Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic vs mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (<65 years, 65-75 years, >75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or prior aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010-2023. 1,452 (78.6%) patients received bioprosthetic valves while 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were <65 years old, 627 (43.2%) were 65-75 years old, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75. For mechanical valve patients, 308 (78.0%) were <65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65-75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were >75 years. Median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 [2.6-8.9] years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan-Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients under 65 who received bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p=0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of AV reintervention (HR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.73-6.49; p<0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly in patients <65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.

暂无摘要。

Aortic regurgitation (AR) has a prevalence of 2.2% in elderly people. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is usually performed to evaluate AR. Importantly, TTE is often impaired by adverse sonographic conditions and may lead to underestimation of AR severity. Therefore, transesophageal echocardiography is essential. Untreated AR is associated with high mortality. Aortic valve replacement improves survival but was limited to patients deemed operable. Recently the JenaValve has been proven to be safe and effective, thus enabling interventional treatment of older and multimorbid patients.

BACKGROUND: Atrial functional mitral regurgitation (AFMR) is a newly discovered condition associated with longstanding atrial fibrillation. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the outcomes of the maze procedure and mitral regurgitation (MR) surgery in AFMR and atrial fibrillation in comparison with those in degenerative MR (DMR).
METHODS: Patients who underwent mitral valve repair/replacement with a maze procedure at a hospital (July 2012-August 2021) were included. We excluded patients aged below 18 years undergoing concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or atrial septal defect repair and those with MR etiology other than ARMR or DMR.
RESULTS: We included 35 patients with AFMR and 50 patients with DMR. Patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. Long-term outcomes revealed no significant differences in the ratio of cardiac mortality, stroke, or hospital readmission. However, after the maze procedure, the sinus rhythm restoration rate was significantly lower (62% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.001), a junctional rhythm state (p < 0.001) and permanent pacemaker insertion for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) (p = 0.03) were significantly more common in AFMR than DMR. On postoperative transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), the pulmonary artery systolic pressure was significantly less decreased in the AFMR group than in the DMR group compared with that on preoperative TTE (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: AFMR showed excellent mitral valve surgery outcomes, similar to DMR, but had a significantly higher risk of pacemaker insertion for SSS after the maze procedure.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The impact of intraprocedural results following transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) in primary mitral regurgitation (MR) is controversial.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the prognostic impact of intraprocedural residual mitral regurgitation (rMR) and mean mitral valve gradient (MPG) in patients with primary MR undergoing TEER.
METHODS: The PRIME-MR (Outcomes of Patients Treated With Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair for Primary Mitral Regurgitation) registry included consecutive patients with primary MR undergoing TEER from 2008 to 2022 at 27 international sites. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to intraprocedural rMR and mean MPG. Patients were categorized according to rMR (optimal result: ≤1+, suboptimal result: ≥2+) and MPG (low gradient: ≤5 mm Hg, high gradient: > 5 mm Hg). The prognostic impact of rMR and MPG was evaluated in a Cox regression analysis. The primary endpoint was 2-year all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization.
RESULTS: Intraprocedural rMR and mean MPG were available in 1,509 patients (median age = 82 years [Q1-Q3: 76.0-86.0 years], 55.1% male). Kaplan-Meier analysis according to rMR severity showed significant differences for the primary endpoint between rMR ≤1+ (29.1%), 2+ (41.7%), and ≥3+ (58.0%; P < 0.001), whereas there was no difference between patients with a low (32.4%) and high gradient (42.1%; P = 0.12). An optimal result/low gradient was achieved in most patients (n = 1,039). The worst outcomes were observed in patients with a suboptimal result/high gradient. After adjustment, rMR ≥2+ was independently linked to the primary endpoint (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.32-2.65; P < 0.001), whereas MPG >5 mm Hg was not (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.47-1.31; P = 0.35).
CONCLUSIONS: Intraprocedural rMR but not MPG independently predicted clinical outcomes following TEER for primary MR. When performing TEER in primary MR, optimal MR reduction seems to outweigh the impact of high transvalvular gradients.