, stroke, reoperation, and major bleeding) within this population. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational study including all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent an aortic valve replacement because of severe isolated aortic stenosis between the years 2000 and 2018. A total of 5215 patients from 27 Spanish hospitals were registered with a follow-up of 15 years. Multivariable analyses, including a 2:1 propensity score matching (1822 Mech and 911 Bio) and competing risks analyses were applied. RESULTS: Bio prostheses were implanted in 19% of patients (n = 992). No significant differences were observed between matched groups in long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.47; P = .33). Stroke rates were higher for Mech prostheses, but not significant (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50-1.03; P = .07). Finally, higher rates of major bleeding were found in the Mech group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among the Bio group (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.80-5.14; P < .001). Bio prostheses increased from 13% in the period from 2000 to 2008 to 24% in 2009 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival was comparable among groups in patients between 50 and 65 years of age. Mech prostheses were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, whereas Bio prostheses entailed higher reoperation rates. Bio prostheses seem a reasonable choice for patients between 50 and 65 years in Spain.

Life expectancy after surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) can modify the natural history of severe aortic stenosis (SAS). However, compared with the general population, these patients have a loss of life expectancy. The life expectancy of patients who undergo SAVR due to low-gradient SAS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. METHODS: We included all patients between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated SAVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We analyzed observed and expected survival at 18 years in patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF and all other types of SAS. We used propensity score matching to compare the life expectancy of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF vs those with high-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. RESULTS: We analyzed 5084 patients, of whom 413 had low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. For these patients, observed survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 86.6% (95%CI, 85.3-87.8), 75% (95%CI, 72.7-77.2), and 63.5% (95%CI, 58.8-67.8). Expected survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 90.2%, 82.1%, and 75.7%. In the matched sample, survival of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF was similar to that of patients with high-gradient with preserved LVEF, log-rank test, P=.95; HR=1 (95%CI, 0.7-1.4; P=.95). CONCLUSIONS: There is a loss of life expectancy in patients with all types of SAS undergoing SAVR. This loss is higher in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and lower in patients with low-gradient or high-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF. The benefit of surgery is similar between these last 2 groups.

Life expectancy after aortic valve replacement in young patients.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In young patients with severe aortic stenosis, it is unknown whether their life expectancy restored after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated AVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We compared observed and expected survival at 15 years of follow-up. We repeated all analyses for patients without complications in the postoperative period. RESULTS: A total of 5084 patients were analyzed. For the overall sample, observed survival at 10 and 15 years was 85.3% (95%CI, 84.1%-86.4%) and 73.7% (95%CI, 71.6%-75.6%), respectively. Expected survival was 90.1% and 82.1%. Cumulative relative survival for 1, 5, 10 and 15 years of follow-up was 97.4% (95%CI, 96.9%-97.9%), 96.5% (95%CI, 95.7%-97.3%), 94.7% (95%CI, 93.3%-95.9%), and 89.8% (95%CI, 87.3%-92.1%). For patients without complications, cumulative relative survival for 1, 5, 10 and 15 years was 100.3% (95%CI, 99.8%-100.5%), 98.9% (95%CI 97.6% -99.9%), 97.3% (95%CI, 94.9%-99.4%), and 91.9% (95%CI, 86.5%-96.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Life expectancy in young patients who have severe aortic stenosis and undergo AVR is lower than that of the general population. Life expectancy of individuals without complications during the postoperative period is also reduced. Therefore, baseline characteristics are likely the main factors that explain the reduction in life expectancy.

Differences in life expectancy between men and women after aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Some researchers have observed an increased number of deaths during the follow-up of young patients who undergo aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis, suggesting that this procedure does not restore their life expectancy. Our goal was to confirm these findings and explore sex-based differences. METHODS: All patients between 50 and 65 years of age who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement in 27 Spanish centres during an 18-year period were included. We compared observed and expected survival at 15 years of follow-up and estimated the cumulative incidence of death from a competing risks point of view. We stratified by sex and analysed if being a woman was an independent risk factor for death. RESULTS: For men, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years of follow-up was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6%-86.4%] and 72.3% (95% CI 69.7%-74.7%), respectively whereas the expected survival was 88.1% and 78.8%. For women, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years was 85% (95% CI 82.8%-86.9%) and 73% (95% CI 69.1%-76.4%), whereas the expected survival was 94.6% and 89.4%. At 15 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of death due to the disease in men and women was 8.2% and 16.7%, respectively. In addition, being a woman was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio = 1.23 (95% CI 1.02-1.48; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: After the aortic valve replacement, men and women do not have their life expectancy restored, but this loss is much higher in women than in men. In addition, being a woman is a risk factor for long-term death. Reasons for these findings are unknown and must be investigated.

Acute kidney injury after heart valve surgery in elderly patients: any risk factors to modify?

