The JenaValve overcomes technical challenges of TAVR in AR through a clipping mechanism. We report satisfactory outcomes of a multicenter registry using the JenaValve for predominant AR, as rate of THV embolization, residual AR and permanent pacemaker implantation was low. One-year results using the JenaValve for AR encourage its use for this indication.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the feasibility and clinical course after minimally invasive David procedure compared with those via a conventional median sternotomy.
METHODS:One hundred and ninety-two consecutive patients who underwent elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) with or without additional cusp repair for aortic regurgitation (n = 17, 8.9%), dilatation of the aortic root (n = 95, 49.5%) or a combination of both pathologies (n = 80, 41.7%) were included. Patients with systemic disorders, such as Marfan's syndrome, and emergency cases were excluded. Assessment of quality of life was performed by modified Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. To minimize baseline differences, a matched pair analysis was conducted.
RESULTS:One hundred and seventeen patients (60.9%) received a minimally invasive hemisternotomy (Group 1), 75 patients a conventional median sternotomy (39.1%, Group 2). Patients of Group 1 were significantly younger (56.5 ± 13.6 vs 64.8 ± 11.6, P < 0.001). Understandably, concomitant cardiac procedures were more frequent in Group 2 (n = 7 [6.0%] vs n = 48 [64.0%], P < 0.001). In hospital, mortality was 0.9% in Group 1 (1/117) and 2.7% in Group 2 (2/75; P = 0.562). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (542.6 ± 441.8 vs 996.7 ± 822.6 ml, P < 0.001). Duration of mechanical ventilation (10.2 ± 21.8 vs 26.9 ± 109.0 h, P < 0.001) and ICU-stay (1.9 ± 3.6 vs 3.2 ± 5.6 days, P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group, but this differences did not remain after matching. According to SF-36 questionnaire, patients in the minimally invasive group tend to have a higher quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS:Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be done safely via an upper partial sternotomy in experienced hands even if additional cusp repair is required.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poorer outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). For high-risk patients with complex CAD, combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus off-pump/minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass (OPCAB/MIDCAB) has been proposed.
A prospective registry analysis was performed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR+OP/MIDCAB with those undergoing TAVR plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical AVR plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2008 and 2015 at a single site in Germany.
464 patients underwent SAVR+CABG, 50 underwent TAVR+OP/MIDCAB, and 112 underwent TAVR+PCI. The mean ages (
< 0.001) and logistic EuroSCOREs (p < 0.001) were similarly higher in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and TAVR+PCI patients compared to SAVR+CABG patients. Prior cardiac surgery was more common in TAVR+PCI than in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients (p < 0.001). Procedural times were shortest (p < 0.001), creatine kinase (muscle brain) levels least elevated (p < 0.001), pericardial tamponade least common (
= 0.027), and length of hospital stay shortest (
= 0.011) in TAVR+PCI, followed by TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients. In-hospital mortality was highest for TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients (18.0%) with comparable rates for TAVR+PCI and SAVR+CABG groups (9.0 and 6.9%;
= 0.009). Mortality by 12 months was more probable after TAVR+OP/MIDCAB (HR: 2.17,
= 0.002) and TAVR/PCI (HR: 1.63,
= 0.010) than after SAVR+CABG, with the same true of rehospitalisation (HR: 2.39,
= 0.003 and HR: 1.63,
TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients share many characteristics with TAVR+PCI patients, with only slightly poorer long-term outcomes. In patients ineligible for SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI, hybrid interventions are reasonable second-line options.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1087-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.