Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Early and late outcomes of AVR with aortic annular enlargement in octogenarian

  • Original Article
  • Published:
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

There is no clear consensus on the procedures for octogenarians with a small aortic annulus who require aortic valve replacement (AVR). We evaluated surgical results in octogenarians who underwent AVR with aortic annular enlargement, Nicks procedure, for aortic stenosis with a small aortic annulus.

Methods

Between January 2001 and March 2014, 131 octogenarian patients were treated at our institution. Nineteen patients received AVR with aortic annular enlargement (AAE group), and the others received standard AVR without annular enlargement (sAVR group). We compared early and late outcomes between the two groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in early complications between the groups. The rates for use of a mechanical valve (32 vs 22 %, p = 0.590), in-hospital mortality (5.3 vs 5.4 %, p = 1.000), and severe patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (0 vs 6.3 %, p = 0.593) were also similar between the AAE and sAVR group. In the AAE group, there was no cardiac-related death, bleeding event, thromboembolism, or stroke during the follow-up period (mean 37.6 months). The rates of freedom from cardiac events at 8 years were 94 % in the AAE group and 57 % in the sAVR group (p = 0.292). The overall survival rates at 8 years were 77 % in the AAE group and 77 % in sAVR group (p = 0.462). There were no significant differences in these rates between the groups.

Conclusion

AVR with aortic annular enlargement in octogenarians with small aortic annulus was safe and led to good operative and long-term outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, Masters RG, Bédard P, Lam BK, et al. Enlargement of the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement: is there a benefit? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:94–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dhareshwar J, Sundt TM 3rd, Dearani JA, Schaff HV, Cook DJ, Orszulak TA. Aortic root enlargement: what are the operative risks? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:916–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peterson MD, Borger MA, Feindel CM, David TE. Aortic annular enlargement during aortic valve replacement: improving results with time. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:2044–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nicks R, Cartmill T, Bernstein L. Hypoplasia of the aortic root. The problem of aortic valve replacement. Thorax. 1970;25:339–46.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation. 1978;58:20–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pibarot P, Honos GN, Durand LG, Dumesnil JG. The effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch on aortic bioprosthetic valve hemodynamic performance and patient clinical status. Can J Cardiol. 1996;12:379–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Urso S, Sadaba R, Aldamiz-Echevarria G. Is patient–prosthesis mismatch an independent risk factor for early and mid-term overall mortality in adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009;9:510–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, Pibarot P, Mack MJ, Takkenberg JJ, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1518–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen J, Lin Y, Kang B, Wang Z. Indexed effective orifice area is a significant predictor of higher mid- and long-term mortality rates following aortic valve replacement in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45:234–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bleiziffer S, Ali A, Hettich IM, Akdere D, Laubender RP, Ruzicka D, et al. Impact of the indexed effective orifice area on mid-term cardiac-related mortality after aortic valve replacement. Heart. 2010;96:865–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tully PJ, Aty W, Rice GD, Bennetts JS, Knight JL, Baker RA. Aortic valve prosthesis-patient mismatch and long-term outcomes: 19-year single-center experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:844–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moon MR, Pasque MK, Munfakh NA, Melby SJ, Lawton JS, Moazami N, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement: impact of age and body size on late survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:481–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, Mathieu P, Dagenais F, Voisine P, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Price J, Toeg H, Lam BK, Lapierre H, Mesana TG, Ruel M. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement varies according to age at operation. Heart. 2014;100:1099–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bleiziffer S, Eichinger WB, Hettich I, Guenzinger R, Ruzicka D, Bauernschmitt R, et al. Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method? Heart. 2006;93:615–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Takaseya T, Kawara T, Tokunaga S, Kohno M, Oishi Y, Morita S. Aortic valve replacement with 17-mm St. Jude Medical prostheses for a small aortic root in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:2050–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Okamura H, Yamaguchi A, Tanaka M, Naito K, Kimura N, Kimura C, et al. The 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve is a valid option for patients with a small aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:90–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nakamura Y, Nakano K, Tagusari O, Kataoka G, Seike Y, Domoto S, et al. An alternative option for elderly patients with a small aortic annulus: the 16 mm ATS valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 2009;18:691–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, O’Brien S, Booth ME, Dokholyan RS, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. Circulation. 2013;127:1647–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Milano A, Guglielmi C, De Carlo M, Di Gregorio O, Borzoni G, Verunelli F, et al. Valve-related complications in elderly patients with biological and mechanical aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:S82–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ennker J, Dalladaku F, Rosendahl U, Ennker IC, Mauser M, Florath I. The stentless freestyle bioprosthesis: impact of age over 80 years on quality of life, perioperative, and mid-term outcome. J Card Surg. 2006;21:379–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Petracek MR. Assessing options for the small aortic root. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002;11:S50–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Urbanski PP, Dinstak W, Rents W, Heinz N, Diegeler A. Long-term results after aortic root replacement using self-assembled valve composite grafts in patients with small aortic annulus. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;18:159–63.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ozaki S, Kawase I, Yamashita H, Nozawa Y, Takatoh M, Hagiwara S, et al. Aortic valve reconstruction using autologous pericardium for ages over 80 years. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2014;22:903–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Makkar RR, Fontana GP, Jilaihawi H, Kapadia S, Pichard AD, Douglas PS, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1696–704.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests that exist with any companies/organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Tachikawa Medical Center, 3-2-11 Kanda-cho, Nagaoka, Niigata, 940-0052, Japan

    Yuki Okamoto, Kazuo Yamamoto, Tsutomu Sugimoto & Shinpei Yoshii

Authors
  1. Yuki Okamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazuo Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsutomu Sugimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shinpei Yoshii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuki Okamoto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okamoto, Y., Yamamoto, K., Sugimoto, T. et al. Early and late outcomes of AVR with aortic annular enlargement in octogenarian. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 63, 453–458 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-015-0559-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-015-0559-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation