The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Tricuspid valve disease is an often underrecognized clinical problem that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, patients will often present late in their disease course with severe right-sided heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, and life-limiting symptoms that have few durable treatment options. Traditionally, the only treatment for tricuspid valve disease has been medical therapy or surgery; however, there have been increasing interest and success with the use of transcatheter tricuspid valve therapies over the past several years to treat patients with previously limited therapeutic options. The tricuspid valve is complex anatomically, lying adjacent to important anatomic structures such as the right coronary artery and the atrioventricular node, and is the passageway for permanent pacemaker leads into the right ventricle. In addition, the mechanism of tricuspid pathology varies widely between patients, which can be due to primary, secondary, or a combination of causes, meaning that it is not possible for 1 type of device to be suitable for treatment of all cases of tricuspid valve disease. To best visualize the pathology, several modalities of advanced cardiac imaging are often required, including transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, to best visualize the pathology. This detailed imaging provides important information for choosing the ideal transcatheter treatment options for patients with tricuspid valve disease, taking into account the need for the lifetime management of the patient. This review highlights the important background, anatomic considerations, therapeutic options, and future directions with regard to treatment of tricuspid valve disease.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years.

BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Changing trends in clinical characteristics and in-hospital mortality of patients with infective endocarditis over four decades.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis continues to be a significant concern and may be undergoing an epidemiological transition. METHODS: Were studied 1804 consecutive episodes of infective endocarditis between 1978 and 2022. The mean age was 48 ( ± 19), and 1162 (64%) patients were male. Temporal trends in demographic data, comorbidities, predisposing conditions, microorganisms, complications and in-hospital death have been studied over the decades (1978-1988, 1989-1999, 2000-2010 and 2011-2022). The outcomes and clinical characteristics were modeled using nonlinear cubic spline functions. FINDINGS: Valve surgery was performed in 50% of the patients and overall in-hospital mortality was 30%. From the first to the fourth decade studied, the average age of patients increased from 29 to 57 years (p < 0.001), with significant declines in the occurrence of rheumatic valvular heart disease (15% to 6%; p < 0.001) and streptococcal infections (46% to 33%; p < 0.001). Healthcare-associated infections have increased (9% to 21%; p < 0.001), as have prosthetic valve endocarditis (26% to 53%; p < 0.001), coagulase-negative staphylococcal infections (4% to 11%; p < 0.001), and related-complications (heart failure, embolic events, and perivalvular abscess; p < 0.001). These changes were associated with a decline in adjusted in-hospital mortality from 34% to 25% (p = 0.019). INTERPRETATION: In the 44 years studied, there was an increase in the mean age of patients, healthcare-related, prosthetic valve, coagulase-negative staphylococci/MRSA infections, and related complications. Notably, these epidemiological changes were associated with a decline in the adjusted in-hospital mortality.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of early aortic valve replacement versus conservative therapy in patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis with preserved left ventricle systolic function.

BACKGROUND: A quarter of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were asymptomatic, and only a third of them survived at the end of 4 years. Only a select subset of these patients was recommended for aortic valve replacement (AVR) by the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. We intended to study the effect of early AVR (eAVR) in this subset of asymptomatic patients with preserved left ventricle function. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed and Embase for randomised and observational studies comparing the effect of eAVR versus conservative therapy in patients with severe, asymptomatic AS and normal left ventricular function. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (study defined), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death, sudden death, the development of symptoms, heart failure hospitalisations and major bleeding. We used GRADEPro to assess the certainty of the evidence. In the randomised controlled trial (RCT) only analysis, we found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the early aortic intervention group versus the conservative arm (CA) (incidence rate ratio, IRR (CI): 0.5 (0.2 to 1.1), I2=31%, p=0.09). However, in the overall cohort, we found mortality benefit for eAVR over CA (IRR (CI): 0.4 (0.3 to 0.7), I2=84%, p<0.01). There were significantly lower MACE, cardiac death, sudden death, development of symptoms and heart failure hospitalisations in the eAVR group. We noticed no difference in MI, stroke and major bleeding. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is no reduction in all-cause mortality in the eAVR arm in patients with asymptomatic AS with preserved ejection fraction. However, eAVR reduces heart failure related hospitalisations and death or heart failure hospitalisations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022306132.

