Search

Background: The use of rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) has been shown to reduce the operative time for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Long-term core laboratory–adjudicated data are scarce, however. Here we report final 7-year data on RDV use. Methods: TRANSFORM was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, single-arm trial implanting a stented bovine pericardial valve with an incorporated balloon-expandable sealing frame. A prior published 1-year analysis included 839 patients from 29 centers. An additional 46 patients were enrolled and implanted, for a total of 885 patients. Annual clinical and core laboratory–adjudicated echocardiographic outcomes were collected through 8 years. Primary endpoints were structural valve deterioration (SVD), all-cause reintervention, all-cause valve explantation, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic performance assessed by echocardiography. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.0 ± 2.0 years. Results: The mean patient age was 73.3 ± 8.2 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 62.1% of the patients, and AVR with concomitant procedures was performed in 37.9%. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 7 years was 76.0% for isolated AVR and 68.2% for concomitant AVR. Freedom from SVD, all-cause reintervention, and valve explantation at 7 years was 97.5%, 95.7%, and 97.8%, respectively. The mean gradient and effective orifice area at 7 years were 11.1 ± 5.3 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.3 cm2, respectively. Paravalvular leak at 7 years was none/trace in 88.6% and mild in 11.4%. In patients undergoing isolated AVR, the cumulative probability of pacemaker implantation was 13.9% at 30 days, 15.5% at 1 year, and 21.8% at 7 years. Conclusions: AVR for aortic stenosis using an RDV is associated with low rates of late adverse events. This surgical pericardial tissue platform provides excellent and stable hemodynamic performance through 7 years.

Objective: During surgical aortic valve replacement, prosthesis–patient mismatch is avoided by implanting the largest possible valve, which sometimes requires annular enlargement (ARE). The effects of ARE on mortality remain controversial. We reviewed data from a multinational clinical trial evaluating a novel pericardial bioprosthesis to determine the influence of ARE 5 years postimplant. Methods: Patients with aortic valve disease requiring surgical aortic valve replacement were prospectively enrolled at 25 centers in North America and 13 centers in Europe. Standardized follow-up was prescribed, including serial echocardiography assessed by a core lab. A composite 30-day end point of major morbidity or mortality was defined as death, reoperation for any cause, stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and acute kidney injury. Results: Among 602 patients with detailed intraoperative data, 90 (15%) underwent ARE with similar rates in North America (17%) and Europe (12%; P = .11). Implanted valve size was similar in both groups (P = .18). The prevalence of moderate or severe prosthesis–patient mismatch at 12 months and at 5 years was comparable between groups, as was the average indexed effective orifice area (P = .3). Five-year survival (ARE, 91% vs no ARE, 89%) and freedom from 30-day major morbidity and mortality (ARE, 87% vs no ARE, 89%) were also similar. Conclusions: In this analysis of a prospective, observational clinical trial, we observed that the performance of an aortic root enlargement procedure did not increase morbidity or mortality at 30 days. We found that survival at 5 years was similar between groups, suggesting that the performance of an ARE procedure restored survival to that observed in patients who did not require an ARE.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of autologous blood use on blood product consumption and outcomes after acute type A aortic dissection repair. Methods: From 2010 to October 2020, 497 patients underwent open acute type A aortic dissection repair, including those with autologous blood harvesting before cardiopulmonary bypass and transfusion after cardiopulmonary bypass (autologous blood transfusion [ABT], n = 397) and without autologous blood harvesting and transfusion (No-ABT, n = 100). The median ABT volume was 900 mL. Using propensity score matching, 89 matched pairs were identified based on age, sex, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, acute preoperative stroke, previous cardiac surgery, and cardiogenic shock. Results: After propensity score matching, both groups were similar in demographic characteristics and aortic procedures. The ABT group required significantly less intraoperative transfusion of blood products (6 vs 11 units; P

