ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: There are scarce data comparing different mechanical valves in the aortic position. The objective of this study was to compare the early hemodynamic changes after aortic valve replacement between ATS, Bicarbon, and On-X mechanical valves. Methods: We included 99 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with mechanical valves between 2017 and 2019. Three types of mechanical valves were used, On-X valve (n=45), ATS AP360 (n=32), and Bicarbon (n=22). The mean prosthetic valve gradient was measured postoperatively and after six months. Results: Preoperative data were comparable between groups, and there were no differences in preoperative echocardiographic data. Pre-discharge echocardiography showed no difference between groups in the ejection fraction (P=0.748), end-systolic (P=0.764) and end-diastolic (P=0.723) diameters, left ventricular mass index (P=0.348), aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient (P=0.454), and indexed aortic prosthetic orifice area (P=0.576). There was no difference in the postoperative aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient between groups when stratified by valve size. The changes in the aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient of the intraoperative period, at pre-discharge, and at six months were comparable between the three prostheses (P=0.08). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that female gender (beta coefficient -0.242, P=0.027), body surface area (beta coefficient 0.334, P<0.001), and aortic prosthetic size (beta coefficient -0.547, P<0.001), but not the prosthesis type, were independent predictors of postoperative aortic prosthetic mean pressure gradient. Conclusion: The three bileaflet mechanical aortic prostheses (On-X, Bicarbon, and ATS) provide satisfactory early hemodynamics, which are comparable between the three valve types and among different valve sizes.