Abstract Introduction: Postoperative acute kidney injury contributes to longer hospital stays and increased costs related to cardiac surgery in the elderly. We analyse the influence of the patient's age on risk factors for acute kidney injury after cardiac valve surgery. Methods: We evaluated the prevalence and risk factors for acute kidney injury in 939 consecutive patients undergoing valve surgery, between 2013 and 2018. Results: The prevalence of acute kidney injury was 19.5%. Hypertension (P=0.017); RR (95% CI): 1.74 (1.10-3.48), age ≥70 years (P=0.006); RR (95% CI): 1.79 (1.17-2.72), preoperative haematocrit <33% (P=0.009); RR (95% CI): 2.04 (1.19-3.48), glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (P<0.0001); RR (95%) CI: 2.36 (1.54-3.62) and cardiac catheterization <8 days before surgery (P=0.021); RR (95% CI): 2.15 (1.12-4.11) were identified as independent risk factors. In patients older than 70 years, with no kidney disease diagnosed preoperatively, glomerular filtration rate <70 ml/min/1.73 m2, male gender, cardiopulmonary bypass time, preoperative haematocrit <36% and preoperative therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were risk factors for acute kidney injury after valve surgery. Conclusions: In elderly patients, postoperative acute kidney injury develops with higher values of preoperative glomerular filtration rate than those observed in a younger population. Preoperative correction of anaemia, discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and surgical techniques reducing cardiopulmonary bypass time would be considered to reduce the prevalence of renal failure.

Acute Kidney Injury after Heart Valve Surgery in Elderly Patients: any Risk Factors to Modify?

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative acute kidney injury contributes to longer hospital stays and increased costs related to cardiac surgery in the elderly. We analyse the influence of the patient's age on risk factors for acute kidney injury after cardiac valve surgery. METHODS: We evaluated the prevalence and risk factors for acute kidney injury in 939 consecutive patients undergoing valve surgery, between 2013 and 2018. RESULTS: The prevalence of acute kidney injury was 19.5%. Hypertension (P=0.017); RR (95% CI): 1.74 (1.10-3.48), age ≥70 years (P=0.006); RR (95% CI): 1.79 (1.17-2.72), preoperative haematocrit <33% (P=0.009); RR (95% CI): 2.04 (1.19-3.48), glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (P<0.0001); RR (95%) CI: 2.36 (1.54-3.62) and cardiac catheterization <8 days before surgery (P=0.021); RR (95% CI): 2.15 (1.12-4.11) were identified as independent risk factors. In patients older than 70 years, with no kidney disease diagnosed preoperatively, glomerular filtration rate <70 ml/min/1.73 m2, male gender, cardiopulmonary bypass time, preoperative haematocrit <36% and preoperative therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were risk factors for acute kidney injury after valve surgery. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients, postoperative acute kidney injury develops with higher values of preoperative glomerular filtration rate than those observed in a younger population. Preoperative correction of anaemia, discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and surgical techniques reducing cardiopulmonary bypass time would be considered to reduce the prevalence of renal failure.

Beneficial effect of left atrial appendage closure during cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of 280 585 patients.

In non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation (AF), left atrial appendage (LAA) is thought to be the source of embolism in 90% of the strokes. Thus, as recent clinical trials have shown the non-inferiority of percutaneous LAA closure (LAAc) in comparison to medical treatment, and despite a IIb recommendation in the latest guidelines for concomitant surgical LAAc, we sought to investigate the beneficial effect of LAAc in the surgical population. A meta-analysis model was performed comparing studies including any cardiac surgery with or without concomitant surgical LAAc reporting stoke/embolic events and/or mortality, from inception to January 2019. Twenty-two studies (280 585 patients) were included in the model. Stroke/embolic events both in the perioperative period [relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.82; P = 0.0001] and during follow-up of >2 years (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.89; P < 0.005) were significantly reduced in patients who underwent surgical LAAc (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.87; P = 0.001). Regarding the rate of preoperative AF, LAAc showed protective effect against stroke/embolic events in studies with >70% preoperative AF (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.77; P < 0.00001) but no benefit in the studies with <30% of preoperative AF (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.46-1.28; P = 0.31). Postoperative mortality was also significantly lower in surgical patients with LAAc at the mid- and long-term follow-up. (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.67-0.78; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). Based on these findings, concomitant surgical LAAc is associated with lower rates of embolic events and stroke in the postoperative period in patients with preoperative AF and also improves postoperative mortality in the mid- and long-term follow-up.

Gray platelet syndrome: Management of perioperative bleeding in redo cardiac surgery.

Gray platelet syndrome (GPS) is a rare (<1/1 000 000) and inherited platelet function disorder characterized by macrothrombocytopenia, α-granule deficiency, and hemorrhages. Bleeding intensity does not correlate with platelet count nor with functional test results. We hereby describe the perioperative bleeding prevention and management of a patient with GPS requiring multiple redo cardiac surgeries.