Objective: To assess the outcomes of emergency revascularization with endovascular fenestration/stenting followed by delayed open aortic repair in patients with acute type A aortic dissection with lower extremity (LE) malperfusion syndrome (MPS); that is, necrosis and dysfunction of the lower extremity. Methods: From 1996 to 2019, among 760 consecutive acute type A aortic dissection patients 512 patients had no malperfusion syndrome (Non-MPS), whereas 26 patients had LE-MPS with/without renal MPS and underwent endovascular fenestration/stenting, open aortic repair, or both. Patients with coronary, cerebral, mesenteric, and celiac MPS, or managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, were excluded (n = 222). All patients with LE-MPS underwent upfront endovascular fenestration/stenting except 1 patient (with signs of rupture) who initially underwent emergency open aortic repair. Results: Among the LE-MPS patients, 17 (65%) had LE pain, 15 (58%) had abnormal motor function with 8 (31%) having paralysis, 10 (38%) had LE pallor, 17 (65%) had LE paresthesia, and 20 (77%) had LE pulselessness. Of the 25 patients undergoing upfront endovascular fenestration/stenting, 16 went on to open aortic repair, 3 survived to discharge without aortic repair, and 6 died before aortic repair (3-aortic rupture and 3-organ failure). In-hospital mortality among all patients was significantly higher in the LE-MPS group (31% vs 6.3%; P = .0003). Among those undergoing open aortic repair, postoperative outcomes were similar between groups, including operative mortality (18% vs 6.5%; P = .10). LE-MPS was a significant risk factor for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 6.0 [1.9, 19]; P = .002). Conclusions: In acute type A aortic dissection, LE-MPS was associated with high in-hospital mortality. Emergency revascularization with endovascular fenestration/stenting followed by delayed open aortic repair may be a reasonable approach. : Video Abstract:

Objective: To determine the long-term survival and rate of reoperation after surgical treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and patients with a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). Methods: Between 1997 and 2017, 210 patients underwent surgical treatment for native aortic valve endocarditis, including 51 patients with BAV (24%) and 159 patients with TAV (76%). Data were obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons data warehouse and hospital medical record review, supplemented with surveys and national death index data for more complete follow-up. Results: Compared with the TAV IE group, the BAV IE group was significantly younger (42 years vs 54 years) and had lower incidence rates of hypertension, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure (CHF). There were no significant between-group differences in postoperative stroke, sepsis, pacemaker requirement, or in-hospital mortality (2.0% vs 4.4%). Liver disease was a risk factor for operative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 13; 95% CI, 3.3-30; P = .0002). The 10-year survival rate was 64% for the BAV group versus 46% for the TAV group (P = .0191). Significant risk factors for long-term mortality were intravenous drug use (hazard ratio [HR], 4.5; P

Objective: To determine long-term survival and reoperation rate in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and patients with a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) after stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR)/aortic root replacement (ARR). Methods: Between 1992 and 2014, 1293 patients underwent first AVR/ARR with a stentless aortic valve using the modified inclusion operating technique, including 741 patients with a TAV and 552 with a BAV. Using propensity scoring with 26 variables, 330 matched pairs were identified with AVR with or without ascending aorta/arch replacement. Data were obtained through chart review, surveys, and the National Death Index. Results: Patient demographics were similar in the propensity score–matched groups. Both groups had similar cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermia circulatory arrest times, cerebral protection strategies, and rate of aortic arch replacement. The median size of implanted valves was similar (BAV: 27 mm [range, 25-29 mm] vs TAV: 27 mm [range, 25-27 mm]). Compared with the TAV group, the BAV group had a shorter hospital stay (6 days vs 7 days; P = .001) but similar 30-day mortality (1.8% vs 1.2%). The BAV group had better long-term (15-year) survival (46% vs 33%; P = .002) but a higher cumulative incidence of reoperation for structural valve deterioration (15-year: 15% vs 11%; P = .048). Cox proportional hazard analysis identified a BAV as a protective factor for long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91; P = .006), but a risk factor for reoperation due to structural valve deterioration (HR, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.8-2.6; P = .27] in the matched cohort and 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P = .004] in the unmatched cohort). Conclusions: The BAV patients had better long-term survival but a higher reoperation rate compared with TAV patients after stentless AVR. Our findings suggest caution in the use of bioprostheses for BAV patients.