Importance of implant technique on risk of major paravalvular leak (PVL) after St. Jude mechanical heart valve replacement: a report from the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT)

Objective: To examine risk factors for major paravalvular leak (PVL) events after mechanical heart valve replacement. Methods: We analyzed outcome of 807 patients randomized into the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). The mean follow-up time was 30.6 months and 21 major PVL events were reported. Three additional major PVL events associated with endocarditis were excluded from analysis. All baseline medical history variables, as well as operative parameters (including use of pledgets and suture technique) were examined using Cox regression. Results: Major PVL was reported after 11 aortic, 9 mitral, and 1 double valve replacement. 6/404 (1.5%) patients with conventional valves experienced a major PVL event versus 15/403 (3.7%) in the Silzone group. 10/172 (5.8%) patients with valve suture technique without pledgets experienced a major PVL event versus 11/635 (1.7%) patients with pledgets. Final multivariable model showed that only suture technique without pledgets (p = 0.005) was an independent significant risk factor for major PVL events. Silzone cuff showed a strong trend (p = 0.055). Conclusions: Suture technique without pledgets is an independent significant risk factor for major PVL events. In this study, use of pledgets during valve replacement had a protective effect against subsequent paravalvular leak, supporting the use of buttress reinforcement for valve suture. The use of Silzone cuff, although not statistically significant, showed a strong trend as a risk facto

Usefulness of microsimulation to translate valve performance into patient outcome: Patient prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier–Edwards supra-annular valve

ObjectiveNumerous reports have been published documenting the results of aortic valve replacement. It is often not easy to translate these outcomes involving the condition of the valve into the actual consequences for the patient. We previously developed an alternative method to study outcome after aortic valve replacement that allows direct estimation of patient outcome after aortic valve replacement: microsimulation modeling. The goal of this article is to provide insight into microsimulation methodology and to give an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of simulation methods (in particular microsimulation) in comparison with standard methods of outcome analysis.MethodsBy using a primary dataset containing 1847 patients and 14,429 patient-years, advantages and disadvantages of standard methods of outcome analysis are discussed, and the potential role of microsimulation is illustrated by means of a step-by-step explanation of building, testing, and using such a model.ResultsTotal life expectancy, event-free life expectancy, and reoperation-free life expectancy for a 65-year-old male patient were 10.6 years, 9.2 years, and 9.8 years, respectively. Lifetime risk of reoperation due to structural valve deterioration was 13.3%.ConclusionsMicrosimulation is capable of providing accurate estimates of age-related life expectancy and lifetime risk of reoperation for patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier–Edwards supra-annular valve. It provides a useful tool to facilitate and optimize the choice for a specific heart valve prosthesis in a particular patient

Importance of implant technique on risk of major paravalvular leak (PVL) after St. Jude mechanical heart valve replacement: a report from the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT)

Objective: To examine risk factors for major paravalvular leak (PVL) events after mechanical heart valve replacement. Methods: We analyzed outcome of 807 patients randomized into the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). The mean follow-up time was 30.6 months and 21 major PVL events were reported. Three additional major PVL events associated with endocarditis were excluded from analysis. All baseline medical history variables, as well as operative parameters (including use of pledgets and suture technique) were examined using Cox regression. Results: Major PVL was reported after 11 aortic, 9 mitral, and 1 double valve replacement. 6/404 (1.5%) patients with conventional valves experienced a major PVL event versus 15/403 (3.7%) in the Silzone group. 10/172 (5.8%) patients with valve suture technique without pledgets experienced a major PVL event versus 11/635 (1.7%) patients with pledgets. Final multivariable model showed that only suture technique without pledgets (p = 0.005) was an independent significant risk factor for major PVL events. Silzone cuff showed a strong trend (p = 0.055). Conclusions: Suture technique without pledgets is an independent significant risk factor for major PVL events. In this study, use of pledgets during valve replacement had a protective effect against subsequent paravalvular leak, supporting the use of buttress reinforcement for valve suture. The use of Silzone cuff, although not statistically significant, showed a strong trend as a risk factor