Background Management of existing aortic insufficiency (AI) and mechanical aortic valves in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains controversial. Surgical options to address these issues include closure, repair or replacement of the valve. Methods Continuous flow LVAD/BiVAD patients entered into the INTERMACS database between June 2006 to December 2012 were included (n=5,344). Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent aortic valve (AV) closure (n=125), repair (n=95) and replacement (n=85). Results Among patients that underwent an aortic valve procedure, actuarial survival was significantly reduced for AV closures (63.2%) compared to AV repairs (76.8%) and replacements (71.8%, p=0.0003). Differences were greater between groups when only INTERMACS level 1-2 patients were analyzed (p=0.003). After multivariate adjustment, aortic valve closure remained a significant risk factor for mortality (HR=1.87, 95% CI=1.39-2.53, p<0.0001). At six to twelve months postoperatively, moderate to severe AI developed in 19%, 5%, 9% and 10% of patients with available echocardiography who underwent repair, closure, replacement and no intervention, respectively (p<0.0001). Competing outcomes demonstrate that at 1-year fewer patients with aortic valve closures were transplanted compared to patients with repairs/replacements (14% vs. 19%). No differences were observed between groups with respect to cause of death, re-hospitalization, right heart failure or stroke. Conclusions AV closure was associated with increased mortality when compared to repair or replacement in patients with AI that underwent LVAD insertion. The reasons for this association require further investigation. This is the largest study to date to examine concomitant AV procedures in patients undergoing LVAD insertion.

Concomitant MVPs are not associated with increased survival overall. However, MVPs are associated with benefits in terms of reduced hospital re-admission and improved quality of life in select patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective The Heart Rhythm Society, European Heart Rhythm Association, and European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society jointly recommend indefinite warfarin anticoagulation in patients with CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, and stroke) score of at least 2 who have undergone ablation for atrial fibrillation. This study determined the impact of CHADS2 score on risk of late stroke or transient ischemic attack after the performance of a surgical Cox maze procedure. Methods A retrospective review of 433 patients who underwent a Cox maze procedure at our institution was conducted. Three months after surgery, warfarin was discontinued regardless of CHADS2 score if the patient showed no evidence of atrial fibrillation, was off antiarrhythmic medications, and had no other indication for anticoagulation. A follow-up questionnaire was used to determine whether any neurologic event had occurred since surgery. Results Follow-up was obtained for 90% of the study group (389/433) at a mean of 6.6 ± 5.0 years. Among these patients, 32% (125/389) had a CHADS2 score of at least 2, of whom only 40% (51/125) remained on long-term warfarin after surgery. Six patients had late neurologic events (annualized risk of 0.2%). Neither CHADS2 score nor warfarin anticoagulation was significantly associated with the occurrence of late neurologic events. Among the individual CHADS2 criteria, both diabetes mellitus and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack were predictive of late neurologic events. Conclusions The risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack in patients after a surgical Cox maze procedure was low and not associated with CHADS2 score or warfarin use. Given the known risks of warfarin, we recommend discontinuation of anticoagulation 3 months after the procedure if the patient has no evidence of atrial fibrillation, has discontinued antiarrhythmic medications, and is without any other indication for systemic anticoagulation.