Search

Objectives: The Hemispherical Aortic Annuloplasty Reconstructive Technology (HAART) ring is a rigid, internal and geometric device. The objective of this article is to assess the mid-term outcomes of aortic valve repair (AVr) using this prosthesis., Methods: A prospectively maintained database was used to obtain outcomes for adult patients undergoing AVr using the HAART ring between September 2017 and June 2023. All aortic patients at our institution undergo life-long surveillance with regular assessment and valve imaging., Results: Seventy-one patients underwent AVr using the HAART device: 53 had a trileaflet valve and 18 a bicuspid valve. The median age was 54 years, and most were male (79%). Many required concomitant intervention: 46% had a root procedure and 77% an arch repair. There were no in-hospital deaths, and the median postoperative stay was 5 days. At a mean follow-up of 3.9 (±1.1) years, freedom from reoperation was 94%. Late imaging demonstrated: zero trace (25%), 1+ (54%), 2+ (15%) and 4+ (6%) aortic insufficiency (AI). Eleven patients have ≥moderate AI under surveillance, all of whom have a trileaflet valve (21% of trileaflet patients). Four patients required reoperation: 3 for ring dehiscence and 1 for endocarditis., Conclusions: Although early results using the HAART device are encouraging, mid-term results raise concern as 21% of trileaflet patients developed recurrent ≥moderate AI by 4 years post-repair. We experienced 3 incidences of ring dehiscence requiring reoperation. Based on this, we recommend caution using the sub-annular approach for stabilization in patients with trileaflet aortic valves. Long-term results are needed to assess outcomes against established techniques., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The best method of aortic root repair in older patients remains unknown given a lack of comparative effectiveness of long-term outcomes data. The objective of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of different surgical approaches for aortic root repair in Medicare patients using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-linked data., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed by querying the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database for patients aged 65 years or more who underwent elective aortic root repair with or without aortic valve replacement. Primary long-term end points were mortality, any stroke, and aortic valve reintervention. Short-term outcomes and long-term survival were compared among each root repair strategy. Additional risk factors for mortality after aortic root repair were assessed with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model., Results: A total of 4173 patients aged 65 years or more underwent elective aortic root repair. Patients were stratified by operative strategy: mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall, or valve-sparing root replacement. Mean follow-up was 5.0 (±4.6) years. Relative to mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; confidence interval, 0.66-0.97) and stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; confidence interval, 0.59-0.84) were associated with better long-term survival. In addition, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; confidence interval, 0.47-0.80) and valve-sparing root replacement (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.51; confidence interval, 0.29-0.90) were associated with lower long-term risk of stroke. Aortic valve reintervention risk was 2-fold higher after valve-sparing root replacement compared with other operative strategies., Conclusions: In the Medicare population, there was poorer late survival and greater late stroke risk for patients undergoing mechanical Bentall and a higher rate of reintervention for valve-sparing root replacement. Bioprosthetic Bentall may be the procedure of choice in older patients undergoing aortic root repair, particularly in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Death in high- and intermediate-risk patients after self-expanding transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery) differed in mechanisms and timing. In both risk groups, 1-year all-cause mortality was lower in TAVR than in surgery patients. The differences in mechanism and timing of death in low-risk patients has not been studied. This report explores the mechanisms of death during 3 time periods; 0 to 30 days (early), 31 to 120 days (recovery), and 121 to 365 days (late)., Methods: We retrospectively examined the mechanisms and timing of death following TAVR or surgery in the randomized Evolut Low Risk Trial. Patients were enrolled between March 2016 and November 2018 from 86 designated TAVR centers. Mechanisms of death were categorized as due to technical reasons, failure to repair, complications linked to death, failure to recover or other., Results: All-cause mortality at 1 year was 2.2% for TAVR and 2.8% for surgery, p = 0.44. Early deaths included 3 TAVR patients, all due to technical reasons, and 8 surgery patients (1 technical, 5 complications and 2 failed to recover). Recovery period deaths included 6 TAVR patients (4 complications, 1 failed to recover and 1 other), and 1 surgery patient from complications of valve endocarditis. Late period deaths included 6 TAVR patients and 9 surgery patients, primarily due to complications., Conclusions: In this low-risk study cohort, no patient died from failure to repair the valve; reduction in procedural complications in the TAVR and surgery groups remain opportunities for further improvement in outcomes. Clinical Trial Registrations (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT02701283 (Evolut Low Risk)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Ramlawi reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova and AtriCure; Dr. Deeb has nothing to disclose; Dr. Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic; Dr. Markowitz has nothing to disclose; Dr. Hughes serves as a consultant and speaker for Medtronic; Dr. Kiaii has nothing to disclose; Dr. Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc; Dr. Kleiman has received research and educational grants from Medtronic; Dr. Reardon has received fees from Medtronic for providing educational services., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Assess image quality of dual-energy (DE) and single-energy (SE) cardiac multi-detector computed tomographic (MDCT) post aortic valve replacement (AVR) on a dual source MDCT scanner., Methods: Eighty patients with cardiac MDCT acquisitions (ECG gated, dual-source) post-surgical and transcatheter AVR were retrospectively identified. Forty DE (cohort 1) and 40 SE acquisitions (cohort 2; 100 or 120 kVp) were reviewed. Metal artefact at valve coaptation (VC) and valve insertion site (VIS), and contrast enhancement were assessed. Valve leaflet edge definition was graded on a 4-point scale by three radiologists., Results: The mean percentage valve area obscured by metal artifact differed between the cohorts; cohort 1 DE blended, high keV and low keV: 14.8 %, 11.1 % and 17.8 % at VC and 16.4 %, 13 %, 20.4 % at VIS respectively. Cohort 2: 25.8 % and 33.6 % (VC and VIS); each DE reconstruction vs SE: P < 0.0001. Average contrast opacification and coefficient of variance for cohort 1: 562.9 ± 144.7, 281.1 ± 60.3 and 1132.7 ± 300.8 Hounsfield Units (HU) and 9.6 %, 10 % and 8.9 %. For cohort 2: 437.2 ± 119.2 HU and 10.8 % (P < 0.01). Average leaflet edge definition cohort 1: 2.3 ± 0.4, 2.7 ± 0.2 and 2.3 ± 0.2, and cohort 2: 2.9 ± 0.2., Conclusion: DE high keV renderings can result in up to 17.2 % less metal artefact compared to standard SE acquisition for cardiac CT. Contrast opacification and homogeneity is higher for DE blended and low keV renderings compared to SE acquisition with leaflet visibility preferred for low keV and blended DE renderings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The burden oral anticoagulation is a limitation of mechanical valve prostheses., Objectives: The aim of this study was to test whether patients could be safely managed with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (aspirin 325 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg) or lower warfarin after On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR)., Methods: PROACT (Prospective Randomized On-X Anticoagulation Trial) (n = 576) is a multicenter (41 sites) noninferiority trial. From June 2006 through February 2014, 201 patients ≥18 years of age without thromboembolic risk factors undergoing mAVR were randomized to receive DAPT (n = 99) or standard warfarin plus aspirin (n = 102) 3 months after mAVR (low-risk arm). From June 2006 through October 2009, 375 patients with 1 or more thromboembolic risk factors were also randomized to lower intensity warfarin plus aspirin (international normalized ratio 1.5 to 2.0; n = 185) or standard warfarin plus aspirin (international normalized ratio 2.0 to 3.0; n = 190) 3 months after mAVR (high-risk arm)., Results: The low-risk arm was terminated for excess cerebral thromboembolic events (3.12% per patient-year vs. 0.29% per patient-year, p = 0.02) in the DAPT group at up to 8.8-year follow-up (631.6 patient-years), with no differences in bleeding or all-cause mortality. High-risk arm patients experienced significantly lower major (1.59% per patient-year vs. 3.94% per patient-year, p = 0.002) and minor (1.27% per patient-year vs. 3.49% per patient-year, p = 0.002) bleeding up to 8.7-year follow-up (2,035.2 patient-years), with no differences in thromboembolism (0.42% per patient-year vs. 0.09% per patient-year, p = 0.20) and all-cause mortality., Conclusions: DAPT was associated with higher rates of thromboembolism and valve thrombosis compared with control in the low-risk arm. International normalized ratios were safely maintained at 1.5 to 2.0 in high-risk patients, without differences in mortality or thromboembolic complications. (Randomized On-X Anticoagulation Trial [PROACT]; NCT00291525)., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The modified Ross procedure, which involves replacement of the aortic valve with a pulmonary autograft root supported within a Dacron tube graft, was developed with the goal of preventing late autograft dilatation and associated aortic insufficiency. The case is reported of an adult patient who had a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), underwent a modified Ross procedure, and developed severe aortic insufficiency within one year and subsequently required reoperation for aortic valve replacement. While advances have been made to increase the success of the Ross procedure via modifications to prevent aortic root dilatation, no modifications have yet been devised to improve the ability of the pulmonary valve to withstand systemic aortic pressures. The Ross procedure has significant advantages for children, but the risks and benefits should be carefully considered in adults, especially in those with BAV.

Background: Moderate (MHCA) versus deep (DHCA) hypothermia for circulatory arrest in aortic arch surgery has been purported to reduce coagulopathy and bleeding complications, although there are limited data supporting this claim. This study aimed to compare bleeding-related events after aortic hemiarch replacement with MHCA versus DHCA., Methods: Patients who underwent hemiarch replacement at a single institution from July 2005 to August 2014 were stratified into DHCA and MHCA groups (minimum systemic temperature ≤20°C and >20°C, respectively) and compared. Then, 1:1 propensity matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences., Results: During the study period, 571 patients underwent hemiarch replacement: 401 (70.2%) with DHCA and 170 (29.8%) with MHCA. After propensity matching, 155 patients remained in each group. There were no significant differences between matched groups with regard to the proportion transfused with red blood cells, plasma, platelet concentrates, or cryoprecipitate on the operative day, the rate of reoperation for bleeding, or postoperative hematologic laboratory values. Among patients who received plasma, the median transfusion volume was statistically greater in the DHCA group (6 vs 5 units, P = .01). MHCA also resulted in a slight reduction in median volume of blood returned via cell saver (500 vs 472 mL, P < .01) and 12-hour postoperative chest tube output (440 vs 350, P < .01). Thirty-day mortality and morbidity did not differ significantly between groups., Conclusions: MHCA compared with DHCA during hermiarch replacement may slightly reduce perioperative blood-loss and plasma transfusion requirement, although these differences do not translate into reduced reoperation for bleeding or postoperative mortality and morbidity., Competing Interests: Statement Dr Levy has received consulting fees from CSL Behring, Grifols, and Medco. All other authors have nothing to disclose with regard to commercial support., (Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at increased operative risk. There is interest in whether TAVR would benefit patients at lower risk., Objective: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) has trended downward in US TAVR trials and the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We hypothesized that if the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) alone is sufficient to define decreased risk, the contribution to survival based on the degree of invasiveness of the TAVR procedure will decrease, making it more difficult to show improved survival and benefit over SAVR., Design, Setting, and Participants: The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent an attempted implant and had an STS PROM of 7% or less. The trial was performed at 45 US sites. Patients had severe aortic stenosis and were at increased surgical risk based on their STS PROM score and other risk factors., Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-expanding TAVR or to SAVR., Main Outcomes and Measures: We retrospectively stratified patients by the overall median STS PROM score (7%) and analyzed clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with an STS PROM score of 7% or less., Results: The mean (SD) ages were 81.5 (7.6) years for the TAVR group and 81.2 years (6.6) for the SAVR group. A little more than half were men (57.9% in the TAVR group and 55.8% in the SAVR group). Of 750 patients who underwent attempted implantation, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR, 5.3% [4.3%-6.1%]; SAVR, 5.3% [4.1%-5.9%]). Two-year all-cause mortality for TAVR vs SAVR was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.9-10.0) vs 26.3% (95% CI, 19.7-33.0) (log rank P = .01). The 2-year rate of stroke for TAVR vs SAVR was 11.3% vs 15.1% (log rank P = .50). Quality of life by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score showed significant and equivalent increases in both groups at 2 years (mean [SD] TAVR, 20.0 [25.0]; SAVR, 18.6 [23.6]; P = .71; both P < .001 compared with baseline). Medical benefit, defined as alive with a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score of at least 60 and a less than 10-point decrease from baseline, was similar between groups at 2 years (TAVR, 51.0%; SAVR, 44.4%; P = .28)., Conclusions and Relevance: Self-expanding TAVR compares favorably with SAVR in high-risk patients with STS PROM scores traditionally considered intermediate risk., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

Objectives: The CoreValve Extreme Risk US Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis deemed unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement. Implants were attempted using transfemoral access (n = 489) or an alternative access (n = 150). In present analysis, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access., Methods: The present study included 150 patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy who were treated with the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by way of the subclavian artery (n = 70) or a direct aortic approach (n = 80). The echocardiograms were read by an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months., Results: The preoperative aortic valve area was 0.72 ± 0.27 cm(2) and mean aortic valve gradient was 49.5 ± 17.0 mm Hg. After the transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the effective aortic valve area was 1.82 ± 0.64 cm(2) at 1 month and 1.85 ± 0.51 cm(2) at 12 months. The mean aortic valve gradient was 9.7 ± 5.8 mm Hg at 30 days and 9.5 ± 5.7 mm Hg at 12 months. The death or major stroke rate was 15.3% at 30 days and 39.4% at 12 months. The individual rate of all-cause mortality and major stroke was 11.3% and 7.5% at 30 days and 36.0% and 9.1% at 12 months., Conclusions: These