Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Aortic valve (2)
- Aortic Valve Replacement (1)
- Aortic valve replacement (1)
- Blood pressure (1)
- Body mass index (1)
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1)
- Death rates (1)
- Ejection fraction (1)
- Heart failure (1)
- Left Ventricular Mass (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Oral presentation: 23rd World Congress of the World Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgeons. Split, Croatia. 12-15 September 2013.
Background: In the past, questions have been raised, whether an open flexible annuloplasty band can reliably prevent recurrent mitral valve regurgitation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the durability of mitral valve repair at midterm, using the Cosgrove-Edwards annuloplasty band in a homogenic patient cohort.
Methods: From January 2004 to December 2007, 157 consecutive patients with degenerative mitral valve disease were included in the study. All had quadrangular resection of a P2 prolapse and annuloplasty with a Cosgrove-Edwards annuloplasty band. Clinical and echocardiography follow-up was complete.
Results: There was no intraoperative or 30 day mortality. After a mean follow-up of 5.0 ± 1.9 years, survival was 94.3%. At midterm, freedom from reoperations was 98.9%, freedom from thromboembolism was 97.5% and freedom from endocarditis was 99.4%. Echocardiography follow-up showed recurrent mitral valve regurgitation higher than grade 2 in two patients. Mean ejection fraction was 60.3 ± 10.2%, left atrial diameter was 42 ± 7 mm, mean gradient was 3.2 ± 1.4 mmHg, effective orifice area was 3.3 ± 1.3cm², mitral leaflet coaptation length was 7.5 ± 1.9 mm and mitral leaflet tethering height was 6.2 ± 2.3 mm.
Conclusion: Mitral valve repair using the Cosgrove annuloplasty band for degenerative mitral valve disease provides an effective and durable form of reconstruction.
Background: We assessed the hemodynamic performance of various prostheses and the clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement, in different age groups.
Methods: One-hundred-and-twenty patients with isolated aortic valve stenosis were included in this prospective randomized randomised trial and allocated in three age-groups to receive either pulmonary autograft (PA, n = 20) or mechanical prosthesis (MP, Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 1 (age < 55 years), either stentless bioprosthesis (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or MP (Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 2 (age 55-75 years) and either stentless (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or stented bioprosthesis (CE Perimount n = 20) in group 3 (age > 75). Clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance were evaluated at discharge, six months and one year.
Results: In group 1, patients with PA had significantly lower mean gradients than the MP (2.6 vs. 10.9 mmHg, p = 0.0005) with comparable left ventricular mass regression (LVMR). Morbidity included 1 stroke in the PA population and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the MP subgroup. In group 2, mean gradients did not differ significantly between both populations (7.0 vs. 8.9 mmHg, p = 0.81). The rate of LVMR and EF were comparable at 12 months; each group with one mortality. Morbidity included 1 stroke and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the stentless and 3 bleeding complications in the MP group. In group 3, mean gradients did not differ significantly (7.8 vs 6.5 mmHg, p = 0.06). Postoperative EF and LVMR were comparable. There were 3 deaths in the stented group and no mortality in the stentless group. Morbidity included 1 endocarditis and 1 stroke in the stentless compared to 1 endocarditis, 1 stroke and one pulmonary embolism in the stented group.
Conclusions: Clinical outcomes justify valve replacement with either valve substitute in the respective age groups. The PA hemodynamically outperformed the MPs. Stentless valves however, did not demonstrate significantly superior hemodynamics or outcomes in comparison to stented bioprosthesis or MPs.
Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcome of patients with previous cardiac surgery undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation (Redo-TAVI) to those undergoing classic aortic valve replacement (Redo-AVR) by using propensity analysis.
Methods: From January 2005 through May 2012, 52 high-risk patients underwent Redo-TAVI using a pericardial xenograft fixed within a stainless steel, balloon-expandable stent (Edwards SAPIEN™). During the same period of time 167 patients underwent classic Redo-AVR. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify covariates among 11 baseline patient variables including the type of initial surgery. Using the significant regression coefficients, each patient’s propensity score was calculated, allowing selectively matched subgroups of 40 patients each. Initial surgery included coronary artery bypass grafting in 30 patients, aortic valve replacement in 7 patients and mitral valve reconstruction in 3 patients in each group. Follow-up was 4 ± 2 years and was 100% complete.
Results: Postoperative chest tube drainage (163 ± 214 vs. 562 ± 332 ml/24 h, p = 0.02) and incidence of early permanent neurologic deficit (0 vs. 13%, p = 0.04) was lower in patients with Redo-TAVI and there was a trend towards improved 30-day survival (p = 0.06). Also we detected a decreased ventilation time (p = 0.04) and lower transfusion rate of allogenic blood products (p ≤ 0.05) in the Redo-TAVI group. At late follow up differences regarding incidence of major adverse events, including death and permanent neurologic deficits (25% vs. 43%, p = 0.01) statistically supported early postoperative findings.
Conclusion: The encouraging results regarding early and long-term outcomes following TAVI in patients with previous cardiac surgery show, that this evolving approach may be particularly beneficial in this patient cohort.
Aims: Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) may have concomitant heart failure (HF) that determines prognosis despite successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We compared outcomes of TAVI patients with low stroke volume index (SVI) ≤35 ml/m2 body surface area in different HF classes.
Methods and results: Patients treated by transfemoral TAVI at our center (n = 1822) were classified as 1) ‘HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF)’ (HFpEF, EF ≥50%), 2) ‘HF with mid-range EF’ (HFmrEF, EF 40–49%), or 3) ‘HF with reduced EF’ (HFrEF, EF <40%). Patients with SVI >35 ml/m2 served as controls. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and symptoms increased stepwise from controls (n = 968) to patients with HFpEF (n = 591), HFmrEF (n = 97), and HFrEF (n = 166). Mortality tended to be highest in HFrEF patients 30 days post-procedure, and it became significant after one year: 10.2% (controls), 13.5% (HFpEF), 13.4% (HFmrEF), and 23.5% (HFrEF). However, symptomatic improvement in survivors of all groups was achieved in the majority of patients without differences among groups.
Conclusions: Patients with AS and HF benefit from TAVI with respect to symptom alleviation. TAVI in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF led to an identical, favorable post-procedural prognosis that was significantly better than that of patients with HFrEF, which remains a high-risk population.