Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Pregnant women with Marfan syndrome (MS) have a high risk of aortic dissection around delivery and their optimal management requires a multi-disciplinary approach, including proper cardio-obstetric care and adequate pain management during labor, which may be difficult due to the high prevalence of dural ectasia (DE) in these patients.

Objectives: To evaluate the multidisciplinary management of MS patients during labor.

Methods: Nineteen pregnant women (31 pregnancies) with MS were followed by a multi-disciplinary team (cardiologist, obstetrician, anesthesiologist) prior to delivery.

Results:^. Two patients had kyphoscoliosis; none had previous spine surgery nor complaints compatible with DE. In eight pregnancies (7 patients), aortic root diameter (ARd) before pregnancy was 40 to 46 mm. In this high-risk group, one patient underwent elective termination, two underwent an urgent cesarean section (CS) under general anesthesia, and five had elective CS; two under general anesthesia (GA), and three under spinal anesthesia. In 23 pregnancies (12 patients), ARd was < 40 mm. In this non-high-risk group three pregnancies (1 patient) were electively terminated. Of the remaining 20 deliveries (11 patients), 14 were vaginal deliveries, 9 with epidural analgesia and 5 without. Six patients had a CS; four under GA and two2 under spinal anesthesia. There were no epidural placement failures and no failed responses. There were 2 cases of aortic dissection, unrelated to the anesthetic management.

Conclusions: The optimal anesthetic strategy during labor in MS patients should be decided by a multi-disciplinary team. Anesthetic complications due to DE were not encountered during neuraxial block

Background: Prolonged life expectancy has increased the number of elderly high risk patients referred for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). These referred high risk patients may benefit from sutureless bioprosthesis procedures which reduce mortality and morbidity.

Objectives: To present our initial experience with sutureless aortic bioprotheses, including clinical and echocardiographic results, in elderly high risk patients referred for AVR. 

Methods: Forty patients (15 males, mean age 78 ± 7 years) with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis underwent AVR with the 3F Enable™ or Perceval™ sutureless bioprosthesis during the period December 2012 to May 2014. Mean logistic EuroScore was 10 ± 3%. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, intraoperatively, at discharge and at follow-up.

Results: There was no in-hospital mortality. Nine patients (22%) underwent minimally invasive AVR via a right anterior mini-thoracotomy and one patient via a J-incision. Four patients underwent concomitant coronary aortic bypass graft, two needed intraoperative repositioning of the valve, one underwent valve exchange due to inappropriate sizing, three (7.5%) had a perioperative stroke with complete resolution of neurologic symptoms, and one patient (2.5%) required permanent pacemaker implantation due to complete atrioventricular block. Mean preoperative and postoperative gradients were 44 ± 14 and 13 ± 5 mmHg, respectively. At follow-up, 82% of patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I and II.

Conclusions: Sutureless AVR can be used safely in elderly high risk patients with relatively low morbidity and mortality. The device can be safely implanted via a minimally invasive incision. Mid-term hemodynamic results are satisfactory, demonstrating significant clinical improvement.

 

Background: The rate of mitral bioprosthesis implantation in clinical practice is increasing. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation has been described for high risk patients requiring redo valve surgery. 

Objectives: To report our experience with transapical valve-in-valve implantation for failed mitral bioprosthesis.

Methods: Since 2010, 10 patients have undergone transapical valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthesis in our center. Aortic valve-in-valve implantation was performed in one of them and mitral valve-in-valve implantation in nine. Mean age was 82 ± 4 years and 6 were female (67%). Mean time from original mitral valve (MV) replacement to valve-in-valve procedure was 10.5 ± 3.7 years. Follow-up was completed by all patients with a mean duration of 13 ± 12 months. 

Results: Preoperatively, all patients presented with significant mitral regurgitation; two with mitral stenosis due to structural valve failure. All nine patients underwent successful transapical valve-in-valve implantation with an Edwards Sapien™ balloon expandable valve. There was no in-hospital mortality. Mean and median hospital duration was 15 ± 18 and 7 days respectively. Valve implantation was successful in all patients and there were no major complications, except for major femoral access bleeding in one patient. At last follow-up, all patients were alive and in NYHA functional class I or II. Echocardiography follow-up demonstrated that mitral regurgitation was absent or trivial in seven patients and mild in two. At follow-up, peak and mean gradients changed from 26 ± 4 and 8 ± 2 at baseline to 16.7 ± 3 and 7.3 ± 1.5, respectively.

Conclusions: Transcatheter transapical mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthesis is feasible in selected high risk patients. Our early experience with this strategy is encouraging. Larger randomized trials with long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up are recommended.

 

Background: Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a novel therapeutic approach for patients with severe tricuspid aortic stenosis (AS) not suitable for aortic valve replacement.

Objectives: To describe our initial single-center experience with TAVI in patients with "off-label" indications.

