Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear. Objective: To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019. Interventions: TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation. Results: Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of -2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.2%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173.

Reintervention and Survival After Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) replacement (TPVR) has become the standard therapy for postoperative pulmonary outflow tract dysfunction in patients with a prosthetic conduit/valve, but there is limited information about risk factors for death or reintervention after this procedure. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate mid- and long-term outcomes after TPVR in a large multicenter cohort. METHODS: International registry focused on time-related outcomes after TPVR. RESULTS: Investigators submitted data for 2,476 patients who underwent TPVR and were followed up for 8,475 patient-years. A total of 95 patients died after TPVR, most commonly from heart failure (n = 24). The cumulative incidence of death was 8.9% (95% CI: 6.9%-11.5%) 8 years after TPVR. On multivariable analysis, age at TPVR (HR: 1.04 per year; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06 per year; P < 0.001), a prosthetic valve in other positions (HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.2-3.7; P = 0.014), and an existing transvenous pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.4; P = 0.004) were associated with death. A total of 258 patients underwent TPV reintervention. At 8 years, the cumulative incidence of any TPV reintervention was 25.1% (95% CI: 21.8%-28.5%) and of surgical TPV reintervention was 14.4% (95% CI: 11.9%-17.2%). Risk factors for surgical reintervention included age (0.95 per year [95% CI: 0.93-0.97 per year]; P < 0.001), prior endocarditis (2.5 [95% CI: 1.4-4.3]; P = 0.001), TPVR into a stented bioprosthetic valve (1.7 [95% CI: 1.2-2.5]; P = 0.007), and postimplant gradient (1.4 per 10 mm Hg [95% CI: 1.2-1.7 per 10 mm Hg]: P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the conclusion that survival and freedom from reintervention or surgery after TPVR are generally comparable to outcomes of surgical conduit/valve replacement across a wide age range.

Aortic valve replacement via right anterolateral minithoracotomy: preventing adverse events during the initial learning curve.

BACKGROUND: Despite excellent outcomes and reduced invasiveness, the right anterolateral thoracotomy approach for aortic valve replacement (RALT-AVR) has not been broadly adopted. This study provides results regarding the initial experience and learning curve of a single surgeon performing this procedure. METHODS: Periprocedural details and postoperative outcomes of the first 100 consecutive patients who underwent RALT-AVR at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. We conducted a cumulative sum analysis of surgical failure, defined as occurrence of 30-day-mortality, surgical revision for bleeding, conversion to sternotomy, 3rd degree heart block, paravalvular leakage, postoperative stroke or mean transvalvular gradient >20 mmHg. RESULTS: The cohort was of low surgical risk (mean EuroSCORE II 1.31%±0.85, mean STS PROM 1.45%±0.97), 58% were males. Median cross-clamp time was 67.5 (57.8-76) min, median CPB time 105 (91.8-119) min, and median operation time 164.5 (144.5-183.2) min. There were no conversions to full sternotomy, 4 cases of revision for bleeding and 2 pacemaker implantations for 3rd degree heart block. Prosthesis function was good (median ΔPmean 10.9 [7.4-13.6] mmHg). Thirty-day-mortality was 0%. The log-likelihood graph never crossed the upper boundary, and after a steady decrease, crossed the lower boundary at 93 patients. CONCLUSIONS: RALT-AVR can be performed with acceptable procedural times and satisfactory outcomes. For a well-trained surgeon, adapting to this new procedure does not expose patients to an increased risk, when patient selection and procedural planning are applied appropriately. Cumulative sum failure analysis is an appropriate tool to monitor the transition from standard AVR to the technically more demanding RALT-AVR.

