Using tissue mitral valves in younger patients: A word of caution.

BACKGROUND: The debate about the optimal mitral valve prosthesis continues. We aimed to compare the early and late outcomes, including stroke, bleeding, survival, and reoperation after isolated mitral valve replacement (MVR) using tissue versus mechanical valves. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 291 patients who had isolated MVR from 2005 to 2015. Patients were grouped into the tissue valve group (n = 140) and the mechanical valve group (n = 151). RESULTS: There were no differences in duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital stay, and hospital mortality between groups. Fifteen patients required cardiac rehospitalization, nine in the tissue valve group, and six in the mechanical valve group (p = .44). Stroke occurred in nine patients, five with tissue valves, and four with mechanical valves (p = .66). Bleeding occurred in 22 patients, seven patients with tissue valves, and 15 patients with mechanical valves (p = .09). Freedom from reoperation was 95%, 93%, 84%, 67% at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years for tissue valve and 97%, 96%, 96%, and 93% for mechanical valves, respectively (p˂ .001). The median follow-up was 84 months (Q1: Q3: 38-139). Survival at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years was 94%, 91%, 89%, 86% in tissue valves and 96%, 93%, 91%, 91% in mechanical valves, respectively (p = .49). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue valve degeneration is still an issue even in the new generations of mitral tissue valves. The significant risk of reoperation in patients with mitral tissue valves should be considered when using those valves in younger patients. Mechanical valves remain a valid option for all age groups.

Scores predicting atrial fibrillation after mitral valve surgery: Do we need a more specific score?

Background: Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery (POAF) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Several scores were used to predict POAF, with variable results. Thus, this study assessed the performance of several scoring systems to predict POAF after mitral valve surgery. Additionally, we identified the risk factors for POAF in those patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort included 1381 recruited from 2009 to 2021. The patients underwent mitral valve surgery, and POAF occurred in 233 (16.87%) patients. The performance of CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, POAF, EuroSCORE II, and HATCH scores was evaluated. Results: The median age was higher in patients who developed POAF (60 vs. 54 years; p < .001). CHA2-DS2-VASc, POAF, EuroSCORE II, and HATCH scores significantly predicted POAF, with areas under the curve of the receiver operator curve (AUCROC) of 0.56, 0.61, 0.58, and 0.54, respectively. We identified age > 58 years, body mass index > 28 kg/m2, creatinine clearance < 90 mL/min, reoperative surgery, and preoperative inotropic and intra-aortic balloon pump use as predictors of POAF. We constructed a score from these variables (PSCC-AF). A score > 2 significantly predicted POAF (p < .001). The AUCROC of this score was 0.67, which was significantly higher than the AUCROC of the POAF score (p = .009). Conclusion: POAF after mitral valve surgery can be predicted based on preoperative patient characteristics. The new PSCC-AF score significantly predicted POAF after mitral valve surgery and can serve as a bedside diagnostic tool for POAF risk screening. Further studies are needed to validate the PSCC-AF-mitral score externally.

Long-Term Effects of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation following Mitral Valve Surgery.

BACKGROUND: New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (PoAF) is one of the most frequent yet serious complications following cardiac surgery. Long-term consequences have not been thoroughly investigated, and studies have included different cardiac operations. The objectives were to report the incidence and short- and long-term outcomes in patients with PoAF after mitral valve surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 1401 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery from 2009 to 2020. Patients were grouped according to the occurrence of PoAF (n = 236) and the nonoccurrence of PoAF (n = 1165). Long-term outcomes included mortality, heart failure rehospitalization, stroke, and mitral valve reinterventions. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PoAF was 16.8%. PoAF was associated with higher rates of operative mortality (8.9% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001), stroke (6.9% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001), and dialysis (13.6% vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001). ICU and hospital stays were significantly longer in patients with PoAF (p < 0.001 for both). PoAF was significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality [HR: 1.613 (95% CI: 1.048-2.483); p = 0.03], heart failure rehospitalization [HR: 2.156 (95% CI: 1.276-3.642); p = 0.004], and stroke [HR: 2.722 (95% CI: 1.321-5.607); p = 0.007]. However, PoAF was not associated with increased mitral valve reinterventions [HR: 0.938 (95% CI: 0.422-2.087); p = 0.875]. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial fibrillation after mitral valve surgery is a common complication, with an increased risk of operative mortality. PoAF was associated with lower long-term survival, increased heart failure rehospitalization, and stroke risk. Future studies are needed to evaluate strategies that can be implemented to improve the outcomes of these patients.