Thromboembolic and bleeding events after valvular intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIM: To assess outcomes after cardiac surgery with biological valve replacement, valve repair or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in accordance with oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. METHODS: All patients in Sweden undergoing valvular intervention with AF were included. Associations between OAC exposure and cardiovascular (CV) events (composite of CV death, ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism) and major bleeding were investigated using Cox regression analysis. The analysis was separated in time periods of 0-3 and 3-12 months after discharge. RESULTS: 4730 patients were included in the first time period, 54.0% had received a surgical biological valve prosthesis, 23.8% valve repair and 22.2% TAVI. Exposure to warfarin (comparator) was 62.3%, to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) 10.0% and to no OAC 27.7%. NOAC exposure was associated with similar risk of the composite CV outcome and major bleeding from 0 to 3 months. No OAC was associated with increased risk of the composite CV outcome (HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.32) and similar risk of major bleeding. Further analysis of the bioprosthetic valve replacement subgroup indicated increased risk of CV death when exposed to NOAC (HR 2.58; 95% CI 1.15 to 5.78) and no OAC (HR 2.82; 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82) compared with warfarin from 0 to 3 months. No differences were seen between 3 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: In this registry-based cohort study of patients with AF with severe valvular heart disease undergoing various valvular interventions, NOAC appears to be comparable with warfarin regarding efficacy and safety. Patients not receiving OAC had higher risk of CV events. NOAC was associated with increased CV death compared with warfarin in the surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement subgroup, illustrating the importance of being cautious when extrapolating data from one patient group to another. Further studies comparing NOAC and warfarin in the early postoperative phase are warranted, especially following surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement.

Role of lipoprotein(a) concentrations in bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration.

OBJECTIVES: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is associated with an increased incidence of native aortic stenosis, which shares similar pathological mechanisms with bioprosthetic aortic valve (bAV) degeneration. However, evidence regarding the role of Lp(a) concentrations in bAV degeneration is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the association between Lp(a) concentrations and bAV degeneration. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre study, patients who underwent a bAV replacement between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020 and had a Lp(a) measurement were included. Echocardiography follow-up was performed to determine the presence of bioprosthetic valve degeneration, which was defined as an increase >10 mm Hg in mean gradient from baseline with concomitant decrease in effective orifice area and Doppler Velocity Index, or new moderate/severe prosthetic regurgitation. Levels of Lp(a) were compared between patients with and without degeneration and Cox regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between Lp(a) levels and bioprosthetic valve degeneration. RESULTS: In total, 210 cases were included (mean age 74.1±9.4 years, 72.4% males). Median time between baseline and follow-up echocardiography was 4.4 (IQR 3.7) years. Bioprostheses degeneration was observed in 33 (15.7%) patients at follow-up. Median serum levels of Lp(a) were significantly higher in patients affected by degeneration versus non-affected cases: 50.0 (IQR 72.0) vs 15.6 (IQR 48.6) mg/dL, p=0.002. In the regression analysis, high Lp(a) levels (≥30 mg/dL) were associated with degeneration both in a univariable analysis (HR 3.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 7.6, p=0.001) and multivariable analysis adjusted by other risk factors for bioprostheses degeneration (HR 4.4, 95% CI 1.9 to 10.4, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High serum Lp(a) is associated with bAV degeneration. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and to investigate whether lowering Lp(a) levels could slow bioprostheses degradation.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Predictors of outcome in patients with moderate mixed aortic valve disease.