data demonstrate that the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by an alternative access provides a suitable alternative for treatment of extreme risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, who have prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy and no surgical options., (Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite advances in the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS), many patients with AS remain untreated. Barriers to accessing cardiovascular surgical care may play a role in this undertreatment. We sought to examine whether there are geographic variations in the treatment of AS within North Carolina that may reflect differential access to care. Hospital discharge data from North Carolina hospitals during federal fiscal year 2010 were analyzed from the Thomson Reuters database. Patients hospitalized with AS were identified using International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes. ICD-9 procedure codes were used to identify patients who had aortic valve replacement and other cardiac procedures. The rates of hospitalizations for AS and aortic valve replacement were calculated per county in North Carolina. In fiscal year 2010, there were 12,111 patients who were discharged from a North Carolina hospital with AS listed as one of the ICD-9 discharge diagnosis codes. The median age for this population was 79 (twenty-fifth to seventy-fifth), with approximately 1/3 patients (28.9%) being at least 85 years of age and >1/2 being female (53.8%). Of them, 1,608 patients underwent valvular surgery with an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.3%. The highest rates, corrected for county population, of hospitalizations where AS was listed as the primary diagnosis were in the most rural segments of North Carolina while those same areas had the lowest rates of valvular surgery. In conclusion, there are significant geographic variations in the rates of hospitalization for AS and for valvular surgery within North Carolina. The most rural segments of the state have the highest rates of hospitalization while also having the lowest rates of surgery. This suggests geographic treatment disparities as a result of access to surgical care that must be considered as new therapies for AS, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, are deployed., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve (THV) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at extreme risk for surgery., Background: Untreated severe aortic stenosis is a progressive disease with a poor prognosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is a potentially effective therapy., Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized investigation evaluating the safety and efficacy of self-expanding TAVR in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with prohibitive risks for surgery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months, which was compared with a pre-specified objective performance goal (OPG)., Results: A total of 41 sites in the United States recruited 506 patients, of whom 489 underwent attempted treatment with the CoreValve THV. The rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months was 26.0% (upper 2-sided 95% confidence bound: 29.9%) versus 43.0% with the OPG (p < 0.0001). Individual 30-day and 12-month events included all-cause mortality (8.4% and 24.3%, respectively) and major stroke (2.3% and 4.3%, respectively). Procedural events at 30 days included life-threatening/disabling bleeding (12.7%), major vascular complications (8.2%), and need for permanent pacemaker placement (21.6%). The frequency of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation was lower 12 months after self-expanding TAVR (4.2%) than at discharge (10.7%; p = 0.004 for paired analysis)., Conclusions: TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis was safe and effective in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at prohibitive risk for surgical valve replacement. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to define the relative role of a right minithoracotomy (RT) versus standard median sternotomy (ST) for open aortic valve replacement (AVR)., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of all 1348 patients undergoing isolated, open AVR at a single institution during a 14-year period. Because relatively few patients were technically suitable for redo AVR with the RT approach (n = 20), all redo patients (n = 209) were excluded, leaving 1139 patients available for analysis. Patients converting from RT to ST approach (n = 15) were analyzed separately., Results: Relative to ST (n = 672), the RT patients (n = 452) were older with more stenosis but with more recent operation year, lower rate of congestive heart failure, higher ejection fraction, lower rate of endocarditis, and lower rate of renal disease than the ST AVR patients (all P < 0.0001). Right minithoracotomy AVR was associated with longer cardiopulmonary bypass times [157 (25) vs 131 (38), P = 0.0004] and clamp times [103 (20) vs 85 (27), P < 0.0001] but less transfusion (1.4 vs 3.4 U, P = 0.0003), less chest tube output (405 vs 950 mL, P < 0.0001), fewer reoperations for bleeding (0.4% vs 4%, P < 0.0001), shorter length of stay (6 vs 8 days, P = 0.03), and lower rate of atrial fibrillation (15% vs 20%, P = 0.03). Stroke, operative mortality, and survival were not significantly different between the groups., Conclusions: Given the biases of retrospective propensity-adjusted analysis, these data suggest that RT AVR is a safe alternative to ST AVR in selected patients, with advantages of avoiding sternotomy with associated bleeding, transfusion, and delayed wound healing, at the expense of longer pump and clamp times.

