-
Catheterization and Cardiovascular... Jul 2023Post-procedural aortic insufficiency (AI) continues to be prevalent following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). While several studies have assessed the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Post-procedural aortic insufficiency (AI) continues to be prevalent following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). While several studies have assessed the outcomes of moderate-severe AI following TAVR, the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of mild AI remain unclear.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies reporting on mild AI following TAVR. The primary outcome was pooled incidence of post-TAVR mild AI. Secondary outcomes included pooled incidence of mild AI at 30 days and long term. The pooled incidence of midterm mortality in patients with post-TAVR mild AI was also evaluated. The random effect generalized linear mixed-effects model with logit-transformed proportions and Hartung-Knapp adjustment was used to calculate pooled incidence rates. Meta-regression was performed to identify predictors of mild AI.
RESULTS
The pooled analysis included 19,241 patients undergoing TAVR across 50 studies. The mean age of patients ranged from 73 to 85 years, and female patients ranged from 20.0% to 83.3%. The overall pooled incidence of post-TAVR mild AI was 56.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.64). The pooled incidence of mild AI at 30 days was 33.7% (95% CI 0.12-0.37). At mean follow-up of 1.15 years, the pooled incidence of mild AI was 37.0% (95% CI 0.16-0.45). The overall pooled incidence of Midterm mortality (mean follow-up 1.22 years) in patients with mild AI was 14.8% (95% CI 0.10-0.25). At meta-regression, none of the explored variables correlated with a difference in mild AI incidence.
CONCLUSIONS
In published studies to date, 50% of patients undergoing TAVR develop mild AI postoperatively. In 37% of patients, this persists in long term. Though the incidence of AI is likely improving with newer generation TAVR valves, the prevalence and outcomes of mild AI should be closely monitored as TAVR volume and indications expand to younger patients with long life expectancy. The long-term outcomes of mild AI remain unclear. Further dedicated studies on post-TAVR mild AI are needed.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Aortic Valve Insufficiency
PubMed: 37172208
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30674 -
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 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Feb 2022Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently a common treatment in high-risk aortic stenosis patients, but the impact of hepatic insufficiency on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently a common treatment in high-risk aortic stenosis patients, but the impact of hepatic insufficiency on prognosis after TAVI is debatable and whether TAVI is superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with hepatic insufficiency is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of abnormal liver function on the outcome and safety after TAVI and whether TAVI is superior to SAVR in patients with hepatic insufficiency.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception up to 26 November 2021. Studies were eligible if mortality and complications after TAVI in patients with and without hepatic insufficiency, or mortality and complications for TAVI versus SAVR in patients with hepatic insufficiency were reported. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of each study. This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021253423) and was carried out by using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis of 21 studies assessed a total of 222,694 patients. Hepatic insufficiency was associated with higher short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality [OR = 1.62, 95% CI (1.18 to 2.21), P = 0.003] and 1-2 years mortality [HR = 1.64, 95% CI (1.42 to 1.89), P < 0.00001] after TAVI. Between TAVI and SAVR in patients with hepatic insufficiency, there was a statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality [OR = 0.46, 95% CI (0.27 to 0.81), P = 0.007], the occurrence rate of blood transfusions [OR = 0.29, 95% CI (0.22 to 0.38), P < 0.00001] and the occurrence rate of acute kidney injury [OR = 0.55, 95% CI (0.33 to 0.91), P = 0.02].
CONCLUSIONS
TAVI patients with hepatic insufficiency may have negative impact both on short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) and 1-2-years mortality. For patients with hepatic insufficiency, TAVI could be a better option than SAVR.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Hepatic Insufficiency; Humans; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35196988
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-022-02510-2 -
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular... Feb 2016Annuloplasty is considered to play a key role to control aortic valve regurgitation (AR) and prevent recurrence of AR after aortic valve repair, because aortic root... (Review)
Review
Annuloplasty is considered to play a key role to control aortic valve regurgitation (AR) and prevent recurrence of AR after aortic valve repair, because aortic root dilatation has emerged as a risk factor for recurrence of AR. Various modifications of annuloplasty have been advocated, however, none of them has become standardized. Thus in this review they are outlined and classified (internal/external, with/without ring, rigid/flexible ring), and their advantages and disadvantages are clarified. Their clinical outcomes seem currently acceptable in general, and external flexible annuloplasty has been performed more frequently with favorable outcomes. However, they are still performed for a minority of patients by special experienced teams with limited follow-up periods. Therefore, it seems too early to determine the superiority or inferiority of each approach. We must carefully conduct evaluation to clarify which approach will become reproducible, effective, and standardized.
Topics: Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Cardiac Valve Annuloplasty; Humans; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26608703
DOI: 10.1007/s11748-015-0602-3 -
European Heart Journal Dec 2017To support decision-making regarding prosthetic valve selection in non-elderly adults, we aim to provide a detailed overview of outcome after contemporary mechanical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To support decision-making regarding prosthetic valve selection in non-elderly adults, we aim to provide a detailed overview of outcome after contemporary mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).