OBJECTIVES: Grading the severity of moderate mixed aortic stenosis and regurgitation (MAVD) is challenging and the disease poorly understood. Identifying markers of haemodynamic severity will improve risk stratification and potentially guide timely treatment. This study aims to identify prognostic haemodynamic markers in patients with moderate MAVD. METHODS: Moderate MAVD was defined as coexisting moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area (AVA) 1.0-1.5 cm2) and moderate aortic regurgitation (vena contracta (VC) 0.3-0.6 cm). Consecutive patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2019 were included from a multicentre registry. The primary composite outcome of death or heart failure hospitalisation was evaluated among these patients. Demographics, comorbidities, echocardiography and treatment data were assessed for their prognostic significance. RESULTS: 207 patients with moderate MAVD were included, aged 78 (66-84) years, 56% male sex, AVA 1.2 (1.1-1.4) cm2 and VC 0.4 (0.4-0.5) cm. Over a follow-up of 3.5 (2.5-4.7) years, the composite outcome was met in 89 patients (43%). Univariable associations with the primary outcome included older age, previous myocardial infarction, previous cerebrovascular event, atrial fibrillation, New York Heart Association >2, worse renal function, tricuspid regurgitation ≥2 and mitral regurgitation ≥2. Markers of biventricular systolic function, cardiac remodelling and transaortic valve haemodynamics demonstrated an inverse association with the primary composite outcome. In multivariable analysis, peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) was independently and inversely associated with the composite outcome (HR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; p=0.021) in an adjusted model along with age (HR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.08; p<0.001), creatinine (HR: 1.002, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.003; p=0.005), previous cerebrovascular event (85% vs 42%; HR: 3.04, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.99; p=0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99; p=0.007). Patients with Vmax ≤2.8 m/s and LVEF ≤50% (n=27) had the worst outcome compared with the rest of the population (72% vs 41%; HR: 3.87, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.80; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with truly moderate MAVD have a high incidence of death and heart failure hospitalisation (43% at 3.5 (2.5-4.7) years). Within this group, a high-risk group characterised by disproportionately low aortic Vmax (≤2.8 m/s) and adverse remodelling (LVEF ≤50%) have the worst outcomes.

When too much closeness harms: circumflex artery injury during mitral valve surgery.

Occlusion of the left coronary circumflex artery (LCX) during surgical procedures of the mitral valve is an infrequent but potentially life-threatening complication (1-3). Due to its close anatomical relationship to the posterior mitral valve annulus, there is a relevant risk of causing a stenosis or an occlusion of the left circumflex artery, especially by surgical annular sutures. The perioperative clinical course is heterogeneous, ranging from-initially-asymptomatic or solely electrocardiographic abnormalities to cardiogenic shock. Both severely impaired ventricular contractility or malignant arrhythmia may potentially lead to a weaning failure from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and eventually result in chronic heart failure with persistently reduced ejection fraction. Possible therapeutic strategies include the immediate reopening of causal sutures, aortocoronary bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet PCI seems to be the preferred method at present.

Tricuspid Edge-to-Edge Repair Versus Tricuspid Valve Replacement for Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tricuspid valve (TV) repair techniques other than annuloplasty remain challenging and frequently end in tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) in complicated cases. However, the results of TVR are suboptimal compared with TV repair. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of TV edge-to-edge repair (E2E) compared to TVR for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 230 patients with severe TR who underwent E2E (n=139) or TVR (n=91) from 2001 to 2020. Clinical and echocardiographic results were analyzed using inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis and propensity score matching. RESULTS: The two groups showed no significant differences in early mortality and morbidities. During the mean follow-up of 106.2±68.8 months, late severe TR and TV reoperation rates were not significantly different between groups. E2E group, however, showed better outcomes in overall survival (p=0.023), freedom from significant tricuspid stenosis (TS) (trans-tricuspid pressure gradient ≥5 mmHg, p=0.021), and freedom from TV-related events (p<0.001). Matched analysis showed consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: E2E for severe TR presented more favorable clinical outcomes than TVR. Our study supports that E2E might be a valuable option in severe TR surgery, avoiding TVR.

