Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Jul;148(1):90-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.07.046. Epub 2013 Oct 11.

Aortic valve replacement after previous heart surgery in high-risk patients: transapical aortic valve implantation versus conventional aortic valve replacement-a risk-adjusted and propensity score-based analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: maximilian.scherner@uk-koeln.de.
2
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
3
Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
4
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
5
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Cardiac reoperations have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared with first-time surgery. We analyzed our experience with reoperative aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) and compared these results with those from patients who had undergone transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) as a second heart operation.

METHODS:

In the present retrospective observational comparative study, we analyzed the outcome of 136 patients with previous cardiac surgery who had undergone conventional redo-AVR (n = 59; since 2006) or TA-AVI (n = 77; since 2008) with respect to the 30-day outcomes (Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria), 1- and 3-year survival, and the risk factors for both approaches after previous heart surgery.

RESULTS:

Neither group differed significantly in their risk profile, leading to similar Society of Thoracic Surgeon score and EuroSCORE. The 30-day mortality was 3.39% (n = 2) in the redo-AVR group and 7.8% (n = 6) in the redo TA-AVI group (P = .465). The overall combined safety endpoint at 30 days was significantly lower for the TA-AVI patients (18.1% vs 33.9% in redo-AVR; P = .036). The unadjusted and adjusted 1-year survival showed no difference between the 2 groups. The unadjusted 3-year survival revealed a 2.1-fold greater mortality risk after TA-AVI (P = .055). Adjustment by multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio, 1.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.635-3.209; P = .389) and propensity score (hazard ratio, 1.571; 95% confidence interval, 0.575-4.291; P = .378) led to a >50% risk reduction, resulting in similar 3-year survival in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Redo-AVR can be performed with acceptable results in high-risk patients and still serves as the reference standard. Reoperative valve surgery by TA-AVI is feasible and results in comparable short- and mid-term survival.

PMID:
24125091
DOI:
10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.07.046
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center