METHODS AND RESULTS
A systematic review was conducted for papers reporting clinical outcome after AVR with bileaflet mechanical valves with a mean patient age ≥18 and ≤55 years, published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2015. Through meta-analysis outcomes were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate (event-free) life expectancy and lifetime event risk. Twenty-nine publications, encompassing a total of 5728 patients with 32 515 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up: 5.7 years), were included. Pooled mean age at surgery was 48.0 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 3.15% (95% confidence interval (CI):2.37-4.23), late mortality rate was 1.55%/year (95%CI:1.25-1.92); 38.7% of late deaths were valve-related. Pooled thromboembolism rate was 0.90%/year (95%CI:0.68-1.21), major bleeding 0.85%/year (95%CI:0.65-1.12), nonstructural valve dysfunction 0.39%/year (95%CI:0.21-0.76), endocarditis 0.41%/year (95%CI:0.29-0.57), valve thrombosis 0.14%/year (95%CI:0.08-0.25), structural valve deterioration 0.00%/year (zero events observed), and reintervention 0.51%/year (95%CI:0.37-0.71), mostly due to nonstructural valve dysfunction and endocarditis. For a 45-year-old, for example, this translated to an estimated life expectancy of 19 years (general population: 34 years) and lifetime risks of thromboembolism, bleeding and reintervention of 18%, 15%, and 10%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrates that outcome after mechanical AVR in non-elderly adults is characterized by suboptimal survival and considerable lifetime risk of anticoagulation-related complications, but also reoperation. Non-elderly adult patients who are facing prosthetic valve selection are entitled to conveyance of evidence-based estimates of the risks and benefits of both mechanical and biological valve options in a shared decision-making process.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Young Adult
PubMed: 29045647
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx199 -
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 -
European Heart Journal. Quality of Care... Mar 2022Utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded from high-risk patients to intermediate- and select low-risk candidates with severe aortic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded from high-risk patients to intermediate- and select low-risk candidates with severe aortic stenosis (AS). TAVR is currently not indicated for patients with aortic insufficiency, and its outcomes in mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD) are unclear.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies comparing TAVR outcomes in patients with AS vs. MAVD. Primary outcomes included 30-day and late all-cause mortality, and paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, vascular complications, device implantation success, permanent pacemaker, and stroke. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Der Simonian-Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS
Six observational studies with 58 879 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality [OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.15); P = 0.63], however, MAVD group had higher odds of moderate-to-severe PVR [1.81 (1.41-2.31); P < 0.01]. MAVD patients had lower odds of device implantation success [0.60 (0.40-0.91); P = 0.02] while other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
TAVR in MAVD is associated with increased odds of paravalvular regurgitation and lower odds of device implantation success when compared to severe aortic stenosis.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Humans; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34788825
DOI: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab080 -
European Heart Journal. Quality of Care... Mar 2022Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aortic regurgitation (AR) contain recommendations that do not always match. We systematically reviewed clinical practice...
Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aortic regurgitation (AR) contain recommendations that do not always match. We systematically reviewed clinical practice guidelines and summarized similarities and differences in the recommendations as well as gaps in evidence on the management of AR. We searched MEDLINE and Embase (1 January 2011 to 1 September 2021), Google Scholar, and websites of relevant organizations for contemporary guidelines that were rigorously developed as assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Three guidelines met our inclusion criteria. There was consensus on the definition of severe AR and use of echocardiography and of multimodality imaging for diagnosis, with emphasis on comprehensive assessment by the heart valve team to assess suitability and choice of intervention. Surgery is indicated in all symptomatic patients and aortic valve replacement is the cornerstone of treatment. There is consistency in the frequency of follow-up of patients, and safety of non-cardiac surgery in patients without indications for surgery. Discrepancies exist in recommendations for 3D imaging and the use of global longitudinal strain and biomarkers. Cut-offs for left ventricular ejection fraction and size for recommending surgery in severe asymptomatic AR also vary. There are no specific AR cut-offs for high-risk surgery and the role of percutaneous intervention is yet undefined. Recommendations on the treatment of mixed valvular disease are sparse and lack robust prospective data.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Humans; Prospective Studies; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35026012
DOI: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcac001 -
Aorta (Stamford, Conn.) Feb 2014Background : It is widely accepted that aortic valve disease is surgically managed with aortic valve replacement (AVR) using different available prostheses. The...
UNLABELLED
Background : It is widely accepted that aortic valve disease is surgically managed with aortic valve replacement (AVR) using different available prostheses. The long-term survival, durability of the valve, and freedom from reoperation after AVR are well established in published literature. Over the past two decades, aortic valve repair (AVr) has evolved into an accepted surgical option for patients with aortic valve disease. We review and analyze the published literature on AVr. Methods : A systematic review of the current literature was performed through three electronic databases from inception to August 2013 to identify all relevant studies relating to aortic valve repair. Articles selected were chosen by two reviewers. Articles were excluded if they contained a pediatric population or if the patient number was less than 50.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies conformed to the inclusion criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. In total, 4986 patients underwent aortic valve repair. 7 studies represented bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair, 5 studies represented cusp prolapse, and 3 studies represented valve repair with root dilation or aneurysm. Overall weighted in-hospital mortality for all studies was low (1.46% ± 1.21). Preoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) ≥ 2+ did not correlate to reoperation for valve failure (Pearson's Rs 0.2705, P = 0.2585). AI at discharge was reported in 9 studies with a mean AI ≥ 2+ in 6.1% of patients. Weighted average percentage for valve reoperation following BAV repair was 10.23% ± 3.2. Weighted average reoperation following cusp prolapse repair was 3.83 ± 1.96. Weighted average reoperation in aortic valve sparing procedures with root replacement was 4.25% ± 2.46. Although there are limitations and complications of prosthetic valves, especially for younger individuals, there is ample published literature that confers strong evidence for AVR. On the contrary, aortic valve repair may be a useful option for selected patients, but there is lack of uniformity in data and absence of compelling supporting evidence. An international multi-center study comparing and assessing the results between AVR & AVr is the next step required. Currently, higher levels of evidence do not exist for aortic valve repair.
PubMed: 26798710
DOI: 10.12945/j.aorta.2014.14-003 -
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