Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to investigate early results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) after cardiovascular surgery and create a risk model using a national database in Japan.

METHODS

We used the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database. Between 2008 and 2013, 2157 patients who underwent AVR for aortic stenosis after cardiovascular surgery or redo AVR were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

The background of prior surgery (including overlapping cases) was as follows: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 31.9%; valve, 67.5% and thoracic aorta, 9.0%. The mean age was 70.4. Concomitant procedures were as follows: CABG, 14.5%; mitral valve surgery, 29.9% and aortic surgery, 5.9%. The 30-day and operative mortality rates were 5.5 and 8.5%, respectively. Major morbidity occurred in 25.7%. The incidence rate of stroke was 3.8%, and that of pacemaker implantation was 3.7%. There were seven risk factors for both the operative mortality and composite outcome: age, active endocarditis, ejection fraction <30%, New York Heart Association classification IV, mitral regurgitation ≥2, renal failure and other concomitant cardiac procedure. The C-indexes of operative mortality and the composite outcome were 0.761 and 0.709, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We could identify risk factors predicting the operative mortality and composite outcome associated with AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery based on a national Japanese database. Early outcomes were acceptable despite these operations being associated with a higher risk than primary AVR. Our results may be informative when treating such high-risk patients.

INTRODUCTION

The number of patients who require aortic valve replacement (AVR) after prior cardiovascular surgery has grown due to increasing numbers of people suffering from aortic stenosis (AS) or requiring reintervention after prior AVR [17]. These are technically demanding procedures when compared with primary AVR [3, 5] due to older age, greater prevalence of comorbidities, other cardiac lesions requiring concomitant procedures, longer cardiopulmonary bypass and clamping times, incident rates of intraoperative organ injury including a patent graft, lethal bleeding and frequent need for transfusion [2, 7]. Operative mortality associated with AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery has been reported to be ∼5% in isolated cases [3, 4, 8] and 5–10% in combined procedures [1, 9, 10]. There have been only two multicentre or national studies regarding AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery. The RECORD initiative, involving seven centres in Europe, investigated the short- and mid-term outcomes of more than 700 patients [6, 11]. The other one was a study using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Database [5]. It investigated the short-term outcomes of 3380 patients receiving isolated AVR for a failed aortic bioprosthesis. However, both of them did not perform risk analysis for early outcomes. In addition, there has been no such study involving Asian races whose average stature is smaller than that of Western populations [12, 13]. One of the important issues regarding the smaller stature is the consequently smaller prosthesis to be implanted, which would make AVR a more difficult procedure. Indeed, a previous multicentre study from Japan demonstrated that a size of 19 or 21 mm comprises ∼50% of AVRs using a bioprosthesis [13].

Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been developed to treat high-risk patients with AS [14]. In addition, TAVR has the potential in the redo scenario to avoid repeat sternotomy, such as in patients who previously received other types of valve surgery [15] or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a patent graft [1618], who had deep sternal wound infection, or who require reintervention for a failed bioprosthesis, the so-called ‘valve-in-valve’ procedure [8, 1921]. Since indications for TAVR will be expanded with the advancement of techniques and devices, an appropriate risk assessment of patients undergoing intervention for the aortic valve after cardiovascular surgery is important to ensure quality control and will be helpful when considering whether surgical AVR or TAVR is more appropriate for a patient who received prior cardiovascular surgery. Based on this background, the aims of this study were to investigate the early results and create risk models of the outcomes of AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery using a national database of Japan: the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database (JACVSD).

Study population

The JACVSD is a national database, which currently involves nearly all cardiovascular units in Japan [12]. The JACVSD started in 2000 to estimate surgical outcomes after cardiovascular procedures in Japan. The number of institutions has been increasing, and the database incorporated clinical information from 260 000 individual datasets from 533 hospitals in 2013 [12]. The data registration project was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients in each participating hospital. Any JACVSD records that had been obtained without patient consent were excluded from this study. The data collection form has a total of 255 variables (definitions are available online at www.jacvsd.umin.jp), and these are almost identical to those in the STS National Database (available online at www.sts.org). The JACVSD incorporates software for a web-based data collection system, and through this system, the data manager of each participating hospital was responsible for forwarding their data electronically to the central office. The rate of data entry was monitored in the central office to fully input the data. The accuracy of submitted data was maintained through a data audit; administrative office members and investigators who previously used the JACVSD for clinical studies randomly visited a participating hospital every month.

Concomitant procedures such as CABG or mitral valve surgery were included. Exclusion criteria were aortic root replacement or surgery for acute aortic dissection or rupture. We examined cardiovascular surgery procedures relating to AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2013. Using this database, we collected 56 100 AVR cases. Of these, redo procedures were performed in 4291 patients. Patients with aortic regurgitation without AS or missing data at discharge were excluded (n = 2081). Aortic root replacement and surgery for acute aortic dissection or rupture were also excluded (n = 53). Consequently, the population for this risk model analysis comprised 2157 cases.

Surgical procedures

Surgical AVR was performed through a full or hemi-sternotomy in this study. The size and type of aortic valve prosthesis, position of implantation (intra- or supra-annular position) and method of implanted sutures (interrupted or buttress sutures) were determined at each institute.

End-points and definition

The primary end-points of this study were 30-day and operative mortality rates. Operative mortality was exactly the same as the 30-day operative mortality as expressed in the STS National Database [5]. This includes any patient who died within the index period of hospitalization, regardless of the length of hospital stay, as well as any patient who died after being discharged from hospital up to 30 days from the date of the operation. In this analysis, both the operative mortality and composite operative mortality or major complications (the composite outcome) were used as the end-points. Major morbidity was defined as any of the following five postoperative outcomes: stroke, cardiovascular reoperation irrespective of the reason, mechanical ventilation for more than 72 h after surgery, renal failure or deep sternal wound infection. Stroke was defined as a new neurological deficit persisting for more than 72 h. Postoperative renal failure was defined as a patient with newly required haemodialysis or showing a creatinine increase greater than or equal to 2-fold the preoperative baseline and greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dl. Gastrointestinal bleeding was bleeding from the stomach or intestine. The definitions of preoperative complications were as follows: liver dysfunction was defined as (i) liver enzymes ≥100 I.U., (ii) total bilirubin ≥1.5 mg/dl or (iii) cirrhosis; renal failure was defined as (i) the presence of proteinuria, (ii) a serum creatinine ≥1.3 mg/dl or (iii) an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2; moderate degree of chronic lung disease was defined as follows: (i) forced expiratory volume 1.0 <60%, (ii) steroid use, (iii) PO2 ≤60 mmHg or (iv) PCO2 ≥50 mmHg and congestive heart failure was defined as clinical symptoms including dyspnoea on effort, orthopnoea, respiratory wheeze and objective data showing fluid overload within 2 weeks before surgery. Other cardiac procedures included a left ventricular procedure, congenital repair, arrhythmia correction surgery, pericardiectomy or mechanical device implantation.

