William Goldstein

Very Long-Term Survival Implications of Heart Valve Replacement With Tissue Versus Mechanical Prostheses in Adults <60 Years of Age

Background— Several centers favor replacing a diseased native heart valve with a tissue rather than a mechanical prosthesis, even in younger adult patients. However, long-term data supporting this approach are lacking. We examined the survival implications of selecting a tissue versus a mechanical prosthesis at initial left-heart valve replacement in a cohort of adults <60 years of age who were followed for over 20 years. Methods and Results— Comorbid and procedural data were available from 6554 patients who underwent valve replacement at our institution over the last 35 years. Of these, 1512 patients contributed follow-up data beyond 20 years, of whom 567 were adults <60 years of age at first left-heart valve operation (mean survivor follow-up, 24.0±3.1 years). Late outcomes were examined with Cox regression. Valve reoperation, often for prostheses that are no longer commercially available, occurred in 89% and 84% of patients by 20 years after tissue aortic and mitral valve replacement, respectively, and was associated with a mortality of 4.3%. There was no survival difference between patients implanted with a tissue versus a mechanical prosthesis at initial aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.3; P=0.7). For mitral valve replacement patients, long-term survival was poorer than after aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.8; P=0.003), but again no detrimental effect was associated with use of a tissue versus a mechanical prosthesis (hazard ratio 0.9; 95% CI 0.5, 1.4; P=0.5). Conclusions— In our experience, selecting a tissue prosthesis at initial operation in younger adults does not negatively impact survival into the third decade of follow-up, despite the risk of reoperation.

Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation

Background— Evidence supporting the use of bioprostheses for heart valve replacement in young adults is accumulating. However, reoperation data, which may help guide clinical decision making in young patients, remains poorly defined in the literature. Methods and Results— We examined the need for reoperation in 3975 patients who underwent first-time bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n=3152) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) (n=823). There were 895 patients below the age of 60 years at bioprosthesis implant (AVR, n=636; MVR, n=259). The median interval to reoperation of contemporary, stented aortic bioprostheses was 7.74 years (95% CI 7.28 to 9.97 years) in patients less than 40 years, and 12.93 years (95% CI 11.10 to 15.76 years) in patients between 40 and 60 years of age. Multivariable risk factors associated with reoperation following bioprosthetic AVR include age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94 per year, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96, P<0.001) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.99, P=0.04). The median interval to reoperation of contemporary mitral bioprostheses was 8.11 years (95% CI 5.79 to 16.50 years) in patients less than 40 years, and 10.14 years (95% CI 8.64 to 11.14 years) in patients between 40 and 60 years of age. As for AVR, age (HR 0.96 per year, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98, P<0.001) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93, P=0.03) were associated with decreased reoperation risk following bioprosthetic MVR. Conclusions— These data constitute clinically relevant age-specific prognostic information regarding reoperation in young patients, who may wish to select a bioprosthesis at initial left heart valve replacement.

Gender differences in the long-term outcomes after valve replacement surgery

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes in women and men after valve replacement surgery. Design: Observational study. Setting: Postoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR). Patients: 3118 patients (1261 women, 1857 men) who underwent AVR or MVR between 1976 and 2006 (2255 AVR, 863 MVR), with mean follow-up of 5.6 (4.5) years. Main outcome measures: The independent effect of gender on the risk of long-term complications (reoperation, stroke and death) after valve replacement surgery using multivariate actuarial methods. Results: After implantation of an aortic valve bioprosthesis, women had a significantly lower rate of reoperation compared to men (comorbidity-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.4; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.2 to 0.9). In contrast, if an aortic mechanical prosthesis had been implanted, women were more at risk for late stroke compared to men (HR 1.7; CI 1.1 to 2.7). After adjustment for age and co-morbidities, women had significantly better long-term survival compared to men after bioprosthetic AVR (HR 0.5; CI 0.3 to 0.6), but there was no survival difference between genders after mechanical AVR. Trends existed towards better survival for women after bioprosthetic MVR (HR 0.6; CI 0.4 to 1.0) and mechanical MVR (HR 0.8; CI 0.5 to 1.1). Conclusion: The long-term outcomes after valve replacement surgery differ between women and men. Although women have more late strokes after valve replacement, they undergo fewer reoperations and have better overall long-term survival compared to men.

