No abstract

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of changing the sizing strategy in aortic valve replacement using the Perceval sutureless prosthesis on haemodynamic outcomes and postoperative pacemaker implantation. METHODS Retrospective analysis of patients implanted with the Perceval valve between 2007 and 2019 was performed by comparing patients implanted before the modification of sizing strategy (OLD group) and after (NEW group). The outcome parameters evaluated were the implanted prosthesis size, haemodynamical profile and postoperative pacemaker implantation. RESULTS The entire patient cohort (784 patients) consisted of 52% female patients, with a mean age of 78.53 [standard deviation (SD): 5.8] years and a mean EuroSCORE II of 6.3 (range 0.7–76). In 55.5% of cases, surgery was combined. The NEW cohort had more male patients (54.6% vs 43.4%) (P = 0.002). Mean implanted valve size, corrected for body surface area, was significantly lower in the NEW cohort (13.1, SD: 1.4 vs 13.5, SD: 1.4 mm/m2, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 3.4%. Peak and mean transvalvular gradients at discharge were significantly lower in the NEW versus OLD groups: 24.4 mmHg (SD: 9.2) versus 28.4 mmHg (SD: 10.3) (P < 0.001) and 13.6 mmHg (SD: 5.3) versus 15.5 mmHg (SD: 6.0) (P < 0.001). The mean effective opening area and the indexed effective opening area, respectively, increased from 1.5 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.85 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.27) in the OLD group to 1.7 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.93 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.30) in the NEW group (P < 0.001). No difference was found in paravalvular leakage ≥1/4. Centrovalvular leakage ≥1/4 significantly decreased from 18% to 7.9% (P < 0.001). With the new sizing, the new postoperative pacemaker implantation rate decreased significantly from 11% to 6.1% (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS Correct sizing of sutureless aortic valves is crucial to obtain the best possible haemodynamics and avoid complications.

No abstract

New antithrombotic drugs have been developed, new valve types have been designed and minimally invasive transcatheter techniques have emerged, making the choice of antithrombotic therapy after surgical or transcatheter heart valve repair and replacement increasingly complex. Moreover, due to a lack of large randomized controlled trials many recommendations for antithrombotic therapy are based on expert opinion, reflected by divergent recommendations in current guidelines. Therefore, decision-making in clinical practice regarding antithrombotic therapy for prosthetic heart valves is difficult, potentially resulting in sub-optimal patient treatment. This article compares the 2017 ESC/EACTS and 2020 ACC/AHA guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease and summarizes the available evidence. Finally, we established a convenient consensus on antithrombotic therapy after valve interventions based on over 800 annual cases of surgical and transcatheter heart valve repair and replacement and a multidisciplinary team discussion between the department of cardiovascular diseases and cardiac surgery of the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium.

ObjectivesDifferences in indication and technique make a randomised comparison between valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) challenging. We performed a propensity score (PS)-matched comparison of PEARS and VSRR for syndromic root aneurysm.MethodsPatients in the PEARS 200 Database and Aortic Valve Insufficiency and ascending aorta Aneurysm InternATiOnal Registry (undergoing VSRR) with connective tissue disease operated electively for root aneurysm <60 mm with aortic regurgitation (AR) <1/4 were included. Using a PS analysis, 80 patients in each cohort were matched. Survival, freedom from reintervention and from AR ≥2/4 were estimated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsMedian follow-up was 25 and 55 months for 159 PEARS and 142 VSRR patients. Seven (4.4%) patients undergoing PEARS required an intervention for coronary injury or impingement, resulting in one death (0.6%). After VSRR, there were no early deaths, 10 (7%) reinterventions for bleeding and 1 coronary intervention. Survival for matched cohorts at 5 years was similar (PEARS 98% vs VSRR 99%, p=0.99). There was no difference in freedom from valve or ascending aortic/arch reintervention between matched groups. Freedom from AR ≥2/4 at 5 years in the matched cohorts was 97% for PEARS vs 92% for VSRR (p=0.55). There were no type A dissections.ConclusionsVSRR and PEARS offer favourable mid-term survival, freedom from reintervention and preservation of valve function. Both treatments deserve their place in the surgical repertoire, depending on a patient’s disease stage. This study is limited by its retrospective nature and different follow-ups in both cohorts.