-
European Heart Journal Sep 2023To support decision-making in children undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), by providing a comprehensive overview of published outcomes after paediatric AVR, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To support decision-making in children undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), by providing a comprehensive overview of published outcomes after paediatric AVR, and microsimulation-based age-specific estimates of outcome with different valve substitutes.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A systematic review of published literature reporting clinical outcome after paediatric AVR (mean age <18 years) published between 1/1/1990 and 11/08/2021 was conducted. Publications reporting outcome after paediatric Ross procedure, mechanical AVR (mAVR), homograft AVR (hAVR), and/or bioprosthetic AVR were considered for inclusion. Early risks (<30d), late event rates (>30d) and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model. Sixty-eight studies, of which one prospective and 67 retrospective cohort studies, were included, encompassing a total of 5259 patients (37 435 patient-years; median follow-up: 5.9 years; range 1-21 years). Pooled mean age for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 9.2 ± 5.6, 13.0 ± 3.4, and 8.4 ± 5.4 years, respectively. Pooled early mortality for the Ross procedure, mAVR, and hAVR was 3.7% (95% CI, 3.0%-4.7%), 7.0% (5.1%-9.6%), and 10.6% (6.6%-17.0%), respectively, and late mortality rate was 0.5%/year (0.4%-0.7%/year), 1.0%/year (0.6%-1.5%/year), and 1.4%/year (0.8%-2.5%/year), respectively. Microsimulation-based mean life-expectancy in the first 20 years was 18.9 years (18.6-19.1 years) after Ross (relative life-expectancy: 94.8%) and 17.0 years (16.5-17.6 years) after mAVR (relative life-expectancy: 86.3%). Microsimulation-based 20-year risk of aortic valve reintervention was 42.0% (95% CI: 39.6%-44.6%) after Ross and 17.8% (95% CI: 17.0%-19.4%) after mAVR.
CONCLUSION
Results of paediatric AVR are currently suboptimal with substantial mortality especially in the very young with considerable reintervention hazards for all valve substitutes, but the Ross procedure provides a survival benefit over mAVR. Pros and cons of substitutes should be carefully weighed during paediatric valve selection.
Topics: Humans; Child; Adolescent; Aortic Valve; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37366156
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad370 -
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 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Mar 2024The Cabrol procedure has undergone various modifications and developments since its invention. However, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding meta-analyses... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The Cabrol procedure has undergone various modifications and developments since its invention. However, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding meta-analyses assessing it.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications. Pooling was conducted using random effects model. Outcome events were reported as linearized occurrence rates (percentage per patient-year) with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies involving 833 patients (mean age: 50.8 years; 68.0% male) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled all-cause early mortality was 9.0% (66 patients), and the combined rate of reoperation due to bleeding was 4.9% (17 patients). During the average 4.4-year follow-up (3,727.3 patient-years), the annual occurrence rates (linearized) for complications were as follows: 3.63% (2.79-4.73) for late mortality, 0.64% (0.35-1.16) for aortic root reoperation, 0.57% (0.25-1.31) for hemorrhage events, 0.66% (0.16-2.74) for thromboembolism, 0.60% (0.29-1.26) for endocarditis, 2.32% (1.04-5.16) for major valve-related adverse events, and 0.58% (0.34-1.00) for Cabrol-related coronary graft complications.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review provides evidence that the outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications are acceptable in terms of mortality, reoperation, anticoagulation, and valve-related complications, especially in Cabrol-related coronary graft complications. Notably, the majority of Cabrol procedures were performed in reoperations and complex cases. Furthermore, the design and anastomosis of the Dacron interposition graft for coronary reimplantation, considering natural anatomy and physiological hemodynamics, may promise future advancements in this field.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Aortic Valve; Aorta; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Reoperation; Heart Diseases
PubMed: 38532449
DOI: 10.1186/s13019-024-02642-w -
Cardiology and Therapy Jun 2023We aimed to systematically analyze the literature on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat active aortic valve infective endocarditis... (Review)
Review
We aimed to systematically analyze the literature on the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat active aortic valve infective endocarditis (AV-IE). Surgery is declined in one-third of patients with IE who meet indications because of prohibitive surgical risk. TAVR might be an alternative for selected patients with AV-IE as a bridge-to-surgery or stand-alone therapy. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (2002-2022) for studies on TAVR use in active AV-IE. Of 450 identified reports, six met inclusion criteria (all men, mean age 71 ± 12 years, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score 27, EuroSCORE 56). All patients were prohibitive surgical risk candidates. Five out of six patients had severe, and one patient had moderate aortic regurgitation on presentation. Five out of six patients had prosthetic valve endocarditis after surgical valve replacement 13 years before (median), and one patient had TAVR a year before hospitalization. All patients had cardiogenic shock as the indication for TAVR. Four patients received balloon-expanding, and two patients received self-expanding TAVR after a median of 19 (IQR 9-25) days from diagnosis of IE. No death or myocardial infarction occurred, but one patient had a stroke within the first 30 days. The median event-free time was 9 (IQR 6-14) months including no death, reinfection, relapse IE, or valve-related rehospitalization. Our review suggests that TAVR can be considered as an adjuvant therapy to medical treatment for selected patients in whom surgery is indicated for treatment of acute heart failure due to aortic valve destruction and incompetence caused by infective endocarditis, but who have a prohibitive surgical risk. Nonetheless, a well-designed prospective registry is urgently needed to investigate the outcomes of TAVR for this off-label indication. No evidence exists for using the TAVR to treat infection-related surgical indications such as uncontrolled infection or control of septic embolization.
PubMed: 37079182
DOI: 10.1007/s40119-023-00314-9 -
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 -
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 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Aug 2021The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and...
The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients' decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients' values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients' perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.
Topics: Aortic Valve Stenosis; Decision Making; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Patient Preference; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Adjustment; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33563630
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-318334 -
Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery Sep 2020The treatment of aortic valve disease is the most common valvular surgery in industrialized nations, with 3-9% of the population over the age of eighty having at least...
BACKGROUND
The treatment of aortic valve disease is the most common valvular surgery in industrialized nations, with 3-9% of the population over the age of eighty having at least moderate aortic stenosis. As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become more established, newer surgical prostheses have been developed with a variety of anchoring systems that do not rely solely on sutures to hold the valve in an appropriate position. The Edwards Intuity valve is a bovine pericardial prosthesis that is modelled on the widely implanted Perimount MagnaEase aortic prosthesis. The Perceval valve is a bovine pericardial valve attached to a self-expanding nitinol stent, which uses the radial force exerted on the patient's aortic annulus and aortic root by the stent portion to hold the valve in position. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of comparative studies of these two valve systems.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the outcomes of rapid deployment valves (RDV) and sutureless valves (SURD) and was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations and guidance. The search strategy interrogated six electronic databases. Outcomes measured included all-cause mortality at latest follow up, stroke, cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, pacemaker implantation rates, paravalvular leak and post-operative transvalvular gradient.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 407 unique papers for initial assessment with seven studies qualifying for inclusion in the analysis. The outcomes of 4,076 patients (1,650 RDV, 2,426 SURD) were included. There was no difference in mortality, stroke or moderate or worse paravalvular regurgitation between the two groups. SURD had significantly shorter CPB time by 15.7 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.2-27.1; P=0.007] and a shorter cross-clamp time by 11.3 minutes (95% CI: 6.3-16.3; P<0.001) compared to RDV. RDV had a lower post-operative transvalvular gradient by 2.5 mmHg (95% CI: 1.2-3.8; P<0.001) and a lower rate of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR 2.51; 95% CI: 1.435-4.768; P=0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
Both valve types have an adequate safety profile and are comparable to conventional sutured prostheses. There was a significant reduction in cross-clamp and CPB times associated with SURD. This may be of benefit for patients requiring multiple concomitant procedures and increases the utility of minimally invasive valve replacement. However, SURD was associated with higher post-operative transvalvular gradients and a higher incidence of paravalvular regurgitation.
PubMed: 33102175
DOI: 10.21037/acs-2020-surd-27 -
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology : HJC =... 2022The ACURATE neo transcatheter aortic valve is a self-expanding device suitable for both transfemoral and transapical approach, but specific groups of patients are... (Review)
Review
The ACURATE neo transcatheter aortic valve is a self-expanding device suitable for both transfemoral and transapical approach, but specific groups of patients are under-represented in clinical trials. We aim to provide a comprehensive systematic review on TAVI with ACURATE neo in those special populations. TAVI in bicuspid aortic valve, TAVI in patients with small aortic annulus, TAVI for pure aortic regurgitation and valve-in-valve procedures, were systematically reviewed. The primary endpoint was device success as defined by VARC-2 criteria. The secondary endpoints were safety and performance outcomes according to VARC-2 consensus document.ACURATE neo exhibited similar outcomes in bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic valve except for pre and post-dilatation rates in one observational study. Lower mean aortic gradient and higher pre-dilatation rates with comparable safety outcomes were described for ACURATE neo when compared to Lotus and Evolut-R for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. 2 studies compared ACURATE in small aortic annuli. ACURATE neo showed lower transvalvular gradients and lower patient prosthesis mismatch rates compared to Sapien 3 and when compared to Evolut R/ Evolut PRO/ Portico, results were similar except for pre-dilatation rates. 3 studies investigated ACURATE neo for pure aortic regurgitation and one for valve-in-valve procedure and demonstrated safety and efficacy, with the exception of malposition events in patients designated for higher valve deployment in the valve-in-valve implantation study.ACURATE neo valve may be a feasible and safe option for patients with bicuspid anatomy, small aortic annulus, previously implanted bioprosthetic aortic valve and pure aortic regurgitation. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Available at https://osf.io/aus26 (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/AUS26).
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Prosthesis Design; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35508295
DOI: 10.1016/j.hjc.2022.04.005 -
Kardiochirurgia I Torakochirurgia... Mar 2021For patients with heart valve replacement, self-management can play an essential role in the management of their condition.
INTRODUCTION
For patients with heart valve replacement, self-management can play an essential role in the management of their condition.
AIM
This review aimed to identify the aspects of self-management and its clinical outcomes in patients with heart valve replacement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In this systematic review, the peer-reviewed research literature on self-management of patients with heart valve replacement was assessed. Since May 2020, the PubMed, Scopus, and web of science databases were searched regardless of time and language limitations. The eligibility of the articles was assessed by title or abstract according to the search strategy. Article selection was applied regarding to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, article screening was conducted by 2 independent authors.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were considered in this systematic review. For inclusion, the self-management of patients had to have prerequisites, appropriate training, and be applicable in the aspects of anticoagulation therapy self-management, international normalized ratio (INR) self-testing, low-dose INR self-management, and heart valve function self-monitoring. In this method, through proper management of INR levels and anticoagulation therapy, the complications rate could be reduced and the patients would be able to diagnose functional disorders in the early stages by monitoring the valve function. This procedure was able to prevent the progression of complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Self-management is an applicable protocol in the field of anticoagulation therapy, INR control, low-dose INR management, and the monitoring of cardiac valve function. This protocol could improve the quality of treatment for these patients through upgrading the care standards.
PubMed: 34552643
DOI: 10.5114/kitp.2021.105186