Statistical analysis

The statistical model was multiple logistic regression; the variables entered in the model were selected using bivariate tests, χ2 tests for categorical covariates, and unpaired t-tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous covariates. All variables significant at the P< 0.2 level were entered into the model provided they were present in at least 1% of the sample. A multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis was then performed for each of the two outcomes. The stability of the model was checked every time a variable was eliminated. In the case of continuous variables, in which the relationship with the outcome was not linear, such as for preoperative creatinine, we determined cut-off points. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (C-index) was used to assess how well the model could discriminate between patients who survived from those who had died (0.5–1.0). We considered a C-index of <0.7 as poor, 0.7–0.8 as acceptable and greater than 0.8 as excellent [22]. The SPSS version 20.0J software program (SPSS Japan, Tokyo, Japan) was used for all analyses, and a P-value <0.05 was considered to be significant.

RESULTS

Table 1 demonstrates the basic characteristics of patients. The background of prior surgery (including overlapping cases) was CABG, 31.9%; valve, 67.5% and thoracic aorta, 9.0%. Table 2 presents operative details. Types of prosthesis used were bioprosthesis, 51.3% and mechanical valve, 48.7%. The prosthesis size most often used was 19 mm (37.6%), followed by 21 mm (27.5%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 40.5%: CABG, 14.5%; mitral valve surgery, 29.9% and aortic surgery, 5.9% (including overlapping cases).

Table 1:

Patients' characteristics

All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Age, years70.7 ± 10.870.4 ± 10.973.3 ± 8.8<0.001
Body surface area, m21.50 ± 0.181.50 ± 0.181.51 ± 0.190.714
Body mass index, kg/m221.7 ± 3.521.8 ± 3.521.5 ± 3.90.339
 <201700 (78.8)1563 (79.2)137 (74.9)
 20–25334 (15.5)299 (15.1)35 (19.1)
 25–30105 (4.9)98 (5.0)7 (3.8)
 ≥3018 (0.8)14 (0.7)4 (2.2)0.074
Male sex932 (43.2)831 (42.1)101 (55.2)<0.001
Previous surgery
 Coronary689 (31.9)612 (31)77 (42.1)0.003
 Valve1456 (67.5)1338 (67.8)118 (64.4)0.407
 Aorta194 (9.0)182 (10.5)12 (6.6)0.285
Hypertension1238 (57.4)1115 (56.5)123 (67.2)0.006
Hyperlipidaemia803 (37.2)727 (36.8)76 (41.5)0.239
Diabetes mellitus577 (26.8)513 (26.0)64 (35.0)0.011
Insulin user154 (7.1)141 (7.1)13 (7.1)0.984
PAD250 (11.56)210 (10.6)40 (21.9)<0.001
Smoking609 (28.2)547 (27.7)62 (33.9)0.141
Chronic lung disease ≥ moderate97 (4.5)83 (4.2)14 (7.7)0.049
Renal failure412 (19.1)336 (17.0)76 (41.5)<0.001
Haemodialysis224 (10.4)178 (9.0)46 (25.1)<0.001
Creatinine, mg/dl1.66 ± 2.301.55 ± 2.22.8 ± 3.1<0.001
Liver dysfunction99 (4.6)84 (4.3)15 (8.2)0.005
Carotid stenosis117 (5.5)100 (5.1)17 (9.3)0.025
Cerebrovascular disease266 (12.3)233 (11.8)33 (18.0)0.020
Recent stroke24 (1.1)15 (0.8)9 (4.9)<0.001
Active endocarditis93 (4.2)73 (3.7)20 (10.9)<0.001
Atrial fibrillation748 (34.7)686 (34.9)62 (36.6)0.876
Operation ≥ emergency38 (1.8)25 (1.3)13 (7.4)<0.001
Congestive heart failure777 (36.0)678 (34.3)99 (54.1)<0.001
NYHA classification IV169 (7.8)131 (6.6)38 (20.8)<0.001
CCS classification ≥III154 (7.1)132 (6.7)22 (12.0)0.011
Cardiogenic shock45 (2.1)28 (1.4)17 (9.3)<0.001
Inotropic agent use71 (3.3)54 (2.7)17 (9.3)<0.001
Left main disease179 (8.3)150 (7.6)29 (14.5)<0.001
Triple-vessel disease269 (12.5)230 (11.7)39 (21.3)<0.001
Unstable angina61 (2.8)45 (2.3)16 (8.7)<0.001
Previous PCI316 (14.6)277 (14.0)39 (21.3)0.011
Previous myocardial infarction240 (11.1)206 (10.4)34 (18.6)0.001
Ejection fraction 30–60%826 (38.3)746 (37.8)80 (43.7)0.134
Ejection fraction <30%117 (5.4)91 (1.4)26 (14.2)<0.001
Aortic regurgitation ≥21019 (47.2)917 (46.1)102 (55.8)0.020
Mitral regurgitation ≥2759 (35.2)674 (34.1)85 (46.4)<0.001
Tricuspid regurgitation ≥2930 (43.1)852 (43.2)78 (42.6)0.950
All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Age, years70.7 ± 10.870.4 ± 10.973.3 ± 8.8<0.001
Body surface area, m21.50 ± 0.181.50 ± 0.181.51 ± 0.190.714
Body mass index, kg/m221.7 ± 3.521.8 ± 3.521.5 ± 3.90.339
 <201700 (78.8)1563 (79.2)137 (74.9)
 20–25334 (15.5)299 (15.1)35 (19.1)
 25–30105 (4.9)98 (5.0)7 (3.8)
 ≥3018 (0.8)14 (0.7)4 (2.2)0.074
Male sex932 (43.2)831 (42.1)101 (55.2)<0.001
Previous surgery
 Coronary689 (31.9)612 (31)77 (42.1)0.003
 Valve1456 (67.5)1338 (67.8)118 (64.4)0.407
 Aorta194 (9.0)182 (10.5)12 (6.6)0.285
Hypertension1238 (57.4)1115 (56.5)123 (67.2)0.006
Hyperlipidaemia803 (37.2)727 (36.8)76 (41.5)0.239
Diabetes mellitus577 (26.8)513 (26.0)64 (35.0)0.011
Insulin user154 (7.1)141 (7.1)13 (7.1)0.984
PAD250 (11.56)210 (10.6)40 (21.9)<0.001
Smoking609 (28.2)547 (27.7)62 (33.9)0.141
Chronic lung disease ≥ moderate97 (4.5)83 (4.2)14 (7.7)0.049
Renal failure412 (19.1)336 (17.0)76 (41.5)<0.001
Haemodialysis224 (10.4)178 (9.0)46 (25.1)<0.001
Creatinine, mg/dl1.66 ± 2.301.55 ± 2.22.8 ± 3.1<0.001
Liver dysfunction99 (4.6)84 (4.3)15 (8.2)0.005
Carotid stenosis117 (5.5)100 (5.1)17 (9.3)0.025
Cerebrovascular disease266 (12.3)233 (11.8)33 (18.0)0.020
Recent stroke24 (1.1)15 (0.8)9 (4.9)<0.001
Active endocarditis93 (4.2)73 (3.7)20 (10.9)<0.001
Atrial fibrillation748 (34.7)686 (34.9)62 (36.6)0.876
Operation ≥ emergency38 (1.8)25 (1.3)13 (7.4)<0.001
Congestive heart failure777 (36.0)678 (34.3)99 (54.1)<0.001
NYHA classification IV169 (7.8)131 (6.6)38 (20.8)<0.001
CCS classification ≥III154 (7.1)132 (6.7)22 (12.0)0.011
Cardiogenic shock45 (2.1)28 (1.4)17 (9.3)<0.001
Inotropic agent use71 (3.3)54 (2.7)17 (9.3)<0.001
Left main disease179 (8.3)150 (7.6)29 (14.5)<0.001
Triple-vessel disease269 (12.5)230 (11.7)39 (21.3)<0.001
Unstable angina61 (2.8)45 (2.3)16 (8.7)<0.001
Previous PCI316 (14.6)277 (14.0)39 (21.3)0.011
Previous myocardial infarction240 (11.1)206 (10.4)34 (18.6)0.001
Ejection fraction 30–60%826 (38.3)746 (37.8)80 (43.7)0.134
Ejection fraction <30%117 (5.4)91 (1.4)26 (14.2)<0.001
Aortic regurgitation ≥21019 (47.2)917 (46.1)102 (55.8)0.020
Mitral regurgitation ≥2759 (35.2)674 (34.1)85 (46.4)<0.001
Tricuspid regurgitation ≥2930 (43.1)852 (43.2)78 (42.6)0.950

Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.

CCS: Canadian Cardiovascular Society; NYHA: New York Heart Association; PAD: peripheral artery disease; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention.

Table 1:

Patients' characteristics

All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Age, years70.7 ± 10.870.4 ± 10.973.3 ± 8.8<0.001
Body surface area, m21.50 ± 0.181.50 ± 0.181.51 ± 0.190.714
Body mass index, kg/m221.7 ± 3.521.8 ± 3.521.5 ± 3.90.339
 <201700 (78.8)1563 (79.2)137 (74.9)
 20–25334 (15.5)299 (15.1)35 (19.1)
 25–30105 (4.9)98 (5.0)7 (3.8)
 ≥3018 (0.8)14 (0.7)4 (2.2)0.074
Male sex932 (43.2)831 (42.1)101 (55.2)<0.001
Previous surgery
 Coronary689 (31.9)612 (31)77 (42.1)0.003
 Valve1456 (67.5)1338 (67.8)118 (64.4)0.407
 Aorta194 (9.0)182 (10.5)12 (6.6)0.285
Hypertension1238 (57.4)1115 (56.5)123 (67.2)0.006
Hyperlipidaemia803 (37.2)727 (36.8)76 (41.5)0.239
Diabetes mellitus577 (26.8)513 (26.0)64 (35.0)0.011
Insulin user154 (7.1)141 (7.1)13 (7.1)0.984
PAD250 (11.56)210 (10.6)40 (21.9)<0.001
Smoking609 (28.2)547 (27.7)62 (33.9)0.141
Chronic lung disease ≥ moderate97 (4.5)83 (4.2)14 (7.7)0.049
Renal failure412 (19.1)336 (17.0)76 (41.5)<0.001
Haemodialysis224 (10.4)178 (9.0)46 (25.1)<0.001
Creatinine, mg/dl1.66 ± 2.301.55 ± 2.22.8 ± 3.1<0.001
Liver dysfunction99 (4.6)84 (4.3)15 (8.2)0.005
Carotid stenosis117 (5.5)100 (5.1)17 (9.3)0.025
Cerebrovascular disease266 (12.3)233 (11.8)33 (18.0)0.020
Recent stroke24 (1.1)15 (0.8)9 (4.9)<0.001
Active endocarditis93 (4.2)73 (3.7)20 (10.9)<0.001
Atrial fibrillation748 (34.7)686 (34.9)62 (36.6)0.876
Operation ≥ emergency38 (1.8)25 (1.3)13 (7.4)<0.001
Congestive heart failure777 (36.0)678 (34.3)99 (54.1)<0.001
NYHA classification IV169 (7.8)131 (6.6)38 (20.8)<0.001
CCS classification ≥III154 (7.1)132 (6.7)22 (12.0)0.011
Cardiogenic shock45 (2.1)28 (1.4)17 (9.3)<0.001
Inotropic agent use71 (3.3)54 (2.7)17 (9.3)<0.001
Left main disease179 (8.3)150 (7.6)29 (14.5)<0.001
Triple-vessel disease269 (12.5)230 (11.7)39 (21.3)<0.001
Unstable angina61 (2.8)45 (2.3)16 (8.7)<0.001
Previous PCI316 (14.6)277 (14.0)39 (21.3)0.011
Previous myocardial infarction240 (11.1)206 (10.4)34 (18.6)0.001
Ejection fraction 30–60%826 (38.3)746 (37.8)80 (43.7)0.134
Ejection fraction <30%117 (5.4)91 (1.4)26 (14.2)<0.001
Aortic regurgitation ≥21019 (47.2)917 (46.1)102 (55.8)0.020
Mitral regurgitation ≥2759 (35.2)674 (34.1)85 (46.4)<0.001
Tricuspid regurgitation ≥2930 (43.1)852 (43.2)78 (42.6)0.950
All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Age, years70.7 ± 10.870.4 ± 10.973.3 ± 8.8<0.001
Body surface area, m21.50 ± 0.181.50 ± 0.181.51 ± 0.190.714
Body mass index, kg/m221.7 ± 3.521.8 ± 3.521.5 ± 3.90.339
 <201700 (78.8)1563 (79.2)137 (74.9)
 20–25334 (15.5)299 (15.1)35 (19.1)
 25–30105 (4.9)98 (5.0)7 (3.8)
 ≥3018 (0.8)14 (0.7)4 (2.2)0.074
Male sex932 (43.2)831 (42.1)101 (55.2)<0.001
Previous surgery
 Coronary689 (31.9)612 (31)77 (42.1)0.003
 Valve1456 (67.5)1338 (67.8)118 (64.4)0.407
 Aorta194 (9.0)182 (10.5)12 (6.6)0.285
Hypertension1238 (57.4)1115 (56.5)123 (67.2)0.006
Hyperlipidaemia803 (37.2)727 (36.8)76 (41.5)0.239
Diabetes mellitus577 (26.8)513 (26.0)64 (35.0)0.011
Insulin user154 (7.1)141 (7.1)13 (7.1)0.984
PAD250 (11.56)210 (10.6)40 (21.9)<0.001
Smoking609 (28.2)547 (27.7)62 (33.9)0.141
Chronic lung disease ≥ moderate97 (4.5)83 (4.2)14 (7.7)0.049
Renal failure412 (19.1)336 (17.0)76 (41.5)<0.001
Haemodialysis224 (10.4)178 (9.0)46 (25.1)<0.001
Creatinine, mg/dl1.66 ± 2.301.55 ± 2.22.8 ± 3.1<0.001
Liver dysfunction99 (4.6)84 (4.3)15 (8.2)0.005
Carotid stenosis117 (5.5)100 (5.1)17 (9.3)0.025
Cerebrovascular disease266 (12.3)233 (11.8)33 (18.0)0.020
Recent stroke24 (1.1)15 (0.8)9 (4.9)<0.001
Active endocarditis93 (4.2)73 (3.7)20 (10.9)<0.001
Atrial fibrillation748 (34.7)686 (34.9)62 (36.6)0.876
Operation ≥ emergency38 (1.8)25 (1.3)13 (7.4)<0.001
Congestive heart failure777 (36.0)678 (34.3)99 (54.1)<0.001
NYHA classification IV169 (7.8)131 (6.6)38 (20.8)<0.001
CCS classification ≥III154 (7.1)132 (6.7)22 (12.0)0.011
Cardiogenic shock45 (2.1)28 (1.4)17 (9.3)<0.001
Inotropic agent use71 (3.3)54 (2.7)17 (9.3)<0.001
Left main disease179 (8.3)150 (7.6)29 (14.5)<0.001
Triple-vessel disease269 (12.5)230 (11.7)39 (21.3)<0.001
Unstable angina61 (2.8)45 (2.3)16 (8.7)<0.001
Previous PCI316 (14.6)277 (14.0)39 (21.3)0.011
Previous myocardial infarction240 (11.1)206 (10.4)34 (18.6)0.001
Ejection fraction 30–60%826 (38.3)746 (37.8)80 (43.7)0.134
Ejection fraction <30%117 (5.4)91 (1.4)26 (14.2)<0.001
Aortic regurgitation ≥21019 (47.2)917 (46.1)102 (55.8)0.020
Mitral regurgitation ≥2759 (35.2)674 (34.1)85 (46.4)<0.001
Tricuspid regurgitation ≥2930 (43.1)852 (43.2)78 (42.6)0.950

Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.

CCS: Canadian Cardiovascular Society; NYHA: New York Heart Association; PAD: peripheral artery disease; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention.

Table 2:

Operative details

All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Full sternotomy2143 (99.3)1960 (99.3)183 (100)0.508
Partial sternotomy14 (0.7)14 (0.7)00.508
Aortic valve prosthesis
 Mechanical1041 (48.7)970 (49.1)81 (43.5)0.155
 Bioprosthesis1106 (51.3)1004 (50.9)102 (56.5)0.155
  ≤18 mm316 (14.8)293 (15.0)23 (12.7)
  19 mm803 (37.6)730 (37.4)73 (40.3)
  20 mm81 (3.8)73 (3.4)8 (4.4)
  21 mm586 (27.5)540 (27.7)46 (25.4)
  22 mm24 (1.1)23 (1.2)1 (0.6)
  23 mm258 (12.1)231 (11.8)27 (14.8)
  24 mm2 (0.1)2 (0.1)0 (0)
  25 mm41 (1.9)40 (2.0)1 (0.5)
  ≥26 mm22 (1.0)20 (1.0)2 (1.1)0.705
Isolated AVR1285 (59.6)1172 (59.5)113 (61.7)0.584
Concomitant procedure872 (40.4)802 (40.6)70 (38.3)
 CABG313 (14.5)272 (13.8)41 (22.4)0.002
 Mitral valve645 (29.9)590 (29.9)55 (30.1)0.963
  Repair148 (6.9)132 (6.7)16 (8.7)0.368
  Replacement497 (23.0)458 (23.2)39 (21.3)0.625
Tricuspid valve repair543 (25.2)506 (25.6)37 (20.2)0.127
Aortic replacement127 (5.9)116 (5.9)11 (6.0)0.941
Other procedures125 (5.8)110 (5.6)15 (8.2)0.198
Circulatory arrest29 (1.3)21 (1.1)8 (4.4)0.001
Clamp time, min137 ± 62134 ± 57170 ± 95<0.001
Perfusion time, min208 ± 94200 ± 57298 ± 163<0.001
All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Full sternotomy2143 (99.3)1960 (99.3)183 (100)0.508
Partial sternotomy14 (0.7)14 (0.7)00.508
Aortic valve prosthesis
 Mechanical1041 (48.7)970 (49.1)81 (43.5)0.155
 Bioprosthesis1106 (51.3)1004 (50.9)102 (56.5)0.155
  ≤18 mm316 (14.8)293 (15.0)23 (12.7)
  19 mm803 (37.6)730 (37.4)73 (40.3)
  20 mm81 (3.8)73 (3.4)8 (4.4)
  21 mm586 (27.5)540 (27.7)46 (25.4)
  22 mm24 (1.1)23 (1.2)1 (0.6)
  23 mm258 (12.1)231 (11.8)27 (14.8)
  24 mm2 (0.1)2 (0.1)0 (0)
  25 mm41 (1.9)40 (2.0)1 (0.5)
  ≥26 mm22 (1.0)20 (1.0)2 (1.1)0.705
Isolated AVR1285 (59.6)1172 (59.5)113 (61.7)0.584
Concomitant procedure872 (40.4)802 (40.6)70 (38.3)
 CABG313 (14.5)272 (13.8)41 (22.4)0.002
 Mitral valve645 (29.9)590 (29.9)55 (30.1)0.963
  Repair148 (6.9)132 (6.7)16 (8.7)0.368
  Replacement497 (23.0)458 (23.2)39 (21.3)0.625
Tricuspid valve repair543 (25.2)506 (25.6)37 (20.2)0.127
Aortic replacement127 (5.9)116 (5.9)11 (6.0)0.941
Other procedures125 (5.8)110 (5.6)15 (8.2)0.198
Circulatory arrest29 (1.3)21 (1.1)8 (4.4)0.001
Clamp time, min137 ± 62134 ± 57170 ± 95<0.001
Perfusion time, min208 ± 94200 ± 57298 ± 163<0.001

Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.

AVR: aortic valve replacement; CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting.

Table 2:

Operative details

All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Full sternotomy2143 (99.3)1960 (99.3)183 (100)0.508
Partial sternotomy14 (0.7)14 (0.7)00.508
Aortic valve prosthesis
 Mechanical1041 (48.7)970 (49.1)81 (43.5)0.155
 Bioprosthesis1106 (51.3)1004 (50.9)102 (56.5)0.155
  ≤18 mm316 (14.8)293 (15.0)23 (12.7)
  19 mm803 (37.6)730 (37.4)73 (40.3)
  20 mm81 (3.8)73 (3.4)8 (4.4)
  21 mm586 (27.5)540 (27.7)46 (25.4)
  22 mm24 (1.1)23 (1.2)1 (0.6)
  23 mm258 (12.1)231 (11.8)27 (14.8)
  24 mm2 (0.1)2 (0.1)0 (0)
  25 mm41 (1.9)40 (2.0)1 (0.5)
  ≥26 mm22 (1.0)20 (1.0)2 (1.1)0.705
Isolated AVR1285 (59.6)1172 (59.5)113 (61.7)0.584
Concomitant procedure872 (40.4)802 (40.6)70 (38.3)
 CABG313 (14.5)272 (13.8)41 (22.4)0.002
 Mitral valve645 (29.9)590 (29.9)55 (30.1)0.963
  Repair148 (6.9)132 (6.7)16 (8.7)0.368
  Replacement497 (23.0)458 (23.2)39 (21.3)0.625
Tricuspid valve repair543 (25.2)506 (25.6)37 (20.2)0.127
Aortic replacement127 (5.9)116 (5.9)11 (6.0)0.941
Other procedures125 (5.8)110 (5.6)15 (8.2)0.198
Circulatory arrest29 (1.3)21 (1.1)8 (4.4)0.001
Clamp time, min137 ± 62134 ± 57170 ± 95<0.001
Perfusion time, min208 ± 94200 ± 57298 ± 163<0.001
All (n = 2157)Mortality (−) (n = 1974)Mortality (+) (n = 183)P-value
Full sternotomy2143 (99.3)1960 (99.3)183 (100)0.508
Partial sternotomy14 (0.7)14 (0.7)00.508
Aortic valve prosthesis
 Mechanical1041 (48.7)970 (49.1)81 (43.5)0.155
 Bioprosthesis1106 (51.3)1004 (50.9)102 (56.5)0.155
  ≤18 mm316 (14.8)293 (15.0)23 (12.7)
  19 mm803 (37.6)730 (37.4)73 (40.3)
  20 mm81 (3.8)73 (3.4)8 (4.4)
  21 mm586 (27.5)540 (27.7)46 (25.4)
  22 mm24 (1.1)23 (1.2)1 (0.6)
  23 mm258 (12.1)231 (11.8)27 (14.8)
  24 mm2 (0.1)2 (0.1)0 (0)
  25 mm41 (1.9)40 (2.0)1 (0.5)
  ≥26 mm22 (1.0)20 (1.0)2 (1.1)0.705
Isolated AVR1285 (59.6)1172 (59.5)113 (61.7)0.584
Concomitant procedure872 (40.4)802 (40.6)70 (38.3)
 CABG313 (14.5)272 (13.8)41 (22.4)0.002
 Mitral valve645 (29.9)590 (29.9)55 (30.1)0.963
  Repair148 (6.9)132 (6.7)16 (8.7)0.368
  Replacement497 (23.0)458 (23.2)39 (21.3)0.625
Tricuspid valve repair543 (25.2)506 (25.6)37 (20.2)0.127
Aortic replacement127 (5.9)116 (5.9)11 (6.0)0.941
Other procedures125 (5.8)110 (5.6)15 (8.2)0.198
Circulatory arrest29 (1.3)21 (1.1)8 (4.4)0.001
Clamp time, min137 ± 62134 ± 57170 ± 95<0.001
Perfusion time, min208 ± 94200 ± 57298 ± 163<0.001

Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.

AVR: aortic valve replacement; CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting.

Table 3 presents postoperative characteristics. Raw 30-day and operative mortality rates were 5.5% (118 patients) and 8.5% (183 patients), respectively. The incidence of major morbidity was recorded in 554 patients (25.7%): 231 cases of cardiac reoperation (10.7%); 315 cases of prolonged ventilation (14.6%); 205 cases of renal failure (9.5%) including 119 cases of newly required dialysis (5.5%); 81 cases of permanent stroke (3.8%) and 18 cases of deep sternal wound infection (0.8%). Blood transfusion was required in 2013 patients (93.3%). Pacemaker implantation (PMI) for heart block was required in 79 patients (3.7%).

Table 3:

Postoperative results

All (n = 2157)Mortality (+) (n = 183)
30-day mortality118 (5.5)-
Operative mortality183 (8.5)-
Major morbidity including554 (25.7)183 (100)
 Permanent stroke81 (3.8)26 (14.2)
 Prolonged ventilation315 (14.6)100 (54.6)
 Renal failure205 (9.5)84 (45.9)
 Deep sternal infection18 (0.8)3 (1.6)
 Cardiac reoperation231 (10.7)79 (43.2)
Pacemaker implantation79 (3.7)16 (8.7)
Renal failure requiring dialysis119 (5.5)68 (37.2)
Reoperation for bleeding152 (7.0)56 (30.6)
Blood transfusion2013 (93.3)183 (100)
Atrial fibrillation371 (17.2)35 (19.1)
Pneumonia137 (6.4)54 (29.5)
Gastrointestinal bleeding83 (2.5)35 (19.1)
Lower limb ischaemia9 (0.4)7 (3.8)
Iliac dissection1 (0.05)0 (0)
All (n = 2157)Mortality (+) (n = 183)
30-day mortality118 (5.5)-
Operative mortality183 (8.5)-
Major morbidity including554 (25.7)183 (100)
 Permanent stroke81 (3.8)26 (14.2)
 Prolonged ventilation315 (14.6)100 (54.6)
 Renal failure205 (9.5)84 (45.9)
 Deep sternal infection18 (0.8)3 (1.6)
 Cardiac reoperation231 (10.7)79 (43.2)
Pacemaker implantation79 (3.7)16 (8.7)
Renal failure requiring dialysis119 (5.5)68 (37.2)
Reoperation for bleeding152 (7.0)56 (30.6)
Blood transfusion2013 (93.3)183 (100)
Atrial fibrillation371 (17.2)35 (19.1)
Pneumonia137 (6.4)54 (29.5)
Gastrointestinal bleeding83 (2.5)35 (19.1)
Lower limb ischaemia9 (0.4)7 (3.8)
Iliac dissection1 (0.05)0 (0)

Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.

Table 3:

Postoperative results

All (n = 2157)Mortality (+) (n = 183)
30-day mortality118 (5.5)-
Operative mortality183 (8.5)-
Major morbidity including554 (25.7)183 (100)
 Permanent stroke81 (3.8)26 (14.2)
 Prolonged ventilation315 (14.6)100 (54.6)
 Renal failure205 (9.5)84 (45.9)
 Deep sternal infection18 (0.8)3 (1.6)
 Cardiac reoperation231 (10.7)79 (43.2)
Pacemaker implantation79 (3.7)16 (8.7)
Renal failure requiring dialysis119 (5.5)68 (37.2)
Reoperation for bleeding152 (7.0)56 (30.6)
Blood transfusion2013 (93.3)183 (100)
Atrial fibrillation371 (17.2)35 (19.1)
Pneumonia137 (6.4)54 (29.5)
Gastrointestinal bleeding83 (2.5)35 (19.1)
Lower limb ischaemia9 (0.4)7 (3.8)
Iliac dissection1 (0.05)0 (0)
All (n = 2157)Mortality (+) (n = 183)
30-day mortality118 (5.5)-
Operative mortality183 (8.5)-
Major morbidity including554 (25.7)183 (100)
 Permanent stroke81 (3.8)26 (14.2)
 Prolonged ventilation315 (14.6)100 (54.6)
 Renal failure205 (9.5)84 (45.9)
 Deep sternal infection18 (0.8)3 (1.6)
 Cardiac reoperation231 (10.7)79 (43.2)
Pacemaker implantation79 (3.7)16 (8.7)
Renal failure requiring dialysis119 (5.5)68 (37.2)
Reoperation for bleeding152 (7.0)56 (30.6)
Blood transfusion2013 (93.3)183 (100)
Atrial fibrillation371 (17.2)35 (19.1)
Pneumonia137 (6.4)54 (29.5)
Gastrointestinal bleeding83 (2.5)35 (19.1)
Lower limb ischaemia9 (0.4)7 (3.8)
Iliac dissection1 (0.05)0 (0)

Values are n (%) or mean ± SD.

Table 4 demonstrates the results of multiple logistic regression analysis. Both the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval are shown. There were seven risk factors for both the operative mortality and composite outcome: age, active endocarditis, ejection fraction <30%, New York Heart Association classification IV, mitral regurgitation greater than or equal to 2, renal failure and other concomitant cardiac procedure. Male sex, recent stroke, liver dysfunction, peripheral artery disease, haemodialysis, congestive heart failure, emergency operation and aortic regurgitation greater than or equal to 2 were risk factors for operative mortality. Risk factors only for the composite outcome are given in Table 4. The number of AVRs after prior cardiovascular surgery at each centre was an independent protective predictor for the postoperative composite outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curve for both the operative mortality and composite outcome is shown in Fig. 1. Each C-index demonstrated acceptable discriminatory power (0.7≤C-index <0.8).
Table 4:

Logistic regression analysis

Operative mortality
Composite outcomes
OR95% CIOR95% CI
Age (reference ≤60 years old, per 5 years)1.231.10–1.3791.201.116–1.287
Male sex1.360.974–1.890
Prior CABG1.641.11–2.43
Prior valve surgery2.01.378–2.875
Bilateral carotid stenosis2.481.24–5.298
Recent stroke (≤2 weeks)4.141.590–10.765
Chronic lung disease ≥moderate1.611.018–2.543
Liver dysfunction2.081.103–3.908
Renal failure1.731.083–2.7761.991.552–2.556
Haemodialysis1.891.068–3.324
Peripheral artery disease1.500.984–2.298
Active endocarditis1.830.99–3.3921.991.312–3.023
Operation ≥ emergency3.351.504–7.474
Shock2.141.038–4.338
Unstable angina2.091.085–4.008
Congestive heart failure1.421.004–2.007
NYHA classification IV1.691.037–2.7531.801.240–2.608
CCS classification ≥III1.460.997–2.144
Ejection fraction <30%2.391.440–3.9801.921.232–2.980
Ejection fraction 30–60%1.331.062–1.861
Previous myocardial infarction1.411.005–1.976
Atrial fibrillation1.240.977–1.569
Aortic regurgitation ≥21.411.008–1.961
Mitral regurgitation ≥21.340.960–1.8752.01.197–3.372
Concomitant CABG1.381.019–1.861
Concomitant valve surgery1.451.140–1.852
Other procedures1.730.943–3.1721.821.212–2.719
Surgical volume (1-case increment)0.9970.993–1.000
Operative mortality
Composite outcomes
OR95% CIOR95% CI
Age (reference ≤60 years old, per 5 years)1.231.10–1.3791.201.116–1.287
Male sex1.360.974–1.890
Prior CABG1.641.11–2.43
Prior valve surgery2.01.378–2.875
Bilateral carotid stenosis2.481.24–5.298
Recent stroke (≤2 weeks)4.141.590–10.765
Chronic lung disease ≥moderate1.611.018–2.543
Liver dysfunction2.081.103–3.908
Renal failure1.731.083–2.7761.991.552–2.556
Haemodialysis1.891.068–3.324
Peripheral artery disease1.500.984–2.298
Active endocarditis1.830.99–3.3921.991.312–3.023
Operation ≥ emergency3.351.504–7.474
Shock2.141.038–4.338
Unstable angina2.091.085–4.008
Congestive heart failure1.421.004–2.007
NYHA classification IV1.691.037–2.7531.801.240–2.608
CCS classification ≥III1.460.997–2.144
Ejection fraction <30%2.391.440–3.9801.921.232–2.980
Ejection fraction 30–60%1.331.062–1.861
Previous myocardial infarction1.411.005–1.976
Atrial fibrillation1.240.977–1.569
Aortic regurgitation ≥21.411.008–1.961
Mitral regurgitation ≥21.340.960–1.8752.01.197–3.372
Concomitant CABG1.381.019–1.861
Concomitant valve surgery1.451.140–1.852
Other procedures1.730.943–3.1721.821.212–2.719
Surgical volume (1-case increment)0.9970.993–1.000

Surgical volume indicates the number of aortic valve replacement procedures after prior cardiovascular surgery at each institute.

CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; CCS: Canadian Cardiovascular Society; NYHA: New York Heart Association.

