Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: A propensity-matched analysis

ObjectiveOur study compares late mortality and valve-related morbidities between nonelderly patients (aged <65 years) undergoing stented bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement in the aortic position.MethodsWe identified 1701 consecutive patients aged <65 years who underwent aortic valve replacement between 1992 and 2011. A stented bioprosthetic valve was used in 769 patients (45%) and a mechanical valve was used in 932 patients (55%). A stepwise logistic regression propensity score identified a subset of 361 evenly matched patient-pairs. Late outcomes of death, reoperation, major bleeding, and stroke were assessed.ResultsFollow-up was 99% complete. The mean age in the matched cohort was 53.9 years (bioprosthetic valve) and 53.2 years (mechanical valve) (P = .30). Fifteen additional measurable variables were statistically similar for the matched cohort. Thirty-day mortality was 1.9% (bioprosthetic valve) and 1.4% (mechanical valve) (P = .77). Survival at 5, 10, 15, and 18 years was 89%, 78%, 65%, and 60% for patients with bioprosthetic valves versus 88%, 79%, 75%, and 51% for patients with mechanical valves (P = .75). At 18 years, freedom from reoperation was 95% for patients with mechanical valves and 55% for patients with bioprosthetic valves (P = .002), whereas freedom from a major bleeding event favored patients with bioprosthetic valves (98%) versus mechanical valves (78%; P = .002). There was no difference in stroke between the 2 matched groups.ConclusionsIn patients aged <65 years, despite an increase in the rate of reoperation with stented bioprosthetic valves and an increase in major bleeding events with mechanical valves, there is no significant difference in mortality at late follow-up

Predictors of hyperglycemia after cardiac surgery in nondiabetic patients

Postoperative hyperglycemia is associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, some experts consider hyperglycemia to be an epiphenomenon related to acute stress. We investigated whether preoperative patient characteristics can predict hyperglycemia after cardiac surgery in nondiabetic patients. This is a retrospective study of nondiabetic patients undergoing cardiac surgery at a single center during the years 2004 to 2009. Hyperglycemia was defined as 2 consecutive blood glucose readings of 150 mg/dL or greater during the 72 hours after cardiac surgery. This study included 1453 patients with hyperglycemia and 2205 patients without hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemic patients were older, were more likely to be men, had higher body mass index, were more likely to be hypertensive and hypercholesterolemic, and had lower left ventricular ejection fractions; in addition, a greater proportion had a history of cardiovascular disease and renal failure. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed age, gender, body mass index, preoperative serum creatinine, left ventricular ejection fraction, previous cardiac surgery, and preoperative cardiogenic shock to be independently associated with hyperglycemia (P < .05 for all). Hyperglycemic patients had more intraoperative and postoperative complications. Preoperative patient characteristics are associated with hyperglycemia after cardiac surgery

Reoperative aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians-minimally invasive technique in the era of transcatheter valve replacement

Objective: Reoperative aortic valve replacement (re-AVR) in octogenarians is considered high risk and therefore might be indicated for transcatheter AVR. The minimally invasive technique for re-AVR limits dissection and might benefit this patient population. We report the outcomes of re-AVR in high-risk octogenarians who might be considered candidates for transcatheter AVR to assess the safety of re-AVR and minimally invasive operative techniques. Methods: We identified 105 patients, aged >= 80 years, who underwent open re-AVR at our institution from July 1997 to December 2011. Patients requiring concomitant coronary bypass surgery and/or other valve surgery were excluded. The outcomes of interest included operative mortality, postoperative complications, and midterm postoperative survival. Results: Of the 105 patients, 51 underwent minimally re-AVR through upper hemisternotomy (Mre-AVR) and 54 standard full sternotomy (Fre-AVR). The mean patient age was 82.8 +/- 3.8 years. No significant differences were found in the patient risk factors. Postoperatively, 6 patients (5.7%) underwent reoperation for bleeding, 4 (3.8%) experienced permanent stroke, 4 (3.8%) developed new renal failure, and 22 (21.0%) had new-onset atrial fibrillation. Overall, the operative mortality was 6.7%, and the 1- and 5-year survival was 87% and 53%, respectively. When Mre-AVR and Fre-AVR were compared, the operative mortality was 9.2% in the Fre-AVR group and 3.9% in the Mre-AVR group (P = .438). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a survival benefit at both 1 year (79% +/- 11.7% vs 92% +/- 7.8%) and 5 years (38% +/- 17.6% vs 65% +/- 15.7%, P = .028) favoring Mre-AVR. Cox regression analysis identified heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, reoperation for bleeding, older age, full sternotomy, and an infectious complication as predictors of mortality. Conclusions: Octogenarians who undergo re-AVR are thought to be high-risk surgical candidates. The present single-center series revealed acceptable in-hospital outcomes and operative mortality. Mre-AVR was associated with better survival compared with Fre-AVR and might benefit this populatio

The valve-in-valve operation for aortic homograft dysfunction: a better option

Reoperations on dysfunctional aortic homografts often require root reconstruction with coronary reanastomosis. This is associated with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality. Resecting compromised aortic homograft valve leaflets and seating a new valve within the homograft annulus avoids root reconstruction and is a viable alternative

Impact of reintervention after index aortic valve replacement on the risk of subsequent mortalityCentral MessagePerspective

Objectives: The use of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is inherently associated with a risk of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and the need for aortic valve (AV) reintervention. We sought to evaluate whether AV reintervention, in the form of repeat surgical AVR (SAVR) or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), negatively affects patients’ subsequent long-term survival after index SAVR. Methods: We identified patients who had undergone bioprosthetic SAVR from 2002 to 2017 at our institution. Median longitudinal follow-up after index SAVR was 7.3 years (10.9 years for those with and 7.2 years for those without AV reintervention), and median follow-up after AV reintervention was 1.9 years. Cox regression analyses using AV reintervention (re-SAVR and ViV-TAVR) as a time-varying covariate were used to determine the impact of reintervention on subsequent survival. Results: Of 4167 patients who underwent index SAVR, 139 (3.3%) required AV reintervention for SVD, with re-SAVR being performed in 65 and ViV-TAVR in 74. Median age at the index SAVR was 73 years (interquartile range, 64-79 years), and 2541 (61%) were male. Overall, there were total of 1171 mortalities observed, of which 13 occurred after re-SAVR and 9 after ViV-TAVR. AV reintervention was associated with a greater risk of subsequent mortality compared with those patients who did not require AV reintervention (hazard ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.88, P < .001). This increased risk of subsequent mortality was more pronounced for those who received their index AVR when <65 years of age (hazard ratio, 5.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.57-12.22, P < .001) versus those ≥65 years (2.06, 1.21-3.52, P = .008). Direct comparison of survival between those who underwent re-SAVR versus ViV-TAVR showed 5-year survival to be comparable (re-SAVR: 74% vs ViV-TAVR: 80%, P = .67). Conclusions: Among patients receiving bioprosthetic AVR, an AV reintervention for SVD is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality, regardless of re-SAVR or ViV-TAVR, and this risk is greater among younger patients. These findings should be balanced with individual preferences at index AVR in the context of patients’ lifetime management of aortic stenosis