Homograft aortic root replacement with modified Cabrol extension using cryopreserved femoral artery for bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Guenther TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8304521 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Homograft aortic root replacement with modified Cabrol extension using cryopreserved femoral artery for bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.
Guenther Timothy M TM Godoy Luis L Chen Sarah A SA Rodriguez Victor M VM
JTCVS techniques 20200812
Similar Datasets
Project description:The indications for cryopreserved allografts in aortic valve replacement are still debatable. We aim to identify factors influencing early and long-term durability of the aortic homograft and to define subgroups of patients with an improved long-term quality of life, survival, and freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD). We evaluated our series of 210 patients who underwent allograft implantation with a retrospective cohort study design over a period of 20 years. Endpoints were overall mortality, cardiac mortality related to SVD, the incidence of SVD, reoperation, and a composite endpoint comprising major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), which includes cardiac death both related and not related to SVD, subsequent aortic valve surgery, new or recurrent infection of implanted allograft, recurrent aortic regurgitation, rehospitalization for heart failure, an increase in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class of ≥1, or cerebrovascular events. The primary indication for surgery was endocarditis (48%), which was also a predisposing factor for increased cardiac mortality. Overall mortality was 32.4% with a 27% incidence of SVD and mortality associated with SVD of 13.8%. Reoperation occurred in 33.8% and MACCEs in 54.8%. Long-term NYHA functional class and echocardiographic parameters improved over time. Statistical analysis demonstrated that root replacement technique and adult age were protective factors for SVD. We found no statistically significant difference in the clinical outcomes analyzed between women of childbearing age who had children after surgery and the rest of the women. The cryopreserved allograft is still a valid option in aortic valve replacement, providing acceptable durability and clinical outcomes with optimal hemodynamic performance. SVD is influenced by the implantation technique. Women of childbearing age might have additional benefits from this procedure.
| S-EPMC10299650 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3783116 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10750473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere has been a resurgence in interest regarding the Ross procedure due to recent publications detailing positive long-term outcomes. Conversely, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a pulmonary homograft (PH), mechanical (MV), bioprosthetic (BV), or the Ozaki procedure each has its own technical advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing other alternatives to Ross procedure.MethodsMedical databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing the Ross procedure with AVR using a PH, MV, BV, or the Ozaki procedure. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).ResultsA total of 7816 patients were pooled for our NMA from 24 studies. Compared to Ross procedure, both BV and MV were associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality of RR (2.37, 95% CI 1.20-4.67) and (1.88 95% CI 1.04-3.40), respectively, with no significant difference regarding PH or Ozaki. However, only MV was associated with a higher risk of 30-day stroke (RR 8.42, 95% CI 1.57-45.23) with no significant difference in the other alternatives, as well as 30-day MI which showed no significant differences between any of the aortic conduits compared to the Ross procedure. Regarding 30-day major bleeding, MV was associated with a higher when compared to the Ross procedure RR (4.58, 95% CI 1.94-10.85), PH was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding with RR (0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.71), and BV showed no significant difference. With a mean follow-up duration of 8.5 years compared to the Ross procedure, BV, PH, and MV were associated with a higher risk of long-term mortality with RR (1.89, 95% CI 1.38-2.58), (1.38, 95% CI 1.0-1.87), and (1.94, 95% CI 1.52-2.47), respectively, with the Ozaki procedure showed no significant difference. Regarding long-term stroke-with a mean of 6.3-year follow-up duration-there were no significant differences between any of the aortic conduits compared to the Ross procedure. Nevertheless, long-term need for reintervention-with a mean follow-up duration of 17.5 years-was significant of higher risk with both BV and PH with RR (3.28, 95% CI 1.21-8.84) and (2.42, 95% CI 1.05-5.58), respectively, compared to Ross procedure with MV and Ozaki having no significant difference.ConclusionsThe Ross procedure is a viable treatment option for patients undergoing SAVR, showing promising outcomes at short- and long-term follow-ups.
| S-EPMC10361932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Transcatheter aortic valve in valve is an emerging alternative therapeutic intervention for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis in view of significant reoperative morbidity and mortality associated with redo surgery. The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure. We hereby present a rare case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve embolization due to device malpositioning and its subsequent management.
| S-EPMC11830275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHere, we outline the case of a US Veteran's Health Administration (VA) patient with a history of recent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) and recent intravenous drug use (IVDU) who was found to have three-valve infective endocarditis (IE) resulting in septic shock. We highlight this case because it represents an uncommon case of three-valve IE in the setting of recent bioprosthetic valve replacement and IVDU, and it raises the need for continued awareness of mental health and drug rehabilitation in the US military veteran population.Case summaryA 62-year-old gentleman with recent bioprosthetic AVR presented with dyspnoea and lower extremity oedema and was found to have a heart failure exacerbation. He developed sepsis and was found to have three-valve endocarditis, as well as aortic root abscess and pacemaker lead infection. He was treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and evaluated for surgical intervention. After discussion with the surgical team, the patient decided not to pursue surgery due to prohibitively high perioperative mortality risk. The patient was transferred to hospice and expired within 2 weeks.DiscussionThree-valve IE is sparingly documented in published literature and can be difficult to treat. Providers must be cognizant of prosthetic valve endocarditis as an uncommon but known complication of valve replacement surgery. Intravenous drug use is a common risk factor for endocarditis and is prevalent in the US military veteran population. Prosthetic valve endocarditis should be treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, and in general, if it leads to new significant valvular abnormalities, the valve should be replaced.
| S-EPMC7042142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiobacterium valvarum was isolated from the blood of a 71-year-old man with fatal aortic valve endocarditis. The API NH system was used for phenotypic characterization of the C. valvarum strain. This is the first case of infective endocarditis caused by C. valvarum in Germany and the first case worldwide affecting a prosthetic valve and lacking an obvious dental focus.
| S-EPMC1933016 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7047044 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11518893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) mitigates prosthesis-patient mismatch, but its use has been low. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) as a treatment for failing bioprosthetic valves is limited by small surgical valves, renewing interest in ARE during the index AVR. This study demonstrates trends and outcomes of ARE after commercial approval of VIV in 2015.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 2182 patients undergoing nonemergent AVR between August 2007 and December 2022. Endocarditis, aortic dissection, and concomitant root replacement or ventricular assist device placement were excluded. Trends in ARE use, valve size, and types were compared. Outcome measures included 30-day mortality and gradients and were compared between patients with and without ARE.ResultsOverall, 74 patients (3.4%) underwent ARE, 14 (1.0%) before 2015 and 60 (7.6%, P < .0001) after 2015. Use of smaller valves (19-21 mm) decreased from 372 (26.8%) before 2015 to 85 (10.7%, P < .0001) after 2015. ARE group was younger than the AVR-alone group (64 vs 68 years, P = .001) but had similar predicted risk of mortality (median, 1.7%). Both groups had comparable postoperative mean gradients (ARE: 11 vs AVR-alone: 10 mm Hg, P = .42). ARE had higher 30-day mortality (5 [7%] vs 48 [2%], P = .014); however, no difference was found in elective patients (2 of 65 [3%] vs 39 of 1898 [2%], P = .57).ConclusionsARE use has increased since commercial approval of VIV. The addition of ARE to AVR did not affect early safety in elective cases, and postoperative gradients were similar to those in patients not requiring ARE. Further studies are required to determine long-term outcomes after ARE, including VIV candidacy.
| S-EPMC11910798 | biostudies-literature