Trends in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in More Than 3,000 Consecutive Cases in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantations

Abstract

Objectives Biological prostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) are increasingly being considered in patients < 60 years of age. Likely, preserving the option of performing a transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure in cases of structural valve deterioration has contributed to this development. We assessed the use pattern in sAVR over an 11-year period.

Methods From 2002 through 2012, a total of 3,172 patients underwent sAVR at our center.

Results Mean age was 70.4 ± 10.6 years and mortality was 1.9%. From 2002 to 2012, mean manufacturer given valve size increased from 22.8 ± 1.7 to 23.9 ± 2.0 mm (p < 0.001). Mean true internal diameter and effective orifice area increased from 19.6 to 20.3 mm (p = 0.027) and 1.41 to 1.56 cm² (p < 0.001), respectively. Use of mechanical valves decreased from 10.9 to 1.8% (p < 0.001), and patients were younger in 2012 than in 2002 (52.8 ± 16.5 vs. 41.0 ± 14.3 years; p = 0.028).

Conclusion Profound change of use pattern in sAVR was observed as indication for biological prostheses became more liberal. Larger prostheses were implanted during the observational period. Especially in younger patients, optimal sizing is essential to preserve the option for subsequent ViV procedures.

Keywords

aortic valve - aortic root - cardiac surgery - heart valve - transcatheter aortic valve implantation

^* Both the authors contributed equally to this work.

• References

• 1 Ross Jr J, Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. Circulation 1968; 38 (1, Suppl): 61-67
• 2 Funkat A, Beckmann A, Lewandowski J , et al. Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2013: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 62 (5) 380-392
• 3 Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F , et al; Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012) [in Italian]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42 (4) S1-S44
• 4 Niclauss L, von Segesser LK, Ferrari E. Aortic biological valve prosthesis in patients younger than 65 years of age: transition to a flexible age limit?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2013; 16 (4) 501-507
• 5 Leontyev S, Borger MA, Davierwala P , et al. Redo aortic valve surgery: early and late outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (4) 1120-1126
• 6 Onorati F, Biancari F, De Feo M , et al. Mid-term results of aortic valve surgery in redo scenarios in the current practice: results from the multicentre European RECORD (REdo Cardiac Operation Research Database) initiative. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47 (2) 269-280 , discussion 280
• 7 Diemert P, Seiffert M, Frerker C , et al. Valve-in-valve implantation of a novel and small self-expandable transcatheter heart valve in degenerated small surgical bioprostheses: the Hamburg experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 84 (3) 486-493
• 8 Gurvitch R, Cheung A, Ye J , et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58 (21) 2196-2209
• 9 Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S , et al; Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry Investigators. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA 2014; 312 (2) 162-170
• 10 Dvir D, Barbanti M, Tan J, Webb JG. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for patients with degenerative surgical bioprosthetic valves. Curr Probl Cardiol 2014; 39 (1) 7-27
• 11 Faerber G, Schleger S, Diab M , et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the new playground for prosthesis-patient mismatch. J Interv Cardiol 2014; 27 (3) 287-292
• 12 Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation 2009; 119 (7) 1034-1048
• 13 Bapat VN, Attia R, Thomas M. Effect of valve design on the stent internal diameter of a bioprosthetic valve: a concept of true internal diameter and its implications for the valve-in-valve procedure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7 (2) 115-127
• 14 Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2003; 108 (8) 983-988
• 15 Du Bois D, Du Bois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Intern Med 1916; 17: 863-871
• 16 Brown JM, O'Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (1) 82-90
• 17 Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD , et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135 (4) 878-884 , discussion 884
• 18 Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L , et al. Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144 (5) 1075-1083
• 19 Abdel-Wahab M, Zahn R, Horack M , et al; German transcatheter aortic valve interventions registry investigators. Aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence and early outcome. Results from the German transcatheter aortic valve interventions registry. Heart 2011; 97 (11) 899-906
• 20 Siontis GC, Jüni P, Pilgrim T , et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64 (2) 129-140
• 21 Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Wu Y, Wang L, Starr A. Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144 (6) 1381-1386
• 22 Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ , et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003; 89 (7) 715-721
• 23 Urso S, Calderón P, Sadaba R , et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve implantation increases risk of reoperation for structural valve deterioration. J Card Surg 2014; 29 (4) 439-444
• 24 Price J, Toeg H, Lam BK, Lapierre H, Mesana TG, Ruel M. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement varies according to age at operation. Heart 2014; 100 (14) 1099-1106
• 25 Silaschi M, Conradi L, Seiffert M , et al. Trends in surgical aortic valve replacement in more than 3000 consecutive cases in the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014; 19 (Suppl. 01) S16 10.1093/icvts/ivu276.53