Pulmonary resection and contralateral anomalous venous drainage: A lethal combination

A 72-year-old acyanotic woman had development of acute right heart failure with systemic hypotension 2 hours after a curative right intrapericardial pneumonectomy for primary lung cancer. A postoperative pulmonary angiogram revealed a major left to right shunt through previously unsuspected partial anomalous venous drainage of the left upper lobe of the lung.

Submammary Skin Incision as a Cosmetic Approach to Median Sternotomy

Median sternotomy is the incision of choice to allow access to the anterior mediastinum, heart, or both lungs. The vertical skin incision leaves an unsightly scar for many female patients. A bilateral submammary horizontal skin incision with dissection of a flap including the subcutaneous tissue and breasts allows exposure of the sternum so that a median sternotomy can be performed. Since November 1981, we have used this incision 40 times in female patients undergoing open heart surgery. The exposure of the mediastinum was excellent, and there were no difficulties in cannulating the ascending aorta for cardiopulmonary bypass. Complications associated with this incision are insignificant if close attention is paid to details.

Nonthoracotomy Implantation of Cardioverter Defibrillators: Preliminary Experience with a Defibrillation Lead Placed at the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract

Although morbidity and mortality associated with defibrillator implantation using a nonthoracotomy approach have decreased as compared with a thoracotomy approach, dfifihrillation thresholds have been higher and fewer patients satisfied implan t criteria. It may be possible to improve on the success of nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation by the placement of a right ventricular (HV) outflow defibrillation lead. Implnntable car‐dioverter defibrillator implantation data of 30 consecutive patients with clinical VT or VF were reviewed. Three defibrillation leads were routinely used. When either pacing threshold at the RV apex ivas inadequate (n ‐ 2) or 18‐J shocks were not successful in terminating VF in 3 of 4 trials (n = 8). the RV apex lead was positioned to the HV outflow tract attaching to the septum. Defibrillation testing was first performed with the RV apex lead in combination with CS, SVC. and/or subcutaneous leads. Twenty patients satisfied implant criteria with a defibrillation threshold of 13.5 ± 3.6 J. In 7 of the 10 patients, whose RV lead was repositioned to the RV outflow tract, this lead in combination with SVC, CS, or subcutaneous leads produced successful defibrillation at < 18 J or in 3 of 4 trials. This approach improved the overall success of nonthoracotomy implantation of defibrillators from 69% to 90%, After a follow‐up of 27 ± 6 months, there was no dislodgment of the HV outflow tract defibrillation leads. Conclusions: This article reports the preliminary observation that placement of defibrillation leads to the RV outflow tract in humans was possible and without dislodgment. RV outflow tract offers an alternative for placement of defibrillation leads, which may improve on the success of nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation.

Cerebral Microembolization After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement Comparison of Warfarin Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Only

Background— No human physiological data exists on whether aspirin only is as effective as warfarin plus aspirin in preventing cerebral microembolization in the early postoperative period after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR). Methods and Results— We prospectively enrolled 56 patients who had no other indication for oral anticoagulation, who underwent bAVR and received, in an open-label fashion, either daily warfarin (for INR 2.0–3.0) plus 81 mg of aspirin (n=28) or 325 mg of aspirin only (n=28). Cerebral microembolization was quantified at 4 hours (baseline) and at 1 month postoperatively, by recording 1-hour bilateral middle cerebral artery (MCA) microembolic signals (MES). Platelet-function analysis (PFA) of closure times (CT) on collagen was also used as a marker of platelet-dependent activation. Follow-up to 1 year was complete. Preoperative demographics and baseline platelet function were equivalent in both groups. There was no mortality, stroke, or transient ischemic attack at 1 year in either group. No significant differences were found in the proportion of patients with MES among those receiving warfarin plus aspirin versus aspirin only, at baseline (68% versus 82%, respectively; P=0.4) and at 1 month (46% versus 43%; P=1.0) after bAVR. The total MES and PFA were also equivalent between groups, at baseline and follow-up. Conclusions— Early after bAVR, the effects of these 2 antithrombotic regimens on cerebral microembolization and platelet function are equivalent. These data bring new mechanistic support to the premise that aspirin only may safely be used early after bAVR in patients who have no other indication for oral anticoagulation.

Response to Letter Regarding Article, “Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation”

We thank Charitos and colleagues for their interest in this article1 and also for their comments. The actuarial curves in Figure 2 represent freedom from reoperation adjusted for preoperative atrial fibrillation and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, whereas the curves in Figure 1 represent unadjusted data.1 The adjusted curves in Figure 2 included younger patients with atrial fibrillation …