Prosthesis Selection for Aortic Valve Replacement With Concomitant Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: The optimal prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is controversial. We investigated postoperative outcomes in these patients with a biological prosthesis or mechanical prosthesis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed of 2485 patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent AVR+CABG in Hubei province hospitals from 2002 to 2018. The median follow-up duration was 6.5 years (interquartile range, 0-15.8 years). Propensity score matching for 18 baseline characteristics yielded 346 patient pairs between bioprosthetic and mechanical prosthetic groups. End points were death, stroke, major bleeding event, and reoperation. RESULTS: No differences in survival, stroke, or overall reoperation rates were observed between the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve groups. The 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to prosthesis failure/dysfunction was higher in the bioprosthetic group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-5.88; P = .011), whereas the 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to coronary artery disease progression/bypass failure was similar between 2 groups (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.37-1.57; P = .459). Mechanical valves were associated with a higher 15-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding events compared with bioprosthetic valves (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.16-3.19; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival, overall reoperation, or stroke incidence was comparable among the 2 groups, while patients with a mechanical valve showed a greater likelihood of major bleeding events. Regarding the limited durability of bioprosthetic valves, a larger sample size monitored for 15 or more years will be necessary to determine the optimal aortic valve prosthesis for patients aged 50 to 69 years undergoing concurrent AVR and CABG.

Rheumatic mitral valve repair or replacement in the valve-in-valve era.

OBJECTIVE: For degenerative mitral disease, repair is superior to replacement; however, the best operative strategy for rheumatic mitral disease remains unclear. We evaluated the association between decision-making in choosing repair versus replacement and outcomes across 2 decades of rheumatic mitral surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated, first-time rheumatic mitral surgery were identified. Era 1 (1997-2008) and Era 2 (2009-2018) were distinguished by intraoperative assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification (Era 2) in deciding between mitral repair versus replacement. Primary outcome was a composite of death, reoperation, and severe valve dysfunction. RESULTS: Among 180 patients, age was 59 ± 14 years, and ejection fraction was 58% ± 10%. A higher proportion in Era 1 (n = 56) compared with Era 2 (n = 124) had preoperative atrial fibrillation (68% vs 46%; P = .006); the groups were otherwise similar. Primary indication was mitral stenosis in 69% (124 out of 180; pure = 35, mixed = 89) and did not differ by era (P = .67). During Era 1, 70% (39 out of 56) underwent repair, compared with 33% (41 out of 124) during Era 2 (P < .001). Freedom from death, reoperation, or severe valve dysfunction at 5 years was higher in Era 2 (72% ± 9%) than Era 1 (54% ± 13%; P = .04). Five-year survival was higher in Era 2 than Era 1, but did not differ between repair versus replacement. Five-year cumulative incidence of reoperation with death as a competing risk did not differ by era, but was higher after repair than replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Careful assessment of anterior leaflet mobility/calcification to determine mitral repair or replacement was associated with improved outcomes. This decision-making strategy may alter the threshold for rheumatic mitral replacement in the current valve-in-valve era.

Treatment options for ischemic mitral regurgitation: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is in evolution, as percutaneous procedures and complex surgical repair have been recently investigated in randomized clinical trials and matched studies. This study aims to review and compare the current treatment options for IMR. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using electronic databases. The primary outcome was all-cause long-term mortality. The secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, unplanned rehospitalization, reoperation, and composite end points as defined in the original articles. RESULTS: A total of 12 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. The MitraClip procedure did not confer a significant benefit in mortality and repeated hospitalization compared with medical therapy alone. In patients with moderate IMR, the adjunct of mitral procedure over coronary artery bypass graft is not associated with clinical improvements. When evaluating mitral valve (MV) replacement versus repair, hospital mortality was greater among patients undergoing replacement (odds ratio [OR], 1.91; P = .009), but both reoperation and readmission rates were lower (OR, 0.60, P = .05; and OR, 0.45, P < .02, respectively). Comparing restrictive annuloplasty alone with adjunctive subvalvular repair, subvalvular procedures resulted in fewer readmissions (OR, 0.50; P = .06) and adverse composite end points (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: MitraClip procedure is not associated with improved outcomes compared with medical therapy. MV replacement is associated with increased early mortality but reduced reoperation rate and readmission rate compared with MV repair using annuloplasty in moderate-to-severe IMR. Despite no significant benefit in isolated outcomes comparing annular and adjunct subvalvular procedures, the adjunct of subvalvular procedures reduces the risk of major postoperative adverse events.

Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valves in elderly patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: A multi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVE: This multi-institutional study compares the long-term outcome of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and an intermediate risk profile undergoing sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS: From 2008 to 2015, 967 elderly patients (>75 years) with intermediate risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%-8%) and isolated aortic stenosis were included in the study (sutureless valve = 481; transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 486). After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups of 291 patients were obtained. Transcatheter valves implanted in patients were the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn), Edwards SAPIEN-XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif), and Acurate-TA (Symetis, Lausanne, Switzerland). Primary end points included all-cause death at 30 days and 5 years. Secondary end points included early and 5-year incidence of composite adverse events (major adverse cardiovascular events: all-cause death, stroke, pacemaker implant, myocardial infarction, paravalvular leak ≥II, and reoperation). RESULTS: After matching, there were no substantial differences between groups. The 30-day mortality was significantly lower in the sutureless valve group (sutureless valve = 1.7% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 5.5%; P = .024) and the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (sutureless valve = 5.5% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 10.7%, P = .032). Stroke/transient ischemic attack cumulative incidence at 5 years was 1.4% in the sutureless valve group and 5.3% in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (P = .010). The incidence of perivalvular leak grade II or greater was 1.3% in the sutureless valve group and 9.8% in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (P < .001). At 60 months follow-up, the all-cause death rate was lower in the sutureless valve group than in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (sutureless valve = 16.1% ± 4.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 28.9% ± 5.3%, P = .006), and the major adverse cardiovascular event rate was lower in the sutureless valve group (sutureless valve = 23.5% ± 4.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 39.0% ± 5.6%, P = .002). Multivariable Cox regression identified transcatheter aortic valve implantation as an independent predictor for 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.86; confidence interval, 1.09-3.18; P = .022) (hazard ratio, 1.73; confidence interval, 1.13-2.73; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valves improved the outcomes of aortic stenosis in elderly patients with an intermediate risk profile when compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in this subset population should be evaluated in further controlled randomized trials with sutureless valve use in a comparative cohort.

Incidence, Cause, and Outcome of Reinterventions After Aortic Root Replacement.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to comprehensively characterize details of aortic and aortic valve reinterventions after aortic root replacement (ARR). METHODS: Between 2005 and 2019, 882 patients underwent ARR. Indications were aneurysm in 666, aortic valve related in 116, aortic dissection in 64, and infective endocarditis (IE) in 36. Valve-sparing root replacement was performed in 290 patients, whereas a Bio-Bentall procedure was done in 528. Among them, 52 patients (5.9%) required reintervention. The incidence, cause, and time to reintervention and the outcomes after reintervention were investigated. A cause-specific Cox hazard model was performed to identify predictors for reintervention after ARR. RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative incidence of aortic and aortic valve reintervention after ARR was 10.3% (95% confidence interval, 7.3%-14.0%). Age per year decrease was the only independent predictor for reintervention (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.99). The causes for 52 reinterventions were aortic valve causes in 29 patients (55.8%), including aortic stenosis/insufficiency, and prosthetic valve dysfunction; IE in 15 (28.9%); aortic-related causes in 7 (13.5%), including pseudoaneurysm, development of aneurysm, and residual dissection; and coronary button pseudoaneurysm in 1 (1.9%). Median time to reintervention was 11.0 months (interquartile range, 2.0-20.5) for IE, 24.0 months (interquartile range, 3.7-46.1) for aortic-related causes, and 77.0 months (interquartile range, 28.4-97.6) for aortic valve-related causes (P = .005). Overall in-hospital mortality after the reinterventions was 7.7% (4/52) with 20.0% for IE (3/15). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention for IE occurred relatively early after ARR, whereas aortic valve- and aortic-related reinterventions gradually increased over time. In-hospital mortality after the reintervention was low, with the exception of IE.

The Outcomes of the Inclusion Ross in Select Patients Aged ≥ 50 Years, Compared to a Younger Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Ross procedure is rarely considered in older patients. The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients aged 50 years and older with younger patients after the Ross procedure. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2018, 455 patients underwent the Ross procedure utilizing the inclusion technique. Patients with redo surgery, nonaortic procedures, and unsupported root replacement were excluded. The remaining were matched for native valve morphology, valve lesion, and annular manipulation and yielded 96 matched pairs. Preoperative and operative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, survival rates, valve-related adverse events, and valve hemodynamics were assessed. RESULTS: There was no in-hospital mortality. The median follow-up was 11 years for both cohorts. Overall survival at 15 years was similar: 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89.8%-99.8%) for patients aged ≥50 years and 98% (95% CI 89.3-99.7%) for younger patients. Patients 50 years and older had a notable freedom from Ross-related reintervention at 15 years: 94% (95% CI 84.8%-97.7%) vs 90% (95% CI 80.2%-95.6%) in younger patients. The mixed model analysis revealed that being 50 years and older was not significantly associated with higher autograft gradient or regurgitation. Interestingly, being 50 years and older correlated with decreased allograft regurgitation and stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients undergoing the Ross procedure had comparable outcomes to younger patients. Patients aged 50 years and over who are high-functioning with minimal comorbidities should be considered for the Ross procedure.

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Non-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Centers: Implications for Tier-Based Systems of Care.

BACKGROUND: With wide expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and dissemination of multidisciplinary-based approaches to care, societies are discussing the implementation of a tier system to valve centers. This study explores the impact of tier-based systems of care on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) outcomes at institutions that perform SAVR only. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SAVR procedures from 2012 to 2015 were included. The SAVR hospitals were stratified into either tier A, valve centers with a TAVR program; or tier B, valve centers without a TAVR program. Adjusted survival, assessed by multivariable Cox regression, controlled for program type and patient risk profile. Time-dependent analysis accounted for hospitals that initiated a TAVR program during the study period. RESULTS: Overall, there were 562 tier A and 485 tier B SAVR hospitals. Tier A hospitals had significantly higher comorbidity burden compared with tier B hospitals (all P < .05) but had significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (3.2% vs 4.1%) and 1-year mortality (8.1% vs 9.4%; both P < .05). After risk stratification, tier B hospitals had significantly worse 30-day mortality compared with tier A hospitals for all patient risk-profiles, except for the low-risk patients (P < .01). These findings persisted in the time-dependent analysis. Adjusted midterm survival was higher in tier A vs tier B hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk patients can safely undergo SAVR in both tier level hospitals without compromising outcomes. Establishment of quality of care measures, especially in the SAVR-only hospitals, remains paramount and should be closely integrated when designing tier-based systems for aortic valve replacement care.

Derivation and validation of predictive indices for 30-day mortality after coronary and valvular surgery in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are the 2 most common cardiac surgery procedures in North America. We derived and externally validated clinical models to estimate the likelihood of death within 30 days of CABG, AVR or combined CABG + AVR. METHODS: We obtained data from the CorHealth Ontario Cardiac Registry and several linked population health administrative databases from Ontario, Canada. We derived multiple logistic regression models from all adult patients who underwent CABG, AVR or combined CABG + AVR from April 2017 to March 2019, and validated them in 2 temporally distinct cohorts (April 2015 to March 2017 and April 2019 to March 2020). RESULTS: The derivation cohorts included 13 435 patients who underwent CABG (30-d mortality 1.73%), 1970 patients who underwent AVR (30-d mortality 1.68%) and 1510 patients who underwent combined CABG + AVR (30-d mortality 3.05%). The final models for predicting 30-day mortality included 15 variables for patients undergoing CABG, 5 variables for patients undergoing AVR and 5 variables for patients undergoing combined CABG + AVR. Model discrimination was excellent for the CABG (c-statistic 0.888, optimism-corrected 0.866) AVR (c-statistic 0.850, optimism-corrected 0.762) and CABG + AVR (c-statistic 0.844, optimism-corrected 0.776) models, with similar results in the validation cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Our models, leveraging readily available, multidimensional data sources, computed accurate risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates for CABG, AVR and combined CABG + AVR, with discrimination comparable to more complex American and European models. The ability to accurately predict perioperative mortality rates for these procedures will be valuable for quality improvement initiatives across institutions.

Markers of Myocardial Damage Predict Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used for risk stratification in aortic stenosis (AS). However, the relative prognostic power of CMR markers and their respective thresholds remains undefined. OBJECTIVES: Using machine learning, the study aimed to identify prognostically important CMR markers in AS and their thresholds of mortality. METHODS: Patients with severe AS undergoing AVR (n = 440, derivation; n = 359, validation cohort) were prospectively enrolled across 13 international sites (median 3.8 years' follow-up). CMR was performed shortly before surgical or transcatheter AVR. A random survival forest model was built using 29 variables (13 CMR) with post-AVR death as the outcome. RESULTS: There were 52 deaths in the derivation cohort and 51 deaths in the validation cohort. The 4 most predictive CMR markers were extracellular volume fraction, late gadolinium enhancement, indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDVi), and right ventricular ejection fraction. Across the whole cohort and in asymptomatic patients, risk-adjusted predicted mortality increased strongly once extracellular volume fraction exceeded 27%, while late gadolinium enhancement >2% showed persistent high risk. Increased mortality was also observed with both large (LVEDVi >80 mL/m2) and small (LVEDVi ≤55 mL/m2) ventricles, and with high (>80%) and low (≤50%) right ventricular ejection fraction. The predictability was improved when these 4 markers were added to clinical factors (3-year C-index: 0.778 vs 0.739). The prognostic thresholds and risk stratification by CMR variables were reproduced in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning identified myocardial fibrosis and biventricular remodeling markers as the top predictors of survival in AS and highlighted their nonlinear association with mortality. These markers may have potential in optimizing the decision of AVR.

Association Between Patient Survival and Clinician Variability in Treatment Rates for Aortic Valve Stenosis.

Background Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (ssAS) have a high mortality risk and compromised quality of life. Surgical/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a Class I recommendation, but it is unclear if this recommendation is uniformly applied. We determined the impact of managing cardiologists on the likelihood of ssAS treatment. Methods and Results Using natural language processing of Optum electronic health records, we identified 26 438 patients with newly diagnosed ssAS (2011-2016). Multilevel, multivariable Fine-Gray competing risk models clustered by cardiologists were used to determine the impact of cardiologists on the likelihood of 1-year AVR treatment. Within 1 year of diagnosis, 35.6% of patients with ssAS received an AVR; however, rates varied widely among managing cardiologists (0%, lowest quartile; 100%, highest quartile [median, 29.6%; 25th-75th percentiles, 13.3%-47.0%]). The odds of receiving AVR varied >2-fold depending on the cardiologist (median odds ratio for AVR, 2.25; 95% CI, 2.14-2.36). Compared with patients with ssAS of cardiologists with the highest treatment rates, those treated by cardiologists with the lowest AVR rates experienced significantly higher 1-year mortality (lowest quartile, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.13-1.33). Conclusions Overall AVR rates for ssAS were low, highlighting a potential challenge for ssAS management in the United States. Cardiologist AVR use varied substantially; patients treated by cardiologists with lower AVR rates had higher mortality rates than those treated by cardiologists with higher AVR rates.

Stroke Severity in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: An assessment of the comparative incidence of fatal or disabling stroke may influence choice of intervention for patients with severe aortic stenosis. We explored whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with a lower incidence of fatal or disabling stroke, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). MATERIALS & METHODS: We classified stroke into two categories; fatal or disabling, or non-disabling, and completed meta-analyses for each. We explored randomised controlled trials to assess the effect publication year, predicted operative risk, and route of TAVI access. RESULTS: There was no difference between treatment groups per 100 person years of follow up for disabling or non-disabling stroke outcomes. In a stratified analysis by year of publication, there was a lower rate of fatal or disabling stroke with TAVI in trials published after 2015, compared to those published in 2015 or before (p-interaction = 0.01 at 30 days). Higher proportions of transfemoral route access (>90%), more common in recent trials, were associated with a lower rate of fatal or disabling stroke (p-interaction = 0.03 at 30 days). Lower average surgical risk scores were associated with lower rates of fatal or disabling stroke (p = 0.02 at 30 days). CONCLUSION: We found that treatment of aortic stenosis with TAVI compared with SAVR was not associated with an overall reduced risk in fatal or disabling stroke. Subgroup analyses suggested a lower risk of fatal or disabling stroke with TAVI in situations which reflect contemporary practice.

Endoscopic repeat isolated tricuspid valve surgery after left-sided valve replacement: valvuloplasty or replacement.

