Background and Objectives: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is considered a class I indication for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, there is little evidence regarding the potential benefits of early AVR in symptomatic patients diagnosed with normal-flow, low-gradient (NFLG) severe AS. Methods: Two-hundred eighty-one patients diagnosed with symptomatic NFLG severe AS (stroke volume index ≥35 mL/m 2 , mean transaortic pressure gradient <40 mmHg, peak transaortic velocity <4 m/s, and aortic valve area <1.0 cm 2 ) between January 2010 and December 2020 were included in this retrospective study. After performing 1:1 propensity score matching, 121 patients aged 75.1±9.8 years (including 63 women) who underwent early AVR within 3 months after index echocardiography, were compared with 121 patients who received conservative care. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Results: During a median follow-up of 21.9 months, 48 primary outcomes (18 in the early AVR group and 30 in the conservative care group) occurred. The early AVR group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of primary outcomes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–0.93; p=0.028); specifically, there was no significant difference in all-cause death (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.23–1.16; p=0.110), although the early AVR group showed a significantly lower incidence of hospitalization for HF (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19–0.95, p=0.037). Subgroup analyses supported the main findings. Conclusions An early AVR strategy may be beneficial in reducing the risk of a composite outcome of death or hospitalization for HF in symptomatic patients with NFLG severe AS.Future randomized studies are required to validate and confirm our findings.

Background: We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data. Methods: From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs. Results: Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR group = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001). Conclusion Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

Purpose: This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR). Materials and Methods: In total, 320 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n=254) or SU-AVR (n=66) at Severance Cardiovascular Hospital between July 2011 and September 2019 were included for analysis. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighted adjustment were performed to adjust for confounding baseline characteristics. Outcomes defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 in 62 patients pairs were compared. Results: Device success (79.0% vs. 79.0%, p>0.999) and 30-day mortality (4.8% vs. 0.0%, p=0.244) did not differ between the TAVR and SU-AVR groups. The TAVR group developed more frequent mild or moderate paravalvular leakage (59.7% vs. 8.1%, p<0.001), whereas SU-AVR was associated with higher rates of major or life-threatening bleeding (9.7% vs. 22.6%, p=0.040), acute kidney injury (8.1% vs. 21.0%, p=0.041), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (4.8% vs. 32.3%. p<0.001) at 30 days, along with longer stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) (1.9±1.6 days vs. 5.9±9.2 days, p=0.009) and hospital (7.1±7.9 days vs. 13.1±8.8 days, p<0.001). The TAVR group showed a trend towards a higher 1-year all-cause mortality, compared with the SU-AVR group (7.0% vs 1.7%, p=0.149). Cardiovascular mortality, however, did not differ significantly (1.6% vs 1.7%, p=0.960). Conclusion TAVR achieved a similar 1-year survival rate free from cardiovascular mortality as SU-AVR and was associated with a lower incidence of complications, except for paravalvular leakage, and shorter stays in the ICU and hospital.

Purpose: This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR). Materials and Methods: In total, 320 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n=254) or SU-AVR (n=66) at Severance Cardiovascular Hospital between July 2011 and September 2019 were included for analysis. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighted adjustment were performed to adjust for confounding baseline characteristics. Outcomes defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 in 62 patients pairs were compared. Results: Device success (79.0% vs. 79.0%, p>0.999) and 30-day mortality (4.8% vs. 0.0%, p=0.244) did not differ between the TAVR and SU-AVR groups. The TAVR group developed more frequent mild or moderate paravalvular leakage (59.7% vs. 8.1%, p<0.001), whereas SU-AVR was associated with higher rates of major or life-threatening bleeding (9.7% vs. 22.6%, p=0.040), acute kidney injury (8.1% vs. 21.0%, p=0.041), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (4.8% vs. 32.3%. p<0.001) at 30 days, along with longer stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) (1.9±1.6 days vs. 5.9±9.2 days, p=0.009) and hospital (7.1±7.9 days vs. 13.1±8.8 days, p<0.001). The TAVR group showed a trend towards a higher 1-year all-cause mortality, compared with the SU-AVR group (7.0% vs 1.7%, p=0.149). Cardiovascular mortality, however, did not differ significantly (1.6% vs 1.7%, p=0.960). Conclusion TAVR achieved a similar 1-year survival rate free from cardiovascular mortality as SU-AVR and was associated with a lower incidence of complications, except for paravalvular leakage, and shorter stays in the ICU and hospital.

Background: We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data. Methods: From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs. Results: Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR group = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001). Conclusion Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

Aorta ; Aorta, Thoracic ; Aortic Aneurysm ; Aortic Valve ; Follow-Up Studies ; Freedom ; Humans ; Reoperation ; Retrospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Rupture

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac computed tomography (CT) for the detection of mitral valve (MV) prolapse in mitral regurgitation (MR) with surgical findings as the standard reference, and to assess the predictability of MV replacement based on morphologic CT findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 156 patients who had undergone preoperative cardiac CT and subsequently received MV surgery due to severe MR were retrospectively enrolled. Non-repairable MV was defined when at least one of the following conditions was met: 1) anterior leaflet prolapse, 2) bi-leaflet prolapse, or 3) valve morphology (leaflet thickening, calcification, or mitral annular calcification [MAC]). Diagnostic performance of CT for the detection of the prolapsed segment was assessed with surgical findings as the standard reference. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the value of CT findings to predict actual valve replacement. RESULTS: During surgery, MV prolapse was identified in 72.1%. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of MV prolapse were 99.1%, 81.4%, and 94.2%, respectively, per patient. One-hundred eighteen patients (75.6%) underwent MV repair and the remaining 38 patients received MV replacement. Bi-leaflet prolapse and valve morphology were independent predictors of valve replacement after adjusting for clinical variables (adjusted odds ratio, [OR] 8.63 for bi-leaflet prolapse; OR, 4.14 for leaflet thickening; and OR, 5.37 for leaflet calcium score > 5.6; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cardiac CT can have high diagnostic performance for detecting the prolapsed segment of the MV and predictability of valve replacement before surgery. Bi-leaflet prolapse and valve morphology, such as leaflet thickening, or calcification or MAC, are the most important predictors of valve replacement.
Calcium ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Mitral Valve Insufficiency ; Mitral Valve Prolapse ; Mitral Valve ; Odds Ratio ; Prolapse ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity