Key result
Aortic valve repair for severe aortic regurgitation significantly reduced the need for blood transfusion (28.2% vs 60.9%) and shortened ICU stays compared to aortic valve replacement.
Why the study?
Aortic valve repair in rheumatic patients is not well-studied.
Does aortic valve repair improve early outcomes compared to aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic regurgitation?
Cohort (n=85)
No
Does aortic valve repair improve early outcomes compared to aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic regurgitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 28.2% vs 60.9%
p-value: p=0.003
Aortic valve repair is a feasible alternative to replacement in selected patients with severe aortic regurgitation, including those with rheumatic heart disease, and is associated with shorter bypass times and reduced blood transfusion.
Background Aortic valve repair in rheumatic patients is not well-studied. We aimed to present our initial Egyptian experience in the aortic valve repair and compare it with the aortic valve replacement. The study included 85 patients who had an aortic valve surgery for aortic regurgitation (AR) in a single center from 2018 to 2020. We assigned the patients to either aortic valve repair (n= 39) or aortic valve replacement (n= 46). Fifty-nine patients (69.4%) had rheumatic heart disease. Study outcomes were hospital complications and the degree of aortic regurgitation after 6 months in patients who had aortic valve repair. Results Patients who had replacement were significantly older (49.6± 7.2 vs. 43.8± 8.6 years: P= 0.002) and had more advanced New York Heart Association (P<0.001) and Canadian Cardiovascular Scoring (P= 0.03) classes. Hypertension (31 (67.4%) vs. 17 (43.6%); P= 0.03) and hypercholesteremia (18 (40%) vs. 17 (18.9%); P= 0.04) were more common in the replacement group. Patients who had replacement had a significantly higher percentage of valve retraction (P<0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (54.5 (49.5–60) vs. 45 (41–49) min; P<0.001) and ischemic times (36.5 (31–40) vs. 30 (28–33) min; P<0.001) were longer in patients who had an aortic valve replacement. Blood transfusion (28 (60.9%) vs. 11 (282%); P= 0.003) and ICU stay (24.5 (24–48) vs 23 (20–31) h; P= 0.01) were higher in the replacement group. Hospital mortality was non-significantly different between groups. Four patients had trivial AR (10.3%), and six had mild AR (15.4%) in the repair group. There was no difference in valve pathology or outcomes in aortic valve repair patients for degenerative versus rheumatic pathologies. After a 6-month follow-up, four patients had trivial AR (10.3%), and six patients had mild AR (15.4%) in the repair group. Conclusions Aortic valve repair could be an alternative to replacement in selected patients with rheumatic heart disease. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times may improve repair outcomes compared to replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amr et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Aortic regurgitation (n=85). Aortic valve repair vs. Aortic valve replacement was evaluated on Blood transfusion requirement (p=0.003). Aortic valve repair for severe aortic regurgitation significantly reduced the need for blood transfusion (28.2% vs 60.9%) and shortened ICU stays compared to aortic valve replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: