Wilbring Manuel, Petrov Asen, Arzt Sebastian, Eiselt Julia Patricia, Taghizadeh-Waghefi Ali, Matschke Klaus, Kappert Utz, Alexiou Konstantin
Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Heart Center Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 76, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
J Pers Med. 2023 May 8;13(5):803. doi: 10.3390/jpm13050803.
Redo mitral valve surgery is the standard of care for failed mitral bioprostheses or recurrence of mitral regurgitation after repair. Nonetheless, catheter-based valve-in-valve (ViV) or valve-in-ring (ViR) procedures have increasingly become viable alternatives in high-risk subpopulations. Despite reported good initial results, little is known about longer-term outcomes. Here, we report the long-term outcomes of transcatheter mitral ViV and ViR procedures.
All consecutive patients ( = 54) undergoing transcatheter mitral ViV or ViR procedures for failed bioprostheses or recurring regurgitation after mitral repair in the time period between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The mean age was 76.5 ± 6.5 years, and 30 (55.6%) of the patients were male. The procedures were done using a commercially available balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were obtained from the hospital's database and analyzed. Follow-up reached up to 9.9 years with a total of 164.3 patient-years.
A total 25 patients received a ViV and 29 patients a ViR procedure. Both groups were at high surgical risk with an STS-PROM of 5.9 ± 3.7% in ViV and 8.7 ± 9.0% in ViR patients ( < 0.01). The procedures themselves were mainly uneventful with no intraoperative deaths and a low conversion rate ( = 2/54; 3.7%). VARC-2 procedural success was low (ViV 20.0% and ViR 10.3%; = 0.45), which was either driven by high rates of transvalvular pressure gradients ">5 mmHg" (ViV 92.0% and ViR 27.6%; < 0.01) or residual regurgitation ">trace" (ViV 28.0% and ViR 82.7%; < 0.01). ICU-stay was prolonged in both groups (ViV 3.8 ± 6.8 days and ViR 4.3 ± 6.3 days; = 0.96) with acceptable hospital stay (ViV 9.9 ± 5.9 days and ViR 13.5 ± 8.0 days; = 0.13). Despite 30-day mortality being acceptable (ViV 4.0% and ViR 6.9%; = 1.00), the mean posthospital survival time was disappointingly low (ViV 3.9 ± 2.6 years and ViR 2.3 ± 2.7 years; < 0.01). Overall survival in the entire group was 33.3%. Cardiac reasons for death were frequent in both groups (ViV 38.5% and ViR 52.2%). Cox-regression analysis identified ViR procedures as a predictor of mortality (HR 2.36, CI 1.19-4.67, = 0.01).
Despite acceptable immediate outcomes in this high-risk subpopulation, long-term results are discouraging. Transvalvular pressure gradients as well as residual regurgitations remained drawbacks in this real-world population. The indication for catheter-based mitral ViV or ViR procedures rather than conventional redo-surgery or conservative treatment must be thoughtfully considered.
再次二尖瓣手术是二尖瓣生物瓣膜功能障碍或二尖瓣修复术后二尖瓣反流复发的标准治疗方法。尽管如此,经导管瓣中瓣(ViV)或瓣中环(ViR)手术在高危亚群中越来越成为可行的替代方案。尽管报告的初始结果良好,但对长期结果知之甚少。在此,我们报告经导管二尖瓣ViV和ViR手术的长期结果。
回顾性纳入2011年至2021年期间因生物瓣膜功能障碍或二尖瓣修复术后复发反流而接受经导管二尖瓣ViV或ViR手术的所有连续患者(n = 54)。平均年龄为76.5±6.5岁,30例(55.6%)患者为男性。手术使用市售的球囊扩张型经导管心脏瓣膜进行。从医院数据库中获取临床和超声心动图随访数据并进行分析。随访时间长达9.9年,总计164.3患者年。
共有25例患者接受了ViV手术,29例患者接受了ViR手术。两组均处于高手术风险,ViV组的胸外科医师协会预测手术风险(STS-PROM)为5.9±3.7%,ViR组为8.7±9.0%(P < 0.01)。手术本身大多顺利,无术中死亡,转化率低(n = 2/54;3.7%)。瓣膜学术研究联合会-2(VARC-2)手术成功率低(ViV为20.0%,ViR为10.3%;P = 0.45),这要么是由跨瓣压差“>5 mmHg”的高发生率(ViV为92.0%,ViR为27.6%;P < 0.01),要么是由残余反流“>微量”的高发生率(ViV为28.0%,ViR为82.7%;P < 0.01)所致。两组的重症监护病房停留时间均延长(ViV为3.8±6.8天,ViR为4.3±6.3天;P = 0.96),住院时间可接受(ViV为9.9±5.9天,ViR为13.5±8.0天;P = 0.13)。尽管30天死亡率可接受(ViV为4.0%,ViR为6.9%;P = 1.00),但出院后平均生存时间低得令人失望(ViV为3.9±2.6年,ViR为2.3±2.7年;P < 0.01)。整个组的总生存率为33.3%。两组因心脏原因死亡的情况都很常见(ViV为38.5%,ViR为52.2%)。Cox回归分析确定ViR手术是死亡率的预测因素(风险比2.36,置信区间1.19 - 4.67,P = 0.01)。
尽管在这个高危亚群中即时结果可接受,但长期结果令人沮丧。跨瓣压差以及残余反流在这个真实世界的人群中仍然是缺点。对于基于导管的二尖瓣ViV或ViR手术而非传统的再次手术或保守治疗的适应证,必须进行深思熟虑的考虑。