The Northern New England Rapid Deployment Valve Experience: Survival and Procedural Outcomes From 2015 to 2021.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal approach and choice of initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) is evolving in the growing era of transcatheter AVR. Further survival and hemodynamic data are needed to compare the emerging role of rapid deployment (rdAVR) versus stented (sAVR) valve options for AVR. METHODS: The Northern New England Cardiovascular Database was queried for patients undergoing either isolated AVR or AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with rdAVR or sAVR aortic valves between 2015 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, mechanical valves, dissection, emergency case status, and prior sternotomy. This resulted in a cohort including 1,616 sAVR and 538 rdAVR cases. After propensity weighting, procedural characteristics, hemodynamic variables, and survival outcomes were examined. RESULTS: The breakdown of the overall cohort (2,154) included 1,164 isolated AVR (222 rdAVR, 942 sAVR) and 990 AVR + CABG (316 rdAVR, 674 sAVR). After inverse propensity weighting, cohorts were well matched, notable only for more patients <50 years in the sAVR group (4.0% vs 1.9%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.12). Cross-clamp (89 vs 64 min, SMD = -0.71) and cardiopulmonary bypass (121 vs 91 min, SMD = -0.68) times were considerably longer for sAVR versus rdAVR. Immediate postreplacement aortic gradient decreased with larger valve size but did not differ significantly between comparable sAVR and rdAVR valve sizes or overall (6.5 vs 6.7 mm Hg, SMD = 0.09). Implanted rdAVR tended to be larger with 51% either size L or XL versus 37.4% of sAVR ≥25 mm. Despite a temporal decrease in pacemaker rate within the rdAVR cohort, the overall pacemaker frequency was less in sAVR versus rdAVR (4.4% vs 7.4%, SMD = 0.12), and significantly higher rates were seen in size L (10.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.002) and XL (15% vs 5.6%, P < 0.004) rdAVR versus sAVR. No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (4.6% vs 4.6%, SMD = 0.01), 30-day survival (1.5% vs 2.6%, SMD = 0.08), or long-term survival out to 4 years were seen between sAVR and rdAVR. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment valves offer a safe alternative to sAVR with significantly decreased cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Despite larger implantation sizes, we did not appreciate a comparative difference in immediate postoperative gradients, and although pacemaker rates are improving, they remain higher in rdAVR compared with sAVR. Longer-term hemodynamic and survival follow-up are needed.

Aortic Annular Enlargement in the Elderly: Short and Long-Term Outcomes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patient prosthesis mismatch is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement, but the role and outcomes of annular enlargement (AE) remain poorly defined. We hypothesized that increasing rates of AE may lead to improved outcomes for patients at risk for severe patient prosthesis mismatch. METHODS: Patients over age 65 years undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting from 2008-2016 in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database with matching Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data were included (n=189,268). Univariate, multivariate, and time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the association between AE and early and late outcomes. Patients were stratified by projected degree of patient prosthesis mismatch based on calculated effective orifice area index. RESULTS: A total of 5412 (2.9%) patients underwent AE. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-predicted mortality was similar between AE and non-AE groups (2.97% vs 2.99%, P = .052). Patients undergoing AE had higher risk-adjusted rates of 30-day complications and death (5.4% vs 3.4%, P < .0001), but no differences in long-term rates of stroke, heart failure re-hospitalization,s or aortic valve reoperation. Survival analysis demonstrated a higher risk of mortality with AE during the first 3 years, after which the survival curves cross, favoring AE. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that annular enlargement during surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with increased short-term risk in a Medicare population. Survival curves crossed after 3 years, which may portend a benefit in select patients. However, annular enlargement is still only performed in the minority of patients who are at risk for patient prosthesis mismatch.

Vacuum-assisted extraction of ilio-caval and right heart masses: A 5-year single center experience.

PURPOSE: Despite paucity of data, there exists growing popularity of catheter-based extraction methods for intravascular thrombi and vegetations. We describe a large single center experience with vacuum-assisted extraction techniques (VAET) for right-sided intravascular and cardiac masses. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the perioperative course of patients undergoing VAET between 2014 and 2019. Primary outcomes were survival and freedom from recurrent bacteremia. Procedural success was a composite definition of survival, majority of mass extraction, absence of recurrent bacteremia, and valve function not requiring further intervention during index hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the entire cohort (n = 58), 48% and 52% underwent VAET for vegetations and sterile thrombi, respectively. Of those with positive cultures, the most common organism isolated was Staphylococcus aureus (48%). Preoperative active bacteremia was present in 36% (21/58) and of these patients, 76% (16/21) had neither recurrent nor persistent bacteremia post-op. The majority of masses (67%, 38/58) were debulked with an average reduction in size of 42%. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 3.5% (2/58). Intraoperative and 30-day survival were 98% (57/58) and 90% (28/31), respectively. Overall success was 86% (50/58). The prevalence of moderate/severe tricuspid regurgitation was 37% pre-op and 61% post-op. Average length of intensive care unit and overall hospital stay was 5.6 and 16 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this single center experience, VAET was conducted safely with a high degree of success and freedom from short-term recurrent bacteremia. This minimally invasive procedure is an attractive alternative to traditional open techniques for removal of right-sided intravascular and cardiac masses.

Initial Experience with Non-Sternotomy Minimally Invasive Pulmonary Embolectomy with Thoracoscopic Assistance.

The endpoint in emergent management of acute massive pulmonary embolism (PE) has traditionally been with embolectomy through standard median sternotomy. This approach is limited in both exposure and concomitant functional morbidity associated with sternotomy. Herein we describe a novel minimally invasive, thoracoscopically assisted approach to pulmonary embolectomy. This utilizes a small 5-cm left parasternal thoracotomy and femoral cardiopulmonary bypass to conduct thoracoscopically assisted surgical pulmonary embolectomy. This novel minimally invasive approach has been developed and successfully utilized in 3 patients with massive PE at our institution. The assistance of the thoracoscope allowed for complete visualization and clot extraction of the main and segmental pulmonary arteries bilaterally. The use of a non-sternotomy approach sped both functional and pulmonary recovery times and decreased length of stay. These initial data suggest that non-sternotomy minimally invasive surgical pulmonary embolectomy with thoracoscopic assistance is a feasible and safe approach for acute massive PE that may result in enhanced recovery times and decreased hospital length of stay.

Robotic-Assisted Surgical Treatment of Catamenial Pneumothorax.

Two young female patients presented with clinical findings of catamenial pneumothorax and thoracic endometriosis syndrome. Despite attempts at conservative management, thoracoscopic pleurodesis, and hormonal therapy, both women experienced recurrent pneumothoraces coincident with menses. Each patient subsequently underwent robotic-assisted mechanical pleurectomy and diaphragm reconstruction with durable results.

The Incidence and Consequence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the relationship of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with long-term survival and to assess whether growing concern about PPM has resulted in a decreased incidence over time. METHODS: Using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, we identified 59,779 patients ≥65 years old who underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) between 2004 and 2014. The degree of PPM was calculated using literature-derived effective orifice areas for commonly used valves. Outcomes to 10 years were stratified by degree of PPM. RESULTS: The distribution of PPM was as follows: 35%, none (n = 21,053); 54%, moderate (n = 32,243); and 11%, severe (n = 6,483). Compared with patients with no PPM, patients with moderate or severe PPM had a significantly increased risk of readmission for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.21; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.48) and redo AVR (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.77; HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.56) for moderate or severe PPM, respectively. Survival was significantly worse for any degree of PPM (moderate to none: HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.12; severe to none: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.39), with 10-year adjusted survival rates of 46%, 43%, and 35% for none, moderate, and severe, respectively (p < 0.001). The incidence of severe PPM decreased by 55% over the study period, from 13.8% in 2004 to 6.2% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Any degree of PPM significantly decreased long-term survival and increased readmission rates for both heart failure and reoperation for AVR. Temporal trends show a significant decrease in the incidence of PPM over the past decade.

Outcomes of lower extremity revascularization among the hemodialysis-dependent.

OBJECTIVE: Optimal patient selection for lower extremity revascularization remains a clinical challenge among the hemodialysis-dependent (HD). The purpose of this study was to examine contemporary real world open and endovascular outcomes of HD patients to better facilitate patient selection for intervention. METHODS: A regional multicenter registry was queried between 2003 and 2013 for HD patients (N = 689) undergoing open surgical bypass (n = 295) or endovascular intervention (n = 394) for lower extremity revascularization. Patient demographics and comorbidities were recorded. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included graft patency, freedom from major adverse limb events, and amputation-free survival (AFS). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for death and amputation. RESULTS: Among the 689 HD patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization, 66% were male, and 83% were white. Ninety percent of revascularizations were performed for critical limb ischemia and 8% for claudication. Overall survival at 1, 2, and 5 years survival remained low at 60%, 43%, and 21%, respectively. Overall 1- and 2-year AFS was 40% and 17%. Mortality accounted for the primary mode of failure for both open bypass (78%) and endovascular interventions (80%) at two years. Survival, AFS, and freedom from major adverse limb event outcomes did not differ significantly between revascularization techniques. At 2 years, endovascular patency was higher than open bypass (76% vs 26%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.71; P = .02). Multivariate analysis identified age ≥80 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.5; P < .01), indication of rest pain or tissue loss (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .01), preoperative wheelchair/bedridden status (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P < .01), coronary artery disease (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9; P < .01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8; P = .01) as independent predictors of death. The presence of three or more risk factors resulted in predicted 1-year mortality of 64%. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and AFS among HD patients remains poor, irrespective of revascularization strategy. Mortality remains the primary driver for these findings and justifies a prudent approach to patient selection. Focus for improved results should emphasize predictors of survival to better identify those most likely to benefit from revascularization.