Table 4:

Logistic regression analysis

Operative mortality
Composite outcomes
OR95% CIOR95% CI
Age (reference ≤60 years old, per 5 years)1.231.10–1.3791.201.116–1.287
Male sex1.360.974–1.890
Prior CABG1.641.11–2.43
Prior valve surgery2.01.378–2.875
Bilateral carotid stenosis2.481.24–5.298
Recent stroke (≤2 weeks)4.141.590–10.765
Chronic lung disease ≥moderate1.611.018–2.543
Liver dysfunction2.081.103–3.908
Renal failure1.731.083–2.7761.991.552–2.556
Haemodialysis1.891.068–3.324
Peripheral artery disease1.500.984–2.298
Active endocarditis1.830.99–3.3921.991.312–3.023
Operation ≥ emergency3.351.504–7.474
Shock2.141.038–4.338
Unstable angina2.091.085–4.008
Congestive heart failure1.421.004–2.007
NYHA classification IV1.691.037–2.7531.801.240–2.608
CCS classification ≥III1.460.997–2.144
Ejection fraction <30%2.391.440–3.9801.921.232–2.980
Ejection fraction 30–60%1.331.062–1.861
Previous myocardial infarction1.411.005–1.976
Atrial fibrillation1.240.977–1.569
Aortic regurgitation ≥21.411.008–1.961
Mitral regurgitation ≥21.340.960–1.8752.01.197–3.372
Concomitant CABG1.381.019–1.861
Concomitant valve surgery1.451.140–1.852
Other procedures1.730.943–3.1721.821.212–2.719
Surgical volume (1-case increment)0.9970.993–1.000
Operative mortality
Composite outcomes
OR95% CIOR95% CI
Age (reference ≤60 years old, per 5 years)1.231.10–1.3791.201.116–1.287
Male sex1.360.974–1.890
Prior CABG1.641.11–2.43
Prior valve surgery2.01.378–2.875
Bilateral carotid stenosis2.481.24–5.298
Recent stroke (≤2 weeks)4.141.590–10.765
Chronic lung disease ≥moderate1.611.018–2.543
Liver dysfunction2.081.103–3.908
Renal failure1.731.083–2.7761.991.552–2.556
Haemodialysis1.891.068–3.324
Peripheral artery disease1.500.984–2.298
Active endocarditis1.830.99–3.3921.991.312–3.023
Operation ≥ emergency3.351.504–7.474
Shock2.141.038–4.338
Unstable angina2.091.085–4.008
Congestive heart failure1.421.004–2.007
NYHA classification IV1.691.037–2.7531.801.240–2.608
CCS classification ≥III1.460.997–2.144
Ejection fraction <30%2.391.440–3.9801.921.232–2.980
Ejection fraction 30–60%1.331.062–1.861
Previous myocardial infarction1.411.005–1.976
Atrial fibrillation1.240.977–1.569
Aortic regurgitation ≥21.411.008–1.961
Mitral regurgitation ≥21.340.960–1.8752.01.197–3.372
Concomitant CABG1.381.019–1.861
Concomitant valve surgery1.451.140–1.852
Other procedures1.730.943–3.1721.821.212–2.719
Surgical volume (1-case increment)0.9970.993–1.000

Surgical volume indicates the number of aortic valve replacement procedures after prior cardiovascular surgery at each institute.

CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; CCS: Canadian Cardiovascular Society; NYHA: New York Heart Association.

The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for (A) operative mortality and (B) composite outcome.
Figure 1:

The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for (A) operative mortality and (B) composite outcome.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we showed the early results of AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery using a national database of Japan and demonstrated risk factors for the operative mortality and composite outcome that were not analysed in previous multicentre [6, 11] or national database studies [5]. In addition, although there have been many studies with favourable results from leading institutes [3, 4, 7], these reports lack significant statistical power to investigate the outcome of AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery and do not reflect outcomes in the real world. Therefore, evidence from a national database with a large cohort is meaningful and necessary. Currently, a risk model of AVR is available from some databases to estimate operative risks. However, one of the scoring-related problems is calibration in high-risk patients, particularly with a history of previous cardiovascular surgery [23].

TAVR is an alternative procedure to treat high-risk populations including patients with a previous history of cardiovascular surgery. Patients with a failed bioprosthesis would be treated with the valve-in-valve technique, and the others after prior cardiovascular surgery would be treated with TAVR involving the native aortic valve. The mortality rate associated with TAVR after previous cardiac surgery is 4.2–10%, after prior CABG [1618], or 7.6–17% with the valve-in-valve technique [1921]. A recent meta-analysis showed that TAVR after prior CABG facilitated similar early and 1-year mortality rates compared with AVR after prior CABG [18], and the transcatheter valve-in-valve technique achieves comparable mortality rates, with lower risk of strokes and bleeding but higher paravalvular leakage rates compared with redo AVR [19]. Since TAVR will become more popular with the accumulation of experiences and advancement of devices, our results provide a significant insight as a reference when considering and determining which patients may benefit from each procedure.

Although 40% of patients received a concomitant procedure, the mortality rate in this study is considered to be acceptable (30-day mortality: 5.5%, operative mortality: 8.5%). These mortality rates were higher than recent results of primary AVR in Japan: isolated AVR, 30-day mortality: 2.0% and operative mortality: 3.0%; combined AVR, 30-day mortality: 3.6–4.7% and operative mortality: 4.9–7.3% in 2012 [24]. The mortality rates in the two previous studies were 4.6% in the STS National Database [5] and 5.5% in RECORD cohorts [6, 11]. The backgrounds of our cohort regarding prior surgery were similar to those of the RECORD cohort, such as CABG 30% and valve surgery 65%. However, our cohort received more concomitant procedures, including CABG 14.5% and mitral valve surgery 29.9%, whereas the RECORD cohort included CABG 8.0% and mitral valve surgery 10.8%. In addition, concomitant CABG or valve surgery was risk factor for the composite outcome, and preoperative mitral regurgitation was a risk factor for both outcomes in the present study. Another feature of our cohort was the higher prevalence of haemodialysis (10.4%) than that in the study using the STS National Database (3.8%) [5]. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that both renal failure and haemodialysis were independent risk factors for operative mortality in the present study. Therefore, we considered that our database might include more complicated patients compared with previous multicentre studies [5, 6, 11].

The average stature of Asians is smaller than that of Western populations, with an average body mass index of 21–23 kg/m2 and body surface area of ∼1.6–1.7 m2 [12, 13]. These factors may be operative risks when undergoing cardiac surgery. In the present study, however, these variables were not independent risk factors for operative mortality.

The case volume of participating hospitals is a significant factor, because AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery is a challenging procedure [3, 4, 10]. In the present study, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that institutional experiences of AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery was associated with a lower incidence of the composite outcome. Therefore, our results suggest that high-level skill sets and extensive experience are important to achieve an excellent outcome.