Twelve-month follow-up effects of cognitive training after heart valve surgery on cognitive functions and health-related quality of life: a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Postoperative cognitive decline (POCD) or decreased health-related quality of life (HQL) have been reported after cardiac surgery. A previous investigation showed beneficial effects of postoperative cognitive training on POCD and HQL 3 months after heart surgery. Here, we present the 12-month follow-up results. METHODS: This bicentric, 1:1 randomised and treatment-as-usual controlled trial included elderly patients scheduled for elective heart valve surgery. The training consisted of paper-and-pencil-based exercises practising multiple cognitive functions for 36 min/day 6 days/week over a period of 3 weeks. Neuropsychological tests and questionnaires assessing HQL (36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)) and cognitive failures in daily living (Cognitive Failures Questionnaire) were performed presurgery and 12 months after training. RESULTS: Twelve months post training, the training group (n=30) showed improvements in HQL compared with the control group (n=28), especially in role limitations due to physical health (U=-2.447, p=0.015, η2=0.109), role limitations due to emotional problems (U=-2.245, p=0.025, η2=0.092), pain (U=-1.979, p=0.049, η2=0.068), average of all SF-36 factors (U=-3.237, p<0.001, η2=0.181), health change from the past year to the present time (U=-2.091, p=0.037, η2=0.075), physical component summary (U=-2.803, p=0.005, η2=0.138), and mental component summary (U=-2.350, p=0.018, η2=0.095). Furthermore, the training group (n=19) showed an improvement compared with the control group (n=27) in visual recognition memory (U=-2.137, p=0.034, η2=0.099). POCD frequency was 22% (n=6) in the control group and 11% (n=2) in the training group (χ²(1) =1.06, p=0.440; OR=2.43, 95% CI 0.43 to 13.61). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, postoperative cognitive training shows enhancing effects on HQL in cardiac surgery patients after 12 months.

Midterm Survival of Low-Risk Patients Treated With Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

Background We performed a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR versus SAVR) to evaluate midterm outcomes in patients considered low risk for SAVR. Methods and Results Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of RCTs and PSM studies published by December 31, 2022 was conducted. Eight studies (3 RCTs, 5 PSM studies) met our eligibility criteria and included 5444 patients; 2639 patients underwent TAVR, and 2805 patients underwent SAVR. TAVR showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality at 8 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, [95% CI, 1.03-1.43], P=0.018). Up to 2 years of follow-up, TAVR was not inferior to SAVR (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.89-1.31], P=0.448); however, we observed a statistically significant difference after 2 years with higher mortality with TAVR (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14-2.00]; P=0.004). This difference was driven by PSM studies; our sensitivity analysis showed a statistically significant difference between TAVR and SAVR when we included only PSM studies (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.16-1.72], P=0.001) but no statistically significant difference when we included only RCTs (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.69-1.16], P=0.398). Conclusions In comparison with TAVR, SAVR appeared to be associated with improved survival beyond 2 years in low-risk patients. However, the survival benefit of SAVR was observed only in PSM studies and not in RCTs. The addition of data from ongoing RCTs as well as longer follow-up in previous RCTs will help to confirm if there is a difference in mid- and long-term survival between TAVR versus SAVR in the low-risk population.

Clinical Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Mechanical or Biological Prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may impair functional capacity and survival after aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PPM on long-term survival and quality of life after mechanical and biological aortic valve replacement. METHODS: This study included 595 consecutive patients who had undergone isolated aortic valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to prosthesis type. The baseline and operative characteristics, survival rates, complications, and quality of life of the groups with and without PPM were compared for up to 6 years. The PPM calculation was performed using the effective orifice area value provided by the manufacturer divided by the patient's body surface area. RESULTS: The moderate to severe PPM rates were 69.8% and 3.7% after biological and mechanical prosthesis implantation, respectively. Mean survival for patients in the biological group who had PPM was statistically significantly shorter (50.2 months [95% CI, 45.2-55.3]) than for patients in the biological group without PPM (60.1 months [95% CI, 55.7-64.4]; P = .04). In the mechanical prosthesis group, there was no difference in mean survival between the subgroup with PPM (66.6 months [95% CI, 58.3-74.9]) and the subgroup without PPM (64.9 months [95% CI, 62.6-67.2]; P = .50). A quality-of-life questionnaire's scores did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Mismatch is common after biological valve implantation and statistically significantly affects long-term survival and quality of life. If the risk of PPM after implantation of a biological prosthesis is suspected, adopting strategies to avoid PPM at the time of surgery is warranted.

