-
Journal of the American Heart... Jan 2023Background The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there are limited data comparing it... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there are limited data comparing it with conventional aortic valve replacement. Herein, we compared outcomes of the Ross procedure with mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (M-AVR and B-AVR, respectively). Methods and Results MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies that investigated outcomes of patients aged ≥16 years undergoing the Ross procedure, M-AVR, or B-AVR. The systematic literature search identified 2 randomized controlled trials and 8 propensity score-matched studies involving a total of 4812 patients (Ross: n=1991; M-AVR: n=2019; and B-AVR: n=802). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the Ross procedure group compared with M-AVR (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.58 [0.35-0.97]; =0.035) and B-AVR (HR [95% CI], 0.32 [0.18-0.59]; <0.001) groups. The reintervention rate was lower after the Ross procedure and M-AVR compared with B-AVR, whereas it was higher after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Major bleeding rate was lower after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Long-term stroke rate was lower following the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR and B-AVR. The rate of endocarditis was also lower after the Ross procedure compared with B-AVR. Conclusions Improved long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure are demonstrated compared with conventional M-AVR and B-AVR options. These results highlight a need to enhance the recognition of the Ross procedure and revisit current guidelines on the optimal valve substitute for young and middle-aged patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Network Meta-Analysis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Adolescent; Young Adult
PubMed: 36565200
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.122.027715 -
Current Cardiology Reviews 2022Paravalvular Leak (PVL) refers to the retrograde flow of blood in the space between an implanted cardiac valve and native tissue. These are unfortunately but luckily...
BACKGROUND
Paravalvular Leak (PVL) refers to the retrograde flow of blood in the space between an implanted cardiac valve and native tissue. These are unfortunately but luckily relatively uncommon complications of prosthetic valve replacement that, especially when moderate or severe, have important clinical consequences.
OBJECTIVE
Addressing PVL requires a multidisciplinary team to properly diagnose this process and choose the corrective option most likely to result in success.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was undertaken to formulate this narrative review.
RESULTS
This review highlights the complex nature of PVL and the promising contemporary treatments available.
CONCLUSION
Clinicians should be adept at recognizing PVL and characterizing it using multimodality imaging. Using the many available tools and a multidisciplinary approach should lead to favorable outcomes in patients with PVL.
Topics: Humans; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Retrospective Studies; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35546743
DOI: 10.2174/1573403X18666220511113310 -
Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.) 2022Robot-assisted surgery is a minimally invasive approach for repairing the mitral valve. This study aimed to assess its safety and clinical efficacy when compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Robot-assisted surgery is a minimally invasive approach for repairing the mitral valve. This study aimed to assess its safety and clinical efficacy when compared with conventional sternotomy, partial sternotomy, and right minithoracotomy.
METHODS
A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies comparing robot-assisted mitral valve repair with conventional sternotomy, partial sternotomy, and right minithoracotomy was conducted following Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed where possible.
RESULTS
The search strategy yielded 15 primary studies, of which 12 compared robot-assisted with conventional sternotomy, 2 compared robot-assisted with partial sternotomy, and 6 compared robot-assisted with right minithoracotomy. The overall quality of evidence was low, and there was a lack of data on long-term outcomes. Individual studies and pooled data demonstrated that robotic procedures were comparable to conventional sternotomy and other minimally invasive approaches with respect to the rates of stroke, renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, and mortality. Robot-assisted mitral valve repair was superior to conventional sternotomy with reduced atrial fibrillation, intensive care unit and hospital stay, pain, time to return to normal activities, and physical functioning at 1 year. However, robot-assisted mitral valve repair had longer cardiopulmonary, aortic cross-clamp, and procedure times compared with all other surgical approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on current evidence, robot-assisted mitral valve repair is comparable to other approaches for safety and early postoperative outcomes, despite being associated with longer operative times. Ideally, future studies will be randomized controlled trials that compare between robot-assisted surgery, conventional surgery, and other minimally surgery approaches focusing on hard clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Mitral Valve; Robotics; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Mitral Valve Insufficiency; Sternotomy; Treatment Outcome; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36529985
DOI: 10.1177/15569845221141488 -
Anatolian Journal of Cardiology Nov 2023Perfect heart valve prostheses have optimized hemodynamics, reduced surgical morbidity, long-lasting durability, and extended patient survival with greater quality of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Perfect heart valve prostheses have optimized hemodynamics, reduced surgical morbidity, long-lasting durability, and extended patient survival with greater quality of life. Mechanical valves are recommended; however, young children may need anticoagulant medication for life. In this study, we looked at the success rate and viability of aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) surgery for a variety of aortic disorders.