Background and Aim of the Study: Detailed analyses of risk-adjusted outcomes after mitral valve surgery have documented significant survival decrements with tissue valves at any age. Several recent studies of prosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) also have suggested a poorer performance of tissue valves, although analyses have been limited to small matched series. The study aim was to test the hypothesis that AVR with tissue valves is associated with a lower risk-adjusted survival, as compared to mechanical valves., Methods: Between 1986 and 2009, primary isolated AVR, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), was performed with currently available valve types in 2148 patients (1108 tissue valves, 1040 mechanical). Patients were selected for tissue valves to be used primarily in the elderly. Baseline and operative characteristics were documented prospectively with a consistent variable set over the entire 23-year period. Follow up was obtained with mailed questionnaires, supplemented by National Death Index searches. The average time to death or follow up was seven years, and follow up for survival was 96.2% complete. Risk-adjusted survival characteristics for the two groups were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model with stepwise selection of candidate variables., Results: Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were (tissue versus mechanical): median age 73 versus 61 years; non-elective surgery 32% versus 28%; CABG 45% versus 35%; median ejection fraction 55% versus 55%; renal failure 6% versus 1%; diabetes 18% versus 7% (p<0.01). Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival was significantly lower with tissue than mechanical valves; however, after risk adjustment for the adverse profiles of tissue valve patients, no significant difference was observed in survival after tissue or mechanical AVR. Thus, the hypothesis did not hold, and risk-adjusted survival was equivalent, of course qualified by the fact that selection bias was evident., Conclusion: With selection criteria that employed tissue AVR more frequently in elderly patients, tissue and mechanical valves achieved similar survival characteristics across the spectrum of patient risk. Further studies of the relative outcomes of mechanical versus tissue valves across the spectrum of patient age seem indicated.

Objectives: New-onset aortic insufficiency (AI) can be encountered after instituting mechanical circulatory support and seems more common and severe with continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) compared with pulsatile devices. Treatment algorithms for de novo, post-LVAD AI have not been well defined. In the present report, we have described 6 patients who underwent aortic valve surgery for new-onset post-LVAD AI., Methods: From 2005 to 2011, 271 patients underwent LVAD implantation. Of these LVADs, 225 were CF devices (203 HeartMate II devices, Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, Calif; and 22 HVAD devices, HeartWare Intl, Inc, Framingham, Mass). The patients were examined for new-onset severe AI requiring surgical intervention., Results: During follow-up, 6 CF LVAD patients developed new, severe AI that was accompanied by heart failure. After medical therapy had failed, 4 patients underwent redo sternotomy for aortic valve procedures (1 bioprosthetic valve replacement, 1 Dacron patch closure, and 2 aortic valve repairs), and 2 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve procedure, with 1 requiring revision by open surgery for aortic valve replacement. Of the 6 patients, 5 experienced significant improvement in functional capacity and symptoms. One patient died postoperatively secondary to multiorgan failure and sepsis., Conclusions: Surgical treatment of post-LVAD AI with aortic valve oversewing or leaflet repair or by bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is effective at restoring functional capacity for CF LVAD patients who develop symptomatic, severe AI and can be performed safely with good results. Various transcatheter approaches to these difficult problems are also available and offer less invasive alternatives to conventional surgery., (Copyright © 2013 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aortic stenosis affects many people worldwide with a significant impact on morbidity and mortality with uncorrected, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis carrying mortality of 50% at one year. Degenerative calcific pathology, the most common cause of aortic stenosis, increases in prevalence with age; estimated prevalence of 5% in individuals over 75 years of age. Despite the malignant prognosis without valve replacement, many patients are not offered surgery due to advanced age and co-existing medical conditions; reported to be a third of symptomatic patients. In the last several years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as an alternative treatment in patients with high or prohibitive open surgical risk. The PARTNER cohort B data, employing the Sapien valve, demonstrated a 20% absolute mortality benefit at one year compared with medical therapy. In this review, we provide an update of this technology and discuss patient selection, procedural planning, complications, and look toward the future of transcatheter heart valves in the treatment of aortic stenosis.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rapidly-evolving technology for patients with severe, calcific aortic stenosis. Although these procedures lessen many of the risks and complications of open surgical aortic valve replacement, there remain challenges with TAVR including electrophysiologic complications. Among TAVR prostheses, rates of conduction abnormalities (CAs) vary from less than 10% to more than 50%, with up to one-third of patients requiring placement of a permanent pacemaker following TAVR. Several predictors of CAs have been identified related to device selection, baseline conduction defects, and anatomical considerations. Current data support the hypothesis that CAs result primarily from mechanical compression of the specialized conduction system by the device, although other factors may be involved. Such abnormalities can arise immediately during the procedure or as late as several days after implantation, and can be transient or permanent. Currently, there are no clinical tools to identify patients at highest risk for CAs post-TAVR, or to predict the course of CAs in patients who experience them. Early data suggest outcomes may be worse in high-risk patients, and further studies are needed to identify these patients so as to minimize electrophysiologic complications and determine appropriate monitoring in this expanding population., (Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few studies have directly evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing aortic root replacement with St. Jude mechanical conduits or aortic allografts (ALLO), yet both approaches have been advocated. The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed description of outcomes in a large series of aortic root replacements performed with either St. Jude mechanical conduits or aortic allografts., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 172 consecutive adult patients undergoing aortic root replacement with either St. Jude mechanical conduits (n = 73) or aortic allografts (n = 99) from January 1990 to December 2002. Maximal follow-up was 15 years, and median follow-up was 5 years., Results: Both groups were similar with regard to median age, preoperative ejection fraction, and New York Heart Association class. The aortic allograft patient group had a higher proportion (p < 0.05) of women (43% versus 18%), prior sternotomies (52% versus 26%), preoperative renal failure (9% versus 1%), and cerebrovascular disease (16% versus 4%). Operative indications for the aortic allograft group were more frequently endocarditis (29% versus 3%; p < 0.0001) and prosthetic valve dysfunction (13% versus 1%; p < 0.01), and less frequently annuloaortic ectasia (34% versus 60%; p < 0.001) or aortic dissection (3% versus 26%; p < 0.0001). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or other valve surgery was performed in 30% of patients in both groups. Incidence of early postoperative complications, including bleeding, stroke, renal failure, and respiratory failure, was similar in both groups. Thirty-day mortality was 5.5% in the St. Jude mechanical conduit group and 8.1% in the aortic allograft group (p = 0.4). Unadjusted actuarial survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 90%, 81%, 67%, and 86%, 70%, 67%, for the St. Jude mechanical conduit and aortic allograft groups, respectively (p = 0.09). Event-free survival at 1 and 5 years was similar for both groups (p = 0.4). By multivariate analysis, New York Heart Association class III or IV, emergently performed aortic root replacement, and postoperative respiratory failure, but not valve conduit type (p = 0.3), were independent predictors of mortality., Conclusions: Aortic root replacement can be safely performed with either allograft or mechanical conduits, even in the setting of acute dissection, redo sternotomy, or endocarditis.

Sinus of Valsalva aneurysms are relatively uncommon, and surgical repair is indicated at the time of diagnosis whether or not symptoms are present. This generally entails closure using a patch technique because usually only one sinus is involved. We report here the successful treatment of multiple sinus of Valsalva aneurysms using a David reimplantation valve-sparing root replacement.

Transmyocardial laser revascularization is an emerging technique for treatment of patients with coronary artery disease not amenable to standard revascularization by either percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafting. Transmyocardial laser revascularization is typically performed as an isolated procedure on the beating heart, although it has been performed as an adjunct to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting in nongraftable territories. We report the use of transmyocardial laser revascularization in combination with mitral valve replacement via a left lateral thoracotomy for treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation.