Decision-making in aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome: bleeding, thromboembolism and risk of reintervention after valve-sparing or mechanical aortic root replacement†

OBJECTIVES Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is thought to reduce the rate of thromboembolic and bleeding events compared with aortic root replacement using a mechanical aortic root replacement (MRR) with a composite graft by avoiding oral anticoagulation. But as VSRR carries a certain risk for subsequent reinterventions, decision-making in the individual patient can be challenging. METHODS Of 100 Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients who underwent 169 aortic surgeries and were followed at our institution since 1995, 59 consecutive patients without a history of dissection or prior aortic surgery underwent elective VSRR or MRR and were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS VSRR was performed in 29 (David n = 24, Yacoub n = 5) and MRR in 30 patients. The mean age was 33 ± 15 years. The mean follow-up after VSRR was 6.5 ± 4 years (180 patient-years) compared with 8.8 ± 9 years (274 patient-years) after MRR. Reoperation rates after root remodelling (Yacoub) were significantly higher than after the reimplantation (David) procedure (60 vs 4.2%, P = 0.01). The need for reinterventions after the reimplantation procedure (0.8% per patient-year) was not significantly higher than after MRR (P = 0.44) but follow-up after VSRR was significantly shorter (P = 0.03). There was neither significant morbidity nor mortality associated with root reoperations. There were no neurological events after VSRR compared with four stroke/intracranial bleeding events in the MRR group (log-rank, P = 0.11), translating into an event rate of 1.46% per patient-year following MRR. CONCLUSION The calculated annual failure rate after VSRR using the reimplantation technique was lower than the annual risk for thromboembolic or bleeding events. Since the perioperative risk of reinterventions following VSRR is low, patients might benefit from VSRR even if redo surgery may become necessary during follow-up.

Ankle arthrodesis versus total ankle replacement: how do I decide?

Taking into account numerous individual criteria, the correct indication substantially influences the outcome of patients with end-stage ankle arthritis treated by ankle arthrodesis or total ankle replacement. The purpose of this report is to assist the foot and ankle surgeon or orthopedic surgeon involved in choosing ankle arthrodesis or total ankle replacement in decision-making. Balancing the criteria that are discussed in consideration of the recent relevant literature and evidence available, the surgeon is directed to the correct individual decision.

Costs of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a new treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis, but costs may play a decisive role in decision making. Current studies are evaluating TAVR in an intermediate-risk population. We assessed the in-hospital and 1-year follow-up costs of patients undergoing TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at intermediate operative risk and identified important cost components.

Influence of hormone replacement therapy on proteomic pattern in serum of postmenopausal women

OBJECTIVES: Proteomics approaches to cardiovascular biology and disease hold the promise of identifying specific proteins and peptides or modification thereof to assist in the identification of novel biomarkers. METHOD: By using surface-enhanced laser desorption and ionization time of flight mass spectroscopy (SELDI-TOF-MS) serum peptide and protein patterns were detected enabling to discriminate between postmenopausal women with and without hormone replacement therapy (HRT). RESULTS: Serum of 13 HRT and 27 control subjects was analyzed and 42 peptides and proteins could be tentatively identified based on their molecular weight and binding characteristics on the chip surface. By using decision tree-based Biomarker Patternstrade mark Software classification and regression analysis a discriminatory function was developed allowing to distinguish between HRT women and controls correctly and, thus, yielding a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 100%. The results show that peptide and protein patterns have the potential to deliver novel biomarkers as well as pinpointing targets for improved treatment. The biomarkers obtained represent a promising tool to discriminate between HRT users and non-users. CONCLUSION: According to a tentative identification of the markers by their molecular weight and binding characteristics, most of them appear to be part of the inflammation induced acute-phase response

Assessment of low-flow, low-gradient, severe aortic stenosis: an invasive evaluation is required for decision making.

Low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) is characterised by a small aortic valve area (AVA) and low mean gradient (MG) secondary to a low cardiac output and may occur in patients with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Symptomatic patients presenting with low-flow, low-gradient severe AS have a dismal prognosis independent of baseline LVEF if managed conservatively and should therefore undergo aortic valve replacement if feasible. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the first-line investigation for the assessment of AS haemodynamic severity. However, when confronted with guideline-discordant AVA (small) and MG (low) values, there are several reasons other than severe AS combined with a low cardiac output which may lead to such a situation, including erroneous measurements, small body size, inherent inconsistencies in the guidelines' criteria, prolonged ejection time and aortic pseudostenosis. The distinction between these various entities poses a diagnostic challenge. However, it is important to make a distinction because each has very different implications in terms of risk stratification and therapeutic management. In such instances, cardiac catheterisation forms an integral part of the work-up of these patients in order to confirm or refute the echocardiographic findings to guide management decisions appropriately.

Mechanical versus biological aortic valve replacement strategies.

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the most frequently performed procedure in valve surgery. The controversy about the optimal choice of the prosthetic valve is as old as the technique itself. Currently there is no perfect valve substitute available. The main challenge is to choose between mechanical and biological prosthetic valves. Biological valves include pericardial (bovine, porcine or equine) and native porcine bioprostheses designed in stented or stentless versions. Homografts and pulmonary autografts are reserved for special indications and will not be discussed in detail in this review. We will focus on the decision making between artificial biological and mechanical prostheses, respectively. The first part of this article reviews guideline recommendations concerning the choice of aortic prostheses in different clinical situations while the second part is focused on novel strategies in the treatment of patients with aortic valve pathology.