Mechanical Tricuspid Valves Have Higher Rate of Reintervention: A Single Center Experience.

PURPOSE: We compared the composite outcome of tricuspid valve (TV) reintervention or heart failure (HF) admission in patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) with tissue vs. mechanical valves. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 159 patients who underwent TVR from 2009 to 2019. We grouped the patients according to the valve's type into tissue valve group (n = 139) and mechanical valve group (n = 20). RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 52.4 ± 12.8 years, and 117 patients were females (73.6%). Hospital mortality occurred in 20 patients (12.6%); all of them were in the tissue valve group. The composite outcome of reintervention and HF readmission occurred in 8 patients with mechanical valves (40%) vs. 24 patients with tissue valves (17.3%), (P = 0.018). Predictors of reintervention and HF admission were female (subdistributional hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.38-34.3, P = 0.019), stroke (SHR: 1.25-8.76, P = 0.016), hypertension (SHR: 1.13-5.36, P = 0.024), and mechanical valves (SHR: 1.6-10.7, P = 0.003). In post hoc analysis, the difference in the composite outcome was derived from the difference in the reintervention rate that was higher in mechanical valves. Survival did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Mechanical TVs have a higher rate of composite outcome of reintervention or HF readmission than tissue TVs that are related mainly to higher rate of reintervention.

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Repeat Mitral Valve Replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement (rTMVR) has emerged as a new option for the management of high-risk patients unsuitable for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement (rSMVR). The aim of this study was to compare hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations after rTMVR versus surgical mitral valve replacement. METHODS: We compared patients who underwent rTMVR (n=22) from 2017 to 2019 (Group 1) to patients who underwent rSMVR (n=98) with or without tricuspid valve surgery from 2009 to 2019 (Group 2). We excluded patients who underwent a concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement or other concomitant surgery. RESULTS: Patients in Group 1 were significantly older (72.5 [67-78] vs. 57 [52-64] years, P<0.001). There was no diference in EuroSCORE II between groups (6.56 [5.47-8.04] vs. 6.74 [4.28-11.84], P=0.86). Implanted valve size was 26 (26-29) mm in Group 1 and 25 (25-27) mm in Group 2 (P=0.106). There was no diference in operative mortality between groups (P=0.46). However, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were shorter in Group 1 (P=0.03 and <0.001, respectively). NYHA class improved significantly in both groups at one year (P<0.001 for both groups). There was no group effect on survival (P=0.84) or cardiac readmission (P=0.26). However, reoperations were more frequent in Group 1 (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve could shorten ICU and hospital stay compared to rSMVR with a comparable mortality rate. rTMVR is a safe procedure; however, it has a higher risk of reoperation. rTMVR can be an option in selected high-risk patients.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the management of left ventricle thrombus.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban has been recently introduced for the management of non-valvular intra-cardiac thrombosis with variable results. We aimed to compare the results of the off-label use of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in the management of patients with left ventricle (LV) thrombus. This research is a retrospective study conducted on 63 patients who had LV thrombus from January to December 2016. We compared patients treated with warfarin (n=35) to patients who had rivaroxaban (n=28), and study outcomes were time to thrombus resolution, bleeding, stroke, and mortality. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was 9.5 (25th-75th percentiles: 6-32.5) months for rivaroxaban and 14 (3-41) months for warfarin. Thrombus resolution occurred in 24 patients in the warfarin group (68.6%) and 20 patients in the rivaroxaban group (71.4%). The median time to resolution in the warfarin group was 9 (4-20) months and 3 (2-11.5) months in the rivaroxaban group. Thrombus resolution was significantly faster in patients on rivaroxaban (p= 0.019). Predictors of thrombus resolution were thrombus surface area (HR: 1.21; CI 95% (1.0-1.46); p= .048) and the use of rivaroxaban (HR: 1.92; CI 95% (1.01-3.65); p= 0.048). There was no difference in stroke, bleeding, and mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban was as effective and safe as warfarin in managing patients with left ventricle thrombus. Larger randomized clinical trials are recommended to confirm our findings.