Methods: Between August 2008 and December 2011 we performed TAVI in 186 patients using trans-femoral, trans-axillary, trans-apical and trans-aortic approaches. In 11 patients (5.9%) TAVI was undertaken due to: a) pure severe aortic regurgitation (AR) (n=2), b) prosthetic aortic valve (AV) failure (n=5), c) bicuspid AV stenosis (n=2), and d) prosthetic valve severe mitral regurgitation (MR) (n=2).

Results: Implantation was successful in all: six patients received a CoreValve and five patients an Edwards-Sapien valve. In-hospital mortality was 0%. Valve hemodynamics and function were excellent in all patients except for one who received an Edwards-Sapien that was inside a Mitroflow prosthetic AV and led to consistently high trans-aortic gradients. No significant residual regurgitation in AR and MR cases was observed.
Conclusions: TAVI is a good alternative to surgical AV replacement in high risk or inoperable patients with severe AS. TAVI for non-classical indications such as pure AR, bicuspid AV, and failed prosthetic aortic and mitral valves is feasible and safe and may be considered in selected patients. 

Methods:  Between February 2004 and June 2012, 100 patients in our department suffering from aortic aneurysm with aortic valve regurgitation underwent elective aortic valve-sparing surgery. Of them, 30 had Marfan syndrome, were significantly younger (30 ± 13 vs. 53 ± 16 years), and had a higher percentage of root aneurysm, compared with ascending aorta aneurysm in their non-Marfan counterparts. We evaluated the safety, durability, clinical and echocardiographic mid-term results of these patients.

Results: While no early deaths were reported in either group, there were a few major early complications in both groups. At follow-up (ranging up to 8 years with a mean of 34 ± 26 months) there were no late deaths, and few major late complications in the Marfan group. Altogether, 96% and 78% of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I-II in the Marfan and non-Marfan groups respectively. None of the Marfan patients needed reoperation on the aortic valve. Freedom from recurrent aortic valve regurgitation > 3+ was 94% in the Marfan patients.

Conclusions: Aortic valve-sparing surgery in Marfan symdrome patients is safe and yields good mid-term clinical outcomes.

Background: During the last decade new surgical techniques for mitral valve repair were developed. We have been using those techniques in order to widen the spectrum of patients eligible for MV[1] repair.

Objectives: To assess the operative and mid-term results a wide variety of surgical techniques.

Methods: From January 2004 through December 2006, 213 patients underwent MV repair in our institution. Valve pathology was degenerative in 123 patients (58%), ischemic in 37 (17%), showed annular dilatation in 25 (12%), endocarditis in 16 (8%), was rheumatic in 13 (6%), and due to other causes in 14 (7%). Preoperative New York Heart Association score was 2.35 ± 0.85 and ejection fraction 53 ± 12%. Isolated MV repair was performed in 90 patients (42%) and 158 concomitant procedures were done in 123 patients (58%). A wide variety of surgical techniques was used in order to increase the number of repairs compared to valve replacement.

Results: There were 7 in-hospital deaths (3.3%). NYHA[2] class improved from 2.19 ± 0.85 to 1.4 ± 0.6, and freedom from reoperation was 100%. Echocardiography follow-up of patients with degenerative MV revealed that 93% of the patients (115/123) were free of mitral regurgitation greater than 2+ grade. In patients operated by a minimal invasive approach there were no conversions to sternotomy, no late deaths, none required reoperation, and 96% were free of MR[3] greater than 2+ grade. The use of multiple surgical techniques enabled the repair of more than 80% of pure MR cases.

Conclusions: MV repair provides good perioperative and mid-term results, and supports the preference for MV repair over replacement, when feasible. Multiple valve repair techniques tailored to different pathologies increases the feasibility of mitral repair.

Background:  After the introduction of endoscopic techniques to other surgical fields, like general surgery, gynecology and thoracic surgery, cardiac surgeons sought their own methods of using minimally invasive techniques.

Objectives:  To examine whether this approach is less invasive and yields better results, more desirable cosmetic results, and a more rapid and complete rehabilitation, maintaining safety, efficacy, and outcome equivalent to those of more established procedures, such as median sternotomy.

Methods:  From January 2000 to July 2001, 22 patients underwent video-assisted port-access mitral or aortic valve repair or replacement with the Heartport system in our department, and one underwent closure of atrial septal defect.

Results:  Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography revealed excellent functional results. Total operating room time, perfusion time, and cross-clamp time in this technique decreased with our growing experience, and remains stable. There were no intraoperative reversals to mid-steronomy, no mortalities, and only one complication 24 hours after surgery.

Conclusions:  Thoracoscopic assisted cardiac surgery (via port access) provides all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, accelerates recovery, decreases pain, and maintains overall surgical efficacy, while avoiding the complications and pathology of mid-sternotomy.  For appropriate patients, this is the method of choice in our department.