METHODS
A methodical search strategy was used to fully evaluate the AVNeo results. Boolean operators were used to combine important words like 'Ozaki Procedure,' 'Aortic Valve Neocuspidization,' 'AVNeo,' and associated terms. Reputable databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were the focus of our search. Study quality was assessed using a critical evaluation created with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.
RESULTS
The findings are summarized in the 'Results' section that contains descriptive and critical analysis, ramifications, and explanations. According to research, AVNeo improved valve function and had few side effects. Aortic valve neocuspidization has a lower mean pressure gradient and a larger mean efficient orifice area than Trifecta. Aortic valve neocuspidization surgery reduces aortic valve regurgitation and pressure gradients. Postoperative echocardiograms indicated a decrease in peak and a rise in mean pressure gradient.
CONCLUSION
The Ozaki method restores a healthy laminar flow pattern while preventing bivalvular disease. Ozaki procedure should be explored for valve repair in infants with truncal valve and congenital aortic disease. Aortic valve tricuspidization with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium results in considerable effective orifice area, modest pressure gradients, and little regurgitation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Child, Preschool; Aortic Valve; Quality of Life; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Pericardium; Aortic Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37909351
DOI: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2023.3477 -
Journal of Thoracic Disease Mar 2021Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods...
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37-1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13-1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16-0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01-0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13-1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% . 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25-4.16, P=0.007).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.
PubMed: 33841958
DOI: 10.21037/jtd-20-2233 -
Journal of the American Heart... Dec 2022Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], =0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], =0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], =0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], <0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], =0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (=0.26), myocardial infarction (=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.
Topics: Humans; Aortic Valve; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Bioprosthesis; Reoperation; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Myocardial Infarction; Stroke; Treatment Outcome; Risk Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36533610
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024848 -
Sex-Related Differences in Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiology 2022Inequalities in postoperative outcomes between males and females are well described with females often experiencing inferior outcomes after heart valve surgery. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Inequalities in postoperative outcomes between males and females are well described with females often experiencing inferior outcomes after heart valve surgery. The recent literature has demonstrated equivalent or improved outcomes for females after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) and replacement (TMVR) is a relatively newer field with significantly less literature comparing sex differences. This systematic review and meta-analysis looks to provide a comprehensive summary of the published literature comparing outcomes between males and females undergoing transcatheter MV interventions.
METHODS
PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus were systematically searched for all studies comparing outcomes between males and females undergoing TMVr and TMVR. A total of 2,178 English manuscript titles and abstracts were reviewed. Articles were excluded if data were not provided regarding sex differences, transcatheter MV intervention, full-length text was not accessible, or if insufficient data was provided. A total of 2,170 articles were excluded, and 8 articles were included in this study.
RESULTS
Pooled estimates of outcomes demonstrated rates of acute kidney injury (OR 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.44; p < 0.0001]) favored females, while rates of major bleeding favored males (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.76-0.96; p = 0.01]). Rates of mortality, postoperative MI, and stroke did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSION
A trend has emerged in heart valve interventions with males tending to have improved outcomes after surgical intervention and females experiencing equivalent or improved outcomes after transcatheter interventions. This meta-analysis identified increased rates of acute kidney injury for males, increased rates of major bleeding for females, and otherwise comparable morbidity and mortality in males and females undergoing TMVr.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Cardiac Catheterization; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Male; Mitral Valve; Mitral Valve Insufficiency; Sex Characteristics; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35443246
DOI: 10.1159/000524378 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Jul 2023Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is a safe and effective surgical procedure to treat aortic root aneurysm. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate how this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is a safe and effective surgical procedure to treat aortic root aneurysm. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate how this procedure might differ in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).
DESIGN
Meta-analysis with meta-regression and systematic review.
SETTING
Systematic search in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase.
INTERVENTIONS
All observational studies of VSARR in patients with BAV or TAV were included in our study. Studies were included without any restrictions on language or publication date. A trial sequential analysis and a post-hoc meta-regression was performed on the main outcomes.
RESULT
Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1138 patients in BAV group, and 2125 patients in TAV group. No significant differences in gender and age were observed between BAV and TAV patients. BAV and TAV patients showed no differences in in-hospital mortality rate [0.00% vs. 1.93%; RR (95% CI) 0.33 (0.09, 1.26), I = 0%, P = 0.11] and the rate of in-hospital reoperation [5.64% vs. 5.99%; RR (95% CI) 1.01(0.59, 1.73), I = 33%, P = 0.98]. The overall long-term mortality rate of BAV patients was better than that of TAV patients [1.63% vs. 8.15%; RR (95% CI) 0.34 (0.13, 0.86), I = 0%, P = 0.02]. During the follow-up observation period, patients in TAV group showed small but no statistic advantage in 3-year, 5-year, and over 10-year incidences of reintervention. Regarding the secondary endpoints, the two groups showed similar aortic cross-clamping time and total cardiopulmonary bypass time.
CONCLUSION
The VSARR techniques yielded similar clinical outcomes in both BAV and TAV patients. Although patients with BAV might have a higher incidence of reinterventions after initial VSARR, it is still a safe and effective approach to treat aortic root dilation with or without aortic valve insufficiency. TAV patients showed small but no statistic advantage in long-term (over 10 years) reintervention rate, which means, patients with BAV may face a higher risk of reintervention in the clinic.
Topics: Humans; Aortic Valve; Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease; Heart Valve Diseases; Aorta; Tricuspid Valve; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37400892
DOI: 10.1186/s13019-023-02329-8 -
Clinical Cardiology Oct 2016Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) remains one of the drawbacks of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Details of percutaneous closure (PCC) of PVR after TAVI... (Review)
Review
Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) remains one of the drawbacks of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Details of percutaneous closure (PCC) of PVR after TAVI remain obscure. We aimed to explore the patient characteristics, procedural details, closure devices used, and outcomes of PCC after TAVI. A systematic search of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases from January 2002 to September 2015 was conducted. Reports considered to include same patient were excluded and only the studies with largest cohorts were included. A total of 14 studies including 58 patients (61 cases) were included in the study. A balloon-expandable (BE) valve was used more frequently compared with a self-expandable (SE) valve (72.6% vs 27.4%, respectively). The mean success rate was 86.9% (100% and 77.8%, respectively; P = 0.097). The median number of closure devices used was 1 (range, 1-4) and did not differ between SE and BE valves (P = 0.71). Mean time from index procedure to PCC did not differ between SE and BE valves (295 ± 380 days vs 379 ± 353 days; P = 0.71). Seven patients had history of valve-in-valve and 6 patients had procedural success. Among the patients with available follow-up data (94.8%), there were 15 deaths (27.3%). Percutaneous closure of PVR after TAVI had a high success rate in selected patients in both BE and SE valves. The success rate, timing, and number of closure devices were similar between BE and SE valves. However, prognosis remains fairly poor.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Cardiac Catheterization; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Male; Retreatment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27396630
DOI: 10.1002/clc.22569 -
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions Nov 2016This study sought to summarize available evidence on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of native pure aortic regurgitation (AR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to summarize available evidence on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of native pure aortic regurgitation (AR).
BACKGROUND
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the gold standard for the treatment of AR. However, case series of high-risk patients undergoing TAVR for native pure AR were reported.
METHODS
We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Scopus for reports of at least 5 patients with native pure AR undergoing TAVR. Patients' and procedural characteristics were summarized. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016038422).
RESULTS
Thirteen reports including 237 patients were included in the analysis. Self-expandable prostheses were used in 79% of patients, whereas 21% of the patients were treated with a balloon-expandable valve. Device success ranged between 74% and 100%. Seventeen patients (7%) required the implantation of a second valve. Conversion to SAVR was reported in 6 (2.5%) cases. The rate of all-cause mortality at 30 days amounted to 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3% to 13%; I = 37%). Cerebrovascular events were rare (0%, 95% CI: 0% to 1%; I = 0); major bleeding and vascular complications occurred in 2% (95% CI: 0% to 7%; I = 41%), and 3% (95% CI: 1% to 7%; I = 0%), respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 11% of patients (95% CI: 5% to 19%; I = 50%). The rate of moderate or severe post-procedural AR amounted to 9% (95% CI: 0% to 28%; I = 90%).
CONCLUSIONS
Among selected patients with native pure AR deemed at high risk for SAVR, TAVR is technically feasible and associated with an acceptable risk of early mortality.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Balloon Valvuloplasty; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28026742
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.08.049