Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.

BACKGROUND: The choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains challenging. The risk of anticoagulation complications vs. the risk of aortic valve reintervention should be weighed. This study compared the outcomes of bioprosthetic vs. mechanical AVR in patients older and younger than 50. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted from 2009 to 2019 and involved 292 adult patients who underwent isolated AVR. The patients were divided according to their age (above 50 years or 50 years and younger) and the type of valves used in each age group. The outcomes of bioprosthetic valves (Groups 1a (>50 years) and 1b (≤50 years)) were compared with those of mechanical valves (Groups 2a (>50 years) and 2b (≤50 years)) in each age group. RESULTS: The groups had nearly equal rates of preexisting comorbidities except for Group 1b, in which the rate of hypertension was greater (32.6% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.025). This group also had higher rates of old stroke (8.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.011) and higher creatinine clearance (127.62 (108.82-150.23) vs. 110.02 (84.87-144.49) mL/min; p = 0.026) than Group 1b. Patients in Group 1a were significantly older than Group 2a (64 (58-71) vs. 58 (54-67) years; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the NYHA class between the groups. The preoperative ejection fraction and other echocardiographic parameters did not differ significantly between the groups. Re-exploration for bleeding was more common in patients older than 50 years who underwent mechanical valve replacement (p = 0.021). There was no difference in other postoperative complications between the groups. The groups had no differences in survival, stroke, or bleeding rates. Aortic valve reintervention was significantly greater in patients ≤ 50 years old with bioprosthetic valves. There were no differences between groups in the changes in left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, or peak aortic valve pressure during the 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic valve replacement were comparable in patients older than 50 years. Using bioprosthetic valves in patients younger than 50 years was associated with a greater rate of valve reintervention, with no beneficial effect on the risk of bleeding or stroke.

Surgical vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With a Low Ejection Fraction.

Currently, there is no preference for surgical (SAVR) vs transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement in patients with low ejection fraction (EF). The present study retrospectively compared the outcomes of SAVR vs TAVR in patients with EF ≤40% (70 SAVR and 117 TAVR patients). Study outcomes were survival and the composite endpoint of stroke, aortic valve reintervention, and heart failure readmission. The patients who had TAVR were older (median: 75 (25-75th percentiles: 69-81) vs 51 (39-66) years old; P < .001) with higher EuroSCORE II (4.95 (2.99-9.85) vs 2 (1.5-3.25); P < .001). Postoperative renal impairment was more common with SAVR (8 (12.5%) vs 4 (3.42%); P = .03), and they had longer hospital stay [9 (7-15) vs 4 (2-8) days; P < .001). There was no difference between groups in stroke, reintervention, and readmission (Sub-distributional Hazard ratio: .95 (.37-2.45); P = .92). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 95% and 91% with SAVR and 89% and 63% with TAVR. Adjusted survival was comparable between groups. EF improved significantly (ß: .28 (.23-.33); P < 0.001) with no difference between groups (P = .85). In conclusion, TAVR could be as safe as SAVR in patients with low EF.

Residual versus recurrent mitral regurgitation after transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair.

BACKGROUND: The number of MtraClip procedures is increasing, and consequently, the number of patients with residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR). We aimed to characterize patients who had residual versus recurrent MR after MitraClip and report the outcomes of different treatment strategies. METHODS: From 2012 to 2020, 167 patients had MitraClip. Out of them, 16 patients (9.5%) had residual mitral regurgitation (MR), and 27 patients (16.2%) had recurrent MR. RESULTS: The median age in patients with residual MR was 67.5 (59-73) years versus 69 (61-78) years in patients with recurrent MR (p = .87). The etiology of mitral valve disease was functional in 13 patients (81.3%) and 22 patients (84.6%) in residual versus recurrent MR patients (p > .99). Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation was higher in patients with residual MR (p = .02). Survival was 93.7% at 1 year, 76.4% at 3 years versus 92.5% at 1 year, and 84.5% at 3 years in residual versus recurrent MR (p = .69). Two patients in the residual MR group had re-clip, and three had surgery, and in the recurrent MR group, one patient had re-clip, and two patients had surgery (p = .23). Patients who had re-clip were older (p = .09). Surgery was associated with 100% survival at 5 years, 63% after medical therapy and the worst survival was reported in re-clip patients (p = .007). CONCLUSION: The outcomes of patients with residual versus recurrent mitral regurgitation after MitraClip were comparable. Survival could be improved with surgery compared with medical therapy and re-clip.

Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation After Heart Transplantation: A Single-Center 10-year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve regurgitation may affect the outcomes after heart transplantation. There is a paucity of data reporting the outcomes of heart transplants in our region. The objectives of this study were to report the occurrence of tricuspid regurgitation after heart transplantation, its course, and its effect on survival. METHODS: From 2009 to 2019, 30 patients had heart transplantation at our cardiac center. Their age was 36.73 ± 13.5 years, and 25 (83.33%) were males. Indications for transplantation were dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 21; 72.41%), ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 8; 26.67%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 1; 3.45%). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was 157.24 ± 34.6 min, and ischemic time was 138 ± 73.56 min. All patients had orthotopic heart transplantation with a bi-caval technique. RESULTS: Eleven patients had severe tricuspid regurgitation postoperatively (37%). The degree of tricuspid regurgitation decreased significantly after 6 months (p = 0.011) and remained stationary during the follow-up. Pre-transplant dilated cardiomyopathy was significantly associated with severe tricuspid regurgitation post-transplant (p = 0.017). The mean follow-up was 39.43 ± 50.57 months. Survival at 10 years was 90% in patients with less than moderate tricuspid regurgitation postoperatively compared to 43% for patients with moderate and severe tricuspid regurgitation (log-rank p = 0.0498). CONCLUSION: Tricuspid regurgitation is a common problem after heart transplantation. Despite the improvement of the degree of tricuspid regurgitation after 6 months, survival was negatively affected by postoperative moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation. Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy may benefit from concomitant tricuspid valve repair at the time of heart transplantation. Further larger studies are warranted.

Reinterventions after transcatheter edge to edge mitral valve repair: Is early clipping warranted?

BACKGROUND: Reintervention after transcatheter edge to edge repair using MitraClip is still challenging. We aimed to report our experience in reinterventions after MitraClip procedures and describe the outcomes. METHODS: From 2012 to 2020, 167 patients had a transcatheter edge to edge repair; 10 of them needed reinterventions. At the time of the first MitraClip, the median EuroSCORE was 4.29 (2.62-7.52), and the ejection fraction was 30 (20-40)%. RESULTS: Emergency mitral valve replacement (MVR) was performed in two patients, elective MVR in three, cardiac transplantation in two, and repeat clipping in threepatients. The median time from MitraClip to the reintervention was 4.5 (2-13) months. One patient required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support after elective MVR. Repeat clipping failed to control mitral regurgitation grade in all patients. Clip detachment was reported in five patients (50%). The median follow-up after the reintervention was 19.5 (9-75) months, and mortality occurred in two patients who had repeat clipping (20%). CONCLUSIONS: MVR after MitraClip is feasible with low morbidity and mortality. Repeat mitral valve clipping had a high failure rate. Mitral repair was not feasible in all patients in our series, and the use of MitraClip to delay surgical interventions may not be feasible if mitral repair is an option.