Pain perception assessment using the short-form McGill pain questionnaire after cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pain management remains an integral part of patient care after cardiac surgery, and it required proper pain assessment. The aim of the study was to assess pain perception using validated Arabic version of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and to identify analgesics prescribing patterns post cardiac surgery. METHODS: This is a prospective study conducted in an adult cardiac critical care unit of a tertiary cardiac center from September 2018 to March 2019. The study enrolled 74 patients who underwent cardiac surgical procedures through a median sternotomy. RESULTS: The mean age of our patients was 57 ± 11 years and 47 (63.5%) were males. Patients described post-cardiac surgery pain as heavy (n = 37; 50%) and tiring-exhausting (n = 49; 66%), mainly at the site of incision (n = 20; 27%). Pain intensity at day 1 according to pain rating index (PRI) and numerical rating scale (NRS) was 7 (25th, 75th percentiles: 2.8-15) and 6 (3-8), respectively. There was a significant change in pain intensity score between 2 days of assessment (PRI: 7 [2.8-15] vs 5 [2-11] P = 0.010; NRS: 6 (3-8) vs 5 (2-8), P = 0.021]). The most common analgesics prescribed were paracetamol (39%) and a combination of tramadol and paracetamol (33.8%). CONCLUSION: Pain decreased the second day after cardiac surgery compared to day 1. Paracetamol was the most prescribed analgesic; however, there was an underutilization which might be affected by insufficient pain reporting. Future improvement could focus on multimodal pain management and proper communication of pain experience.

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Repeat Mitral Valve Replacement

ABSTRACT Introduction: Repeat transcatheter mitral valve replacement (rTMVR) has emerged as a new option for the management of high-risk patients unsuitable for repeat surgical mitral valve replacement (rSMVR). The aim of this study was to compare hospital outcomes, survival, and reoperations after rTMVR versus surgical mitral valve replacement. Methods: We compared patients who underwent rTMVR (n=22) from 2017 to 2019 (Group 1) to patients who underwent rSMVR (n=98) with or without tricuspid valve surgery from 2009 to 2019 (Group 2). We excluded patients who underwent a concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement or other concomitant surgery. Results: Patients in Group 1 were significantly older (72.5 [67-78] vs. 57 [52-64] years, P<0.001). There was no diference in EuroSCORE II between groups (6.56 [5.47-8.04] vs. 6.74 [4.28-11.84], P=0.86). Implanted valve size was 26 (26-29) mm in Group 1 and 25 (25-27) mm in Group 2 (P=0.106). There was no diference in operative mortality between groups (P=0.46). However, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were shorter in Group 1 (P=0.03 and <0.001, respectively). NYHA class improved significantly in both groups at one year (P<0.001 for both groups). There was no group effect on survival (P=0.84) or cardiac readmission (P=0.26). However, reoperations were more frequent in Group 1 (P=0.01). Conclusion: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve could shorten ICU and hospital stay compared to rSMVR with a comparable mortality rate. rTMVR is a safe procedure; however, it has a higher risk of reoperation. rTMVR can be an option in selected high-risk patients.