RESUMEN
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short- and midterm clinical and echocardiographic outcomes according to the use of pledgeted sutures during aortic valve replacement. Methods: Patients with aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring aortic valve replacement were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to evaluate the safety of a new stented bioprosthesis. Outcomes were analyzed according to the use of pledgets (pledgeted group) or no pledgets (nonpledgeted group). The primary outcome was a composite of thromboembolism, endocarditis, and major paravalvular leak at 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included multiple clinical endpoints and hemodynamic outcomes. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for prognostic factors, and subanalyses with small valve sizes (<23 mm) and suturing techniques were performed. Results: The pledgeted group comprised 640 patients (59%), and the nonpledgeted group 442 (41%), with baseline discrepancies in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and stenosis severity. There were no differences between groups in any outcome. After propensity score matching, the primary outcome occurred in 41 (11.7%) patients in the pledgeted and 36 (9.8%) in the nonpledgeted group (P = .51). The effective orifice area was smaller in the pledgeted group (P = .045), whereas no difference was observed for the mean or peak pressure gradient. Separate subanalyses with small valve sizes and suturing techniques did not show relevant differences. Conclusions: In this large propensity score-matched cohort, comprehensive clinical outcomes were comparable between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with pledgeted and nonpledgeted sutures up to 5 years of follow-up, but pledgets might lead to a slightly smaller effective orifice area in the long run.
RESUMEN
Background: Structural valve deterioration (SVD) remains the major determinant of bioprosthesis durability. The aim of this study was to investigate the SVD incidence, predictors and outcomes in patients aged 50 years and younger after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 73 consecutive patients ≤50 years old who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our center between 2005 and 2015. Median age at surgery was 44 (interquartile range [IQR]: 39-47) years. Follow-up was 93.2% complete at a median time of 7.2 (IQR: 5.5-9.5) years. Cumulative follow-up was 545.5 valve-years. Bioprosthesis SVD was determined by strict echocardiographic assessment. Results: The overall survival-rate at 10/15 years and freedom from SVD at 10/12.5 years were 89.6 ± 5.2%/81.5 ± 9.1% and 73.5 ± 8.2%/41.9 ± 18.9%, respectively. SVD occurred at a median time of 8.2 (IQR: 6.0-9.9) years after bAVR. Age was not found as an independent predictor for SVD at the multivariable model, despite a higher rate of SVD in the age group ≤30 years. Freedom from reoperation due to SVD at 10/15 years was 71.3 ± 14.1%/13.6 ± 12.3%. Reoperation was performed at a median time of 10.0 (IQR: 8.9-11.9) years since first bAVR and was associated with a 100% 12-month survival. Conclusions: In our study, the rate and time of SVD occurrence were comparable to those of other studies' older age groups. Strict echocardiographic monitoring of valve performance is mandatory to set the appropriate timing of eventual reoperation. This attitude can improve outcomes of bAVR in younger patients.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of surgical techniques adopted to avoid suture line disruption, periprosthetic leakage, patch dislodgement, pericardial patch aneurysm formation, and the long-term stability of aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: One hundred fifteen patients undergoing AVR or combined aortic and mitral valve replacements with Nicks' posterior ARE between 1997 and 2019 underwent long-term echocardiographic and angio-computed tomographic evaluation. Age was 11-72 years (AVR: median, 30; interquartile range, 21-47 years; AVR and mitral valve replacement: median, 27.5; interquartile range, 20-37.5 years). The aortotomy was closed using autologous pericardial patch and Teflon-buttressed sutures. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 1.7% (n = 2), with 4 (3.5%) late deaths. At a mean follow-up of 123.11 ± 77.67 months, the survival probability from Kaplan-Meier was 93.25 ± 0.03%. No cases of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) were observed, and only 2 patients had moderate PPM. Median aortic root diameters at the level of sinus of Valsalva and sinotubular junction were 32 (29-35) mm and 33 (30-36) mm, respectively, at discharge, and were 33 (30-36) mm, and 33 (31-37) mm, respectively, at latest follow-up, with no cases of late pericardial patch aneurysm. CONCLUSIONS: ARE is a safe adjunct to AVR in patients with a small aortic annulus to prevent PPM. Retention of a pericardial collar and Teflon-buttressed sutures is an expedient, safe, and effective technique in reducing bleeding at the enlarged ventriculo-aortic junction. Autologous pericardial patch aortoplasty is not associated with late aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm formation.