MVr is a low-risk, durable surgical procedure. Standardized techniques, with the routine use of prosthetic ring, improve late results.

OBJECTIVES There is no consensus regarding the use of biological or mechanical prostheses in patients 50–69 years of age. Previous studies have reported a survival advantage with mechanical valves. Our goal was to compare the long-term survival of patients in the intermediate age groups of 50–59 and 60–69 years receiving mechanical or biological aortic valve prostheses. METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients in the age groups 50–59 years (n = 329) and 60–69 years (n = 648) who had a first-time isolated aortic valve replacement between 2000 and 2019. Kaplan–Meier and competing risk analyses were performed to compare survival, incidence of aortic valve reoperation, haemorrhagic complications and thromboembolic events for mechanical versus biological prostheses. RESULTS Patients aged 50–59 years with a biological prosthesis had a higher probability of aortic valve reintervention (26.3%, biological vs 2.6% mechanical; P < 0.001 at 15 years). The incidence of haemorrhagic complications or thromboembolic events was similar in the 2 groups. Patients aged 60–69 years with a mechanical prosthesis had a higher risk of haemorrhagic complications (6.9%, biological vs 16.2%, mechanical; P = 0.001 at 15 years). Biological prostheses had a higher overall probability of reintervention for valve dysfunction (20.9%, biological vs 4.8%, mechanical; P = 0.024). In both age groups, there was no difference in long-term survival between patients receiving a biological or a mechanical prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS There was no difference in long-term survival between mechanical and biological prostheses for both age groups. Mechanical prostheses had a higher risk of bleeding in the 60–69-year group whereas biological valves had higher overall reintervention probability without an impact on long-term survival. It may be safe to use biological valves based on lifestyle choices for patients in the 50–69-year age group.

There is growing interest in infections occurring after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The incidence, and clinical and anatomical features suggest many similarities with prosthetic valve endocarditis. The survival of patients with an infected TAVI prosthesis is generally poor; however, only a minority of them (10%) have undergone treatment with surgical explantation of the infected prosthesis. A literature search was performed using online databases. Papers reporting surgical treatment of TAVI prosthesis infections were retrieved, focusing on pre- and intraoperative characteristics and early outcome. Thirty-seven papers ultimately provided information on 107 patients. Their mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 76 ± 8 years and 72% were male. The mean ± SD time interval between the TAVI procedure and reoperation was 10 ± 10 months. Annular abscess formation was described in 34% of cases and mitral valve involvement in 31%. All patients underwent TAVI prosthesis explantation and surgical aortic valve replacement; concomitant mitral valve replacement was necessary in 22% of cases. Postoperative in-hospital mortality was 28%. Surgical explantation of infected TAVI prostheses was associated with a high postoperative mortality, although these initial experiences included elderly and high-risk patients. Considering the expansion of TAVI procedures towards younger and lower-risk patients, surgical treatment of TAVI endocarditis may represent the best option for a life-saving procedure.

Surgical valve replacement is the most effective treatment for carcinoid heart disease; however, reoperation for prosthetic valve failure is burdened by high risk. We report the first described percutaneous transcatheter pulmonary and tricuspid valve-in-valve replacement for bioprosthesis degeneration for any reason in a patient with carcinoid heart disease. ( Level of Difficulty: Advanced. )

Background Prosthetic valve endocarditis is burdened by high mortality and morbidity. We reviewed our experience in the management of patients with acute prosthetic aortic valve infection and studied the implications and outcomes associated with surgical treatment and medical therapy. Methods Data of 118 consecutive patients admitted during the period 2008–2018 with definite acute prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis, and presenting a surgical indication, were retrieved from the hospital database. Univariate and multivariate analysis were undertaken to study the association of preoperative characteristics with hospital mortality and the probability of undergoing a reoperation. Survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results In the overall population, prosthesis dehiscence was independently associated with the possibility of undergoing surgical reoperation, while presentation with embolic stroke was associated with medical treatment. Hospital mortality was 24%, medical treatment was found to be independently associated with early death. One hundred (85%) patients underwent redo procedures; aortic valve replacement was performed in 53 and full root replacement in 47. Postoperative hospital mortality was 17%. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 8-years was 78%, 74%, and 66%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation and recurrent endocarditis was 95% at 8-year follow-up. Hospital mortality in patients who did not receive a redo operation was 61% with a survival rate of 17% at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions Surgical mortality after reoperation for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis is still high but mid-term outcomes are satisfactory. Failure to undertake surgery when indicated is an independent risk factor for early death.

Introduction The impact of manufacturer labeled prosthesis size and predicted effective orifice area (EOA) on long‐term survival after aortic valve replacement is not clear although indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) has been associated with worse survival. Methods Data was retrospectively collected from Jan 2000–Dec 2019 for prosthesis type, model, and size for isolated aortic valve replacements. Stratified survival was compared between groups and subgroups for labeled valve size, EOA and predicted patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Results A total of 3444 patients were included. Moderate and severe PPM was 15.6% and 1.6%, respectively. Cumulative lifetime hazard was worse for biological valves (mortality: biological 77.7% vs. mechanical 64.8%, p = .001). Moderate prosthetic aortic stenosis (AS), (EOA = 1–1.5 cm2) was 12.1% and severe prosthetic AS (EOA ≤ 1 cm2) was 0.8%, respectively. Survival was 10.5 ± 0.4 years with moderate to severe prosthetic AS (EOA≤1.5 cm2) versus 12.6 ± 0.2 years with mild to no prosthetic AS (EOA>1.5 cm2), p = .001. Worse survival in the presence of moderate‐severe prosthetic AS was seen with biological valves (9.7 ± 0.4 years vs. 11.2 ± 0.2 years, p = .001 for EOA≤1.5, >1.5 cm2, respectively). Moderate to severe PPM was associated with worse survival (11.1 ± 0.4 years for iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm2/m2 vs. 12.5 ± 0.2 years with iEOA > 0.85 cm2/m2, p = .001). Moderate to severe PPM predicted worse long term survival (hazard ratio: 3.56; 95% confidence interval: 1.37–9.25; p = .009). Conclusion Predicted prosthetic moderate to severe AS and moderate to severe PPM adversely affect long term survival. Smaller valves are associated with reduced survival.

How to cite this article: Nardi P, Olevano C, Bassano C, Bovio E, Cecchetti L, Forlani S, Ruvolo G. The effect of postoperative malperfusion after surgical treatment of type A acute aortic dissection on early and mid-term survival. Vessel Plus 2017;1:77-83. Aim:To evaluate whether postoperative malperfusion (PM) affected in-hospital and longterm survival in acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) surgical patients and to identify risk factors for PM. Methods: Patients who underwent AAAD surgery at a single institution between January 2005 and March 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Twohundred fourteen patients with complete data were identified. At presentation, 119 patients (55.6%) showed preoperative malperfusions: 68 (31.8%) were cerebral, 38 (17.7%) were renal, and 13 (6.1%) were mesenteric. PM was found in 55 patients (25.7%). In-hospital mortality was 47.3% (26/55) vs. 22.6% (36/159) in PM and non-PM patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). Independent predictors for in-hospital mortality included being 75 years or older [odds ratio (OR): 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.13, P < 0.001] and having renal PM (OR: 53.5, 95% CI: 3.97-721.3, P < 0.01). Five-year survival was 78.6 ± 7.8% vs. 93.9 ± 3.4% in PM and non-PM patients, respectively (P < 0.001). Independent predictors for long-term survival were being at least 75 years old (OR: 3.7, 95% CI: 0.9-14.0, P = 0.05) and having renal PM (OR: 28.6, 95% CI: 1.8-462.0, P = 0.01). PM and intimal tears distal to the ascending aorta or the proximal aortic arch were also risk factors. Conclusion: PM, especially with renal involvement, is associated with in-hospital mortality and reduced long-term survival. AAAD surgeries reduced preoperative malperfusions. Sites of cannulation and interventions requiring circulatory arrest during cardiopulmonary bypass were not predictors of PM. Key words:Acute type aortic dissection, aortic surgery, malperfusion, survival ABSTRACTArticle history:

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate early- and mid-term results of our actual practice embedding redo aortic valve replacement and transcatheter procedures for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Methods Data for aortic valve reinterventions (redo surgical aortic valve replacement, isolated redo aortic valve replacement, and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure) were collected (2010–2019). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors favouring the choice of transcatheter against redo surgery. Cox analysis was used to study the association of preoperative variables with survival. Survival probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a log-rank test. Results A total of 125 patients were included (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 84 patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41 patients). Median age was 74 [63–80] years, 58% of the patients were male and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 15 [8–26] %. There was no early mortality. Eighteen patients (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 15, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3) sustained at least one postoperative complication. At pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation had significantly higher trans-prosthetic gradients (mean gradient: valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation 18 mmHg vs. redo surgical aortic valve replacement 14 mmHg, p < 0.001). Overall survival probabilities were 94% and 73% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Previous coronary artery bypass surgery operation and age were independently associated with lower survival probabilities during the follow-up. Conclusions Redo surgical aortic valve replacement and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation are both safe and effective for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Further valve-in-valve data are needed to determine the haemodynamic performance of transcatheter prostheses and its impact on long-term outcomes.