Comparison of the short-term outcomes between Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and traditional aortic annular enlargement techniques.

Background: The short-term efficacy and safety of the Y-incision technique of aortic annular enlargement (AAE) has been established. We aimed to determine how the short-term outcomes of the Y-incision technique compared to traditional AAE techniques. Methods: From February 2011 to June 2022, 380 patients at the University of Michigan Hospital underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with AAE using either traditional annular enlargement techniques (Traditional group, n=270), including Nicks [63% (171/270)], Manouguian [34% (91/270)], and others [3% (8/270)], or the Y-incision technique (Y-incision group, n=110). Propensity score matching was performed by controlling for age, sex, body surface area (BSA), hypertension, diabetes, dialysis, chronic lung disease, stroke, prior cardiac surgery, primary indication, operative status, concomitant procedures, and prosthesis type, to generate a balanced cohort of 103 pairs. Results: There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, primary indications of the operations, or concomitant procedures between the matched groups. The median native aortic annulus diameter, measured in the operating room, was 21 mm for both groups. Median prosthesis size was 23 in the Traditional group, and 27 in the Y-incision group (P<0.001). There were no differences in perioperative complications/outcomes between the matched groups, including operative mortality, which was 3.9% (8/206) overall. Short-term survival was similar between the groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis; one-year survival was 95% in the Traditional group, and 97% in the Y-incision group (P=0.54). The Y-incision group had significantly lower mean aortic valve gradients (7 vs. 10 mmHg, P<0.001), larger aortic valve areas (2.2 vs. 1.8 cm2, P=0.007), and less moderate/severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (5.5% vs. 23%, P=0.039) on one-year follow-up echocardiography. Conclusions: The Y-incision technique was as safe and more effective in enlarging the aortic annulus and upsizing the prosthetic valve than the traditional techniques of AAE in AVR for small aortic annuli.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement Technique: Valsalva Graft versus Two Straight Tubular Grafts.

Background: There are many variations in valve-sparing aortic root replacement techniques. Our aim is to determine the impact of the graft on mid-term outcomes: Valsalva graft vs. two straight tubular grafts. Methods: From 2004 to 2020, 332 patients underwent valve-sparing aortic root replacement with either a Valsalva graft (Valsalva group: n = 270) or two straight tubular grafts (two-graft group: n = 62). Data were obtained through chart review and the National Death Index. Primary outcomes were mid-term survival and freedom from reoperation. Results: The preoperative characteristics of the groups were similar, but the two-graft group had more type A dissections (32% vs. 19%) and emergent operations (26% vs. 15%) and was younger (45 vs. 50 years). Intraoperatively, the groups were similar, but the two-graft group had longer cross-clamp (245 vs. 215 minutes) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (284 vs. 255 minutes). Postoperative complications including reoperation for bleeding, stroke, pacemaker implantation, and renal failure were slightly more frequent in the Valsalva group, but the differences were not significant. Operative mortality was similar between the Valsalva and two-graft groups (0.7% vs. 0%). Five-year survival in the two-graft group was 100% compared to 96% in the Valsalva group (p=0.56). Five-year freedom from reoperation in the two-graft group was 100% compared to 93% in the Valsalva group (p=0.29). Conclusions: The Valsalva and two-graft techniques both have excellent short- and mid-term outcomes. The two-graft technique might have slightly better survival and freedom from reoperation, but a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to determine if these advantages are significant.

Early outcomes of the Y-incision technique to enlarge the aortic annulus 3 to 4 valve sizes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel aortic annular enlargement technique. METHODS: From August 2020 to February 2022, 50 consecutive cases of aortic valve replacement with Y-incision aortic annular enlargement and other combined cardiac procedures were performed primarily for severe aortic stenosis. Data were obtained through medical record review, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, and National Death Index data. RESULTS: The median age was 65 (59, 71) years, 70% of patients were female, and 26% had previous cardiac surgery. Sixty-six percent patients had isolated aortic valve replacement. The preoperative mean gradient was 40 (30, 47) mm Hg, and the native aortic annular size was 21 (19, 23) mm. After aortic annular enlargement, the median prosthesis size was 27 (27, 29) with 54% of patients having a size 29 or the largest sized valve. The median increment of annulus enlargement was 3 (3, 4) valve sizes. 88% of patients received no blood transfusion. There were no major postoperative complications, including operative mortality, renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, mediastinitis, or reoperation for bleeding, except for 1 stroke. Three-month postoperative computed tomography aortogram showed the aortic root was enlarged from 27 (24, 30) to 40 (36, 41) mm without aortic pseudoaneurysm. The postoperative mean gradient was 7 (5, 8) mm Hg and valve area was 1.9 (1.7, 2.3) cm2 at 3 to 12 months. Mitral and tricuspid valve functions were significantly improved. Survival was 100% at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Y-incision aortic annular enlargement was safe and effective for upsizing the aortic annulus by 3 to 4 valve sizes.

Poor long-term outcomes of intravenous drug users with infectious endocarditis.

Objectives: The optimal management of active endocarditis in intravenous (IV) drug users is still lacking. Methods: From the years 1997 to 2017, 536 patients with active infectious endocarditis were surgically treated, including 83 (15%) with IV drug use (IVDU) and 453 (85%) without IV drug use (non-IVDU). Initial data were obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and supplemented with chart review and national death index data. Results: The IVDU group was significantly younger (43 vs 56 years old) than the non-IVDU group and had greater rates of psychiatric disorders, drug use, and tricuspid valve endocarditis (28% vs 8.6%). Hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus were significantly more common in the non-IVDU group. Perioperative complications and operative mortality (7.2% vs 7.9%) were similar. IVDU was not a significant risk factor for operative mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival was significantly lower in the IVDU group (5-year survival, 46% vs 67%). Significant risk factors for long-time mortality included IV drug use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.92), age ≥65 years (HR, 1.78), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.87), and enterococcus endocarditis (HR, 1.54). The 5-year rate of reoperation was similar between IVDU and non-IVDU groups (2.4% vs 2.7%). Conclusions: IVDU is a significant risk factor for long-term mortality. A multidisciplinary approach was preferred for IVDU patients to treat both endocarditis and substance use disorder and improve long-term survival.

Stentless Versus Stented Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The differences in long-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis between stentless and stented bioprostheses are controversial. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2018, 1173 patients underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, including 559 treated with a stentless valve and 614 with a stented valve. A propensity score matched cohort with 348 pairs was generated by matching for age, sex, body surface area, bicuspid aortic valve, chronic lung disease, previous cardiac surgery, coronary artery disease, renal failure on dialysis, valve size, concomitant procedures, and surgeon. The primary endpoints of the study were long-term survival and incidence of reoperation. RESULTS: Immediate postoperative outcomes were similar between the stentless and stented groups with an overall operative mortality of 2.9% (P = .19). Kaplan-Meier estimation for long-term survival was comparable between the stentless and stented valves in both the whole cohort and the propensity score matched cohort (10-year survival 59% vs 55%, P = .20). The hazard ratio of stentless vs stented valve for risk of long-term mortality was 1.12 (P = .33). The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to valve degeneration was 5.5% in the stentless group and 4.7% in the stented group (P = .25). The transvalvular pressure gradient at 5-year follow-up was significantly lower in the stentless group (7 vs 11 mm Hg, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both stented and stentless valves could be used in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. We recommend stented valves for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis for their simplicity of implantation.

Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Renal Failure on Hemodialysis After Aortic Valve or Root Replacement.

The long-term survival and reoperation rate in chronic renal failure (CRF) on hemodialysis (HD) patients after aortic valve/root replacement (AVR/ARR) with a stentless bioprosthesis is unknown. From 1992-2015, 1941 patients underwent AVR/ARR with stentless valve for primary indications of aortic stenosis/insufficiency, root aneurysm, and acute type A aortic dissection, including 93 CRF-HD (64 new-onset postoperative HD, and 29 preoperative HD) and 1848 non-CRF-HD. Data was obtained from the STS database, retrospective chart review, administered surveys and national death index data. Compared to the non-CRF-HD group, the CRF-HD group had significantly higher incidence of diabetes mellitus (28 vs 18%), CAD (49 vs 38%), COPD (31 vs 16%), NYHA class IV (12 vs 4%), atrial fibrillation (24 vs 12%), and previous cardiac surgery (27 vs 16%). Postoperatively, CRF-HD group had a higher reoperation for bleeding (10 vs 4%), length of hospital stays (20 vs 7 days), and operative mortality (23 vs 2.3%), all p < 0.01. The odds ratio of CRF-HD for operative mortality was 8.97. The long-term survival was worse in CRF-HD group than that in non-CRF-HD group [8-year survival: 31% vs 70%, p < 0.0001]. The hazard ratio of CRF-HD for long-term mortality was 2.4. The 10-year cumulative reoperation rate for structural valve deterioration in the CRF-HD group was 6.0% vs 5.0% in the non-CRF-HD group, p = 0.74. Surgeons should consider poor short- and long-term outcomes of patients with high risk of being on dialysis when offering aortic valve/root replacement. Bioprosthesis could be a good option in this patient population.

Influence of Age on Longevity of a Stentless Aortic Valve.

BACKGROUND: The longevity of a stentless valve in a younger population (20-60 years old) is unknown. METHODS: From 1992 to 2015, 1947 patients underwent aortic valve/root replacement for aortic stenosis, insufficiency, root aneurysm, or aortic dissection with stentless bioprostheses (median size, 26 mm). At operation 105 patients were <40 years old, 528 were 40 to 59, 860 were 60 to 74, and 454 were ≥75 years. The data were obtained through chart review, administered surveys, and the National Death Index. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 2.6%. During follow-up 807 patients (41%) died before reoperation, 993 (51%) were alive without reoperations because of deterioration, and 113 patients (5.8%) underwent reoperation for structural valve deterioration. After adjusting death and reoperation for non-structural valve deterioration causes as competing risks, the cumulative incidence of reoperation was significantly different between the younger groups (<40, 40-59) and the older groups (60-74, ≥75; P < .0001) but not inside the younger (<40 vs 40-59) or older (60-74 vs ≥75) group. The significant hazard ratio of reoperation for <40 versus ≥75 years of age was 12, <40 versus 60 to 74 was 4, 40 to 59 versus 60 to 74 was 3, and 40 to 59 versus ≥75 was 9 (P ≤ .01). The 10- and 15-year survival in the entire cohort was 53% and 29%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The stentless aortic valve provides satisfactory durability as a conduit for aortic valve/root replacement for patients who prefer a bioprosthesis. However it should be judiciously considered for patients younger than 60 years because of an increased incidence of reoperation for structural valve deterioration.