BACKGROUND: The strategy of isolated tricuspid valve surgery has undergone innovations in recent years. This study aimed to summarize our experience using an endoscopic approach to repeat isolated tricuspid valve surgery (RITS) after left-sided valve replacement (LSVR). METHODS: From June 2013 to May 2019, 79 patients underwent endoscopic RITS after LSVR at our institution. Patients were divided into the tricuspid valvuloplasty (TVP) group (N.=49) and the tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) group (N.=30); perioperative outcomes and follow-up results were compared. RESULTS: There were seven postoperative deaths (8.9%). In-hospital mortality was higher in the TVR group than in the TVP group, although this difference was not statistically significant (13.3% vs. 6.1%, P=0.417). More patients experienced residual moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) at discharge in the TVP group than in the TVR group (26.7% vs. 0%, P=0.003). Five patients died from heart, and multiorgan failure during follow-up; the overall 3- and 5-year survival rates were 93.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): (87.1-99.9%)] and 85.3% (95% CI: 73.3-99.2%), respectively, and no significant differences were found between the two groups (P=0.103). The overall rates of the 3- and 5-year freedom from severe recurrent TR were 93.2% (95% CI: 85.9-99.9%) and 89.0% (78.7-99.9%), respectively, and no significant difference was found between groups (P=0.176). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat isolated tricuspid valve surgery after left-sided valve replacement is associated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Endoscopic access offers an alternative approach for RITS after LSVR with acceptable results. TVP results in lower surgical mortality than TVR while carrying a higher risk of residual moderate-to-severe TR.

The Choice of Pulmonary Autograft in Aortic Valve Surgery: A State-of-the-Art Primer.

The Ross procedure has long been seen as an optimal operation for a select few. The detractors of it highlight the issue of an additional harvesting of the pulmonary artery, subjecting the native PA to systemic pressures and the need for reintervention as reasons to avoid it. However, the PA is a living tissue and capable of adapting and remodeling to growth. We therefore review the current evidence available to discuss the indications, contraindications, harvesting techniques, and modifications in a state-of-the-art narrative review of the PA as an aortic conduit. Due to the lack of substantial well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we also highlight the areas of need to reiterate the importance of the Ross procedure as part of the surgical armamentarium.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: The impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following heart valve surgery is uncertain. We conducted an update of this systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess randomised controlled trial evidence for the use of exercise-based CR following heart valve surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based CR compared with no exercise training in adults following heart valve surgery or repair, including both percutaneous and surgical procedures. We considered CR programmes consisting of exercise training with or without another intervention (such as an intervention with a psycho-educational component). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) on the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) on 10 January 2020. We searched for ongoing trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical-trials.com, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 15 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with no exercise training. Trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and had received heart valve replacement or heart valve repair. Both percutaneous and surgical procedures were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluating risk domains using the 'Risk of bias' (RoB2) tool. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We performed meta-analyses using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials with a total of 364 participants who have had open or percutaneous heart valve surgery. For this updated review, we identified four additional trials (216 participants). One trial had an overall low risk of bias, and we classified the remaining five trials as having some concerns. Follow-up ranged across included trials from 3 to 24 months. Based on data at longest follow-up, a total of nine participants died: 4 CR versus 5 control (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.68; 2 trials, 131 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). No trials reported on cardiovascular mortality. One trial reported one cardiac-related hospitalisation in the CR group and none in the control group (RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.11 to 65.56; 1 trial, 122 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). We are uncertain about health-related quality of life at completion of the intervention in CR compared to control (Short Form (SF)-12/36 mental component: mean difference (MD) 1.28, 95% CI -1.60 to 4.16; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD 2.99, 95% CI -5.24 to 11.21; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low), or at longest follow-up (SF-12/36 mental component: MD -1.45, 95% CI -4.70 to 1.80; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD -0.87, 95% CI -3.57 to 1.83; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of evidence and the very low quality of available evidence, this updated review is uncertain about the impact of exercise-CR in this population in terms of mortality, hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life. High-quality (low risk of bias) evidence on the impact of CR is needed to inform clinical guidelines and routine practice.