Late Survival After Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Balloon- Versus Self-Expandable Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement. There is an increasing interest in exploring the differences between self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs). Our study aimed to evaluate the all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV in patients with failed bioprostheses. We performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by March 30, 2023. A total of 5 studies met our eligibility criteria and included 1,454 patients who underwent ViV-TAVI (862 with SEV and 592 with BEV). Almost all BEVs were iterations of the Edwards BEVs (SAPIEN, SAPIEN XT, and SAPIEN 3) and almost all SEVs were iterations of the Medtronic SEVs (CoreValve/Evolut). During the first year after ViV-TAVI, 67 deaths (11.8%) occurred in patients treated with BEV compared with 92 deaths (11.1%) in patients treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.27, p = 0.632). At 8 years of follow-up, the all-cause death was not statistically significantly different between the groups, with mortality rates of 65.4% in the group treated BEV and 58.8% in the group treated with SEV (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.09, p = 0.302). The restricted mean survival time was overall 0.25 years greater with SEV than BEV, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.278), which indicates no lifetime gain or loss with SEV in comparison with BEV. There seems to be no difference in terms of all-cause death in ViV-TAVI with SEV versus BEV. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our results.

Impact of gender, ethnicity and social deprivation on access to surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis: a retrospective database study in England.

OBJECTIVE: To assess gender, ethnicity, and deprivation-based differences in provision of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in England for adults with aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: We retrospectively identified adults with AS from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between April 2016 and March 2019 and those who subsequently had an AVR. We separately used HES-linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify people with AVR and evaluate the timeliness of their procedure (CPRD-AVR cohort). ORs for AVR in people with an AS diagnosis were estimated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, region and comorbidity. AVR was considered timely if performed electively and without evidence of cardiac decompensation before AVR. RESULTS: 183 591 adults with AS were identified in HES; of these, 31 436 underwent AVR. The CPRD-AVR cohort comprised 10 069 adults. Women had lower odds of receiving AVR compared with men (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.66); as did people of black (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82) or South Asian (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) compared with people of white ethnicities. People in the most deprived areas were less likely to receive AVR than the least deprived areas (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86). Timely AVR occurred in 65% of those of white ethnicities compared with 55% of both those of black and South Asian ethnicities. 77% of the least deprived had a timely procedure compared with 58% of the most deprived; there was no gender difference. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, national dataset, female gender, black or South Asian ethnicities and high deprivation were associated with significantly reduced odds of receiving AVR in England. A lower proportion of people of minority ethnicities or high deprivation had a timely procedure. Public health initiatives may be required to increase clinician and public awareness of unconscious biases towards minority and vulnerable populations to ensure timely AVR for everyone.

Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Aortic Root Replacement With Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

Background An aspect not so clear in the scenario of aortic surgery is how patients fare after composite aortic valve graft replacement (CAVGR) depending on the type of valve (bioprosthetic versus mechanical). We performed a study to evaluate the long-term outcomes of both strategies comparatively. Methods and Results Pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data from studies with follow-up for overall survival (all-cause death), event-free survival (composite end point of cardiac death, valve-related complications, stroke, bleeding, embolic events, and/or endocarditis), and freedom from reintervention. Twenty-three studies met our eligibility criteria, including 11 428 patients (3786 patients with mechanical valves and 7642 patients with bioprosthetic valve). The overall population was mostly composed of men (mean age, 45.5-75.6 years). In comparison with patients who underwent CAVGR with bioprosthetic valves, patients undergoing CAVGR with mechanical valves presented no statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause death in the first 30 days after the procedure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24 [95% CI, 0.95-1.60]; P=0.109), but they had a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality after the 30-day time point (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.99]; P=0.039) and lower risk of reintervention (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24-0.45]; P<0.001). Despite its increased risk for the composite end point in the first 6 years of follow-up (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.09-1.82]; P=0.009), CAVGR with mechanical valves is associated with a lower risk for the composite end point after the 6-year time point (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.31-0.67]; P<0.001). Conclusions CAVGR with mechanical valves is associated with better long-term outcomes in comparison with CAVGR with bioprosthetic valves.

Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of adverse outcomes following aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of frailty prior to aortic valve intervention is recommended in European and North American valvular heart disease guidelines. However, there is a lack of consensus on how it is best measured. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a well-validated measure of frailty that is relatively quick to calculate. This meta-analysis sought to examine whether the CFS predicts mortality and morbidity following either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: Nine electronic databases were searched systematically for data on clinical outcomes post-TAVI/SAVR, where patients had undergone preoperative frailty assessment using the CFS. The primary endpoint was 12-month mortality. TAVI and SAVR data were assessed and reported separately. For each individual study, the incidence of adverse outcomes was extracted according to a CFS score of 5-9 (ie, frail) versus 1-4 (ie, non-frail), with meta-analysis performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Of 2612 records screened, nine were included in the review (five TAVI, three SAVR and one which included both interventions). Among 4923 TAVI patients, meta-analysis showed 12-month mortality rates of 19.1% for the frail cohort versus 9.8% for the non-frail cohort (RR 2.53 (1.63 to 3.95), p<0.001, I2=83%). For the smaller cohort of SAVR patients (n=454), mortality rates were 20.3% versus 3.9% for the frail and non-frail cohorts, respectively (RR 5.08 (2.31 to 11.15), p<0.001, I2=5%). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty, as determined by the CFS, was associated with an increased mortality risk in the 12 months following either TAVI or SAVR. These data would support its use in the preoperative assessment of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve interventions.

Relationship between the aortic root and the atrioventricular conduction axis.

Damage to the atrioventricular conduction axis continues to be a problem subsequent to transcatheter implantation of aortic valvar prostheses. Accurate knowledge of the precise relationships of the conduction axis relative to the aortic root could greatly reduce the risk of such problems. Current diagrams highlighting these relationships rightly focus on the membranous septum. The current depictions, however, overlook a potentially important relationship between the superior fascicle of the left bundle branch and the nadir of the semilunar hinge of the right coronary leaflet of the aortic valve. Recent histological investigations demonstrate, in many instances, a very close relationship between the left bundle branch and the right coronary aortic leaflet. The findings also highlight two additional variable features, which can be revealed by clinical imaging. The first of these is the extent of an inferoseptal recess of the left ventricular outflow tract. The second is the extent of rotation of the aortic root within the base of the left ventricle. Much more of the conduction axis is within the confines of the circumference of the outflow tract when the root is rotated in counterclockwise fashion as assessed from the perspective of the imager, with this finding itself associated with a much narrower inferoseptal recess. A clear understanding of the marked variability within the aortic root is key to avoiding future problems with atrioventricular conduction.

Antithrombotic therapy after heart valve intervention: review of mechanisms, evidence and current guidance.

As the population ages and treatment options for heart valve disease increase, the number of patients with intracardiac valve prostheses is growing rapidly. Although all devices have the potential to cause thrombus formation, the propensity depends on the type of prosthesis as well as risk of the individual patient. Mechanical valve prostheses carry the highest (and persistent) risk of thromboembolism, and these patients require anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (warfarin). Required international normalised ratio levels are dependent on the location of the valve (mitral>aortic), type of valve (ball and cage vs bilealfet vs On-X bilealfet) and rhythm. The risk of tissue (biological) prosthesis is highest soon after surgery and is dependent on individual patient risk including age, valve location (mitral>aortic), history of thromboembolic events and rhythm. In patients with no other indication for anticoagulation, there is uncertainty on the benefits of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in patients with tissue prostheses or repaired native valves. Patients with an a priori indication for anticoagulation with a direct oral anticoagulant can continue taking this class of drug. Patients with transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices and no additional evidence-based indication for dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation can be maintained on aspirin monotherapy. Patients undergoing transcatheter instrumentation in the mitral valve position should be anticoagulated, although there is currently no published evidence for antithrombotic management in this group of patients. Patients with thrombosed devices (commonly mitral mechanical) should preferably be treated surgically. Patients at high risk of thromboembolism (with mechanical prostheses) should undergo bridging therapy when undergoing surgery.