Postoperative stroke and PMI are major concerns in both surgical AVR and TAVR [8, 25, 26]. The incidence of stroke in this study was comparable with that of TAVR (1.7–7.5% with the valve-in-valve technique [15, 1921], and 2.9–6.5% in TAVR after previous cardiac surgery) [14, 1618]. The incidence of PMI (3.8%) in the present study was excellent compared with studies regarding redo AVR or AVR after cardiovascular surgery (11.0–11.4%) [5, 6] and TAVR (7.4–8.3% in the valve-in-valve and 3.5–7.5% in the redo scenario) [17, 18].

The rate of using a bioprosthesis (∼50%) was lower than expected, because the mean age at operation in this study was over 70 and the current rate of using an aortic bioprosthesis in primary AVR is more than 70% in Japan [24]. One of the primary reasons for this discrepancy is the mean life expectancy of the Japanese (men: 80.5 and women: 86.8 years old) being higher than in other nations. Based on this background, surgeons might place an emphasis on durability when performing AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery to avoid a subsequent redo AVR. Another possibility is a limitation of the implanted valve size due to the small stature of this cohort. This means that surgeons may choose a mechanical prosthesis as a safer way to prevent patient–prosthesis mismatch rather than performing annular dilatation to implant a larger bioprosthesis. Indeed, a valve of 21 mm or smaller was implanted in 69.0% of our cohort. This rate was higher than in previous studies, in which the same sizes of valve (≦21 mm) comprised 20–36.3% [6, 7, 11]. In TAVR, a valve size of 23 mm or larger is currently used to treat an annular size of 18–27 mm [1421]. Since a smaller prosthesis was used at a high rate in this study, a further investigation will be needed to compare the mid-term results of patients receiving AVR or TAVR using a smaller prosthesis after prior cardiovascular surgery.

The incidence rates of peripheral vascular complications were low in our cohort (iliac dissection: 0.04% and lower limb ischaemia: 0.4%), whereas those incidence rates in the works in the literature are higher in TAVR with a transfemoral approach (3.3–15.3%) [16, 20]. TAVR via a transfemoral artery is a favourable option in the redo scenario. However, vascular complications could be fatal with a femoral approach, and the risk would be higher in Asians due to the narrower femoro-iliac arteries [27]. Therefore, a lower incidence of vascular injury is one of the advantages of surgical AVR.

A lower ejection fraction, congestive heart failure and emergency status were independent risks for both major outcomes. The type of previous surgery was not a risk for mortality but was an independent risk for the composite outcome. Patients with previous CABG comprised ∼30% in this study. There has been controversy over whether previous CABG could be a risk of reoperation due to risks of injury of the patent graft, and a diseased coronary artery that is associated with the susceptibility to ischaemia, an impaired cardiac function or requirement of planned or unplanned revascularization [9, 10]. A history of previous valve surgery was also a risk associated with the composite outcome. Unfortunately, the exact breakdown of the types of previous valve surgery was uncertain because of this database's entry system, and this is a clear limitation of this study. Recent stroke (<2 weeks) was a risk factor for operative mortality. Patients with recent stroke are obviously challenging due to the risk of recurrent stroke or intracranial haemorrhage after cardiopulmonary bypass. Although we did not have any data on the aetiology of preoperative stroke, there is a possibility that these patients would suffer from stroke due to infective endocarditis or a thrombosed prosthesis requiring urgent or emergency surgery.

The C-indexes of the operative mortality and composite outcome were 0.761 (95% confidence interval: 0.725–0.797) and 0.709 (95% confidence interval: 0.696–0.722), respectively, which indicate acceptable risk models (C-indexes ≥ 0.7). The discriminatory ability of predicted operative mortality was comparable with those reported in the recent meta-analyses of EuroSCORE II performance regarding isolated or combined valve surgery: C-indexes from 0.72 to 0.81 (the results of a multicentre database) [27]. One possible criticism is that isolated AVR and AVR with a concomitant procedure should be analysed separately, as in the STS database. However, there are high rates of concomitant coronary artery, mitral valve and aortic disease in the real world when undergoing AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery, as shown in the present study. Therefore, we analysed one risk model to assess the operative risk.

Study limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, since it was retrospective, the results are weaker than those from a randomized prospective study. Secondly, our cohort did not precisely correspond to potential candidates for TAVR because this study included those who had received prior mechanical AVR, or patients undergoing concomitant CABG, mitral valve surgery or an aortic procedure. Although the former ones are not candidates for the valve-in-valve procedure, it was difficult to exclude such patients from our cohort due to the data entry system of the JACVSD. TAVR for the latter patients is now restricted in the guidelines, but the indication for these patients might be expanded in the future. Thirdly, precise information on the surgical procedure was not available, including the cannulation strategy or the method of implantation. Fourthly, the exact number of patients who were excluded from the analysis was not available in this database because the information of patients not providing consent had not been entered into the database from the beginning. Finally, the JACVSD does not provide any data on the pre- and postoperative pressure gradient of the aortic valve, postoperative valve status including paravalvular leakage, or mid- or long-term clinical follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although AVR after prior cardiovascular surgery is a challenging procedure, the early results including operative mortality, the incidence of major morbidity, stroke and PMI were acceptable. We could identify risk factors for both the operative mortality and the composite outcome after AVR in the redo scenario using a national database in Japan. Our results may be informative when treating such high-risk patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Chieko Fujimura and Eriko Fukuchi (Department of Healthcare Quality Assessment, The University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan) for providing assistance with data collection.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

REFERENCES

1

Balsam
LB
,
Grossi
EA
,
Greenhouse
DG
,
Ursomanno
P
,
Deanda
A
,
Ribakove
GH
et al.
Reoperative valve surgery in the elderly: predictors of risk and long-term survival
.
Ann Thorac Surg
2010
;
90
:
1195
200
;
discussion 1201
.

2

Eitz
T
,
Fritzsche
D
,
Kleikamp
G
,
Zittermann
A
,
Horstkotte
D
,
Korfer
R
.
Reoperation of the aortic valve in octogenarians
.
Ann Thorac Surg
2006
;
82
:
1385
90
.

3

Iturra
SA
,
Greason
KL
,
Suri
RM
,
Joyce
LD
,
Stulak
JM
,
Pochettino
A
et al.
Repeat sternotomy for surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarian patients with aortic valve stenosis and previous coronary artery bypass graft operation: what is the operative risk?
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2014
;
148
:
1899
902
.

4

Kaneko
T
,
Loberman
D
,
Gosev
I
,
Rassam
F
,
McGurk
S
,
Leacche
M
et al.
Reoperative aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians-minimally invasive technique in the era of transcatheter valve replacement
.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2014
;
147
:
155
62
.

5

Kaneko
T
,
Vassileva
CM
,
Englum
B
,
Kim
S
,
Yammine
M
,
Brennan
M
et al.
Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: a benchmark for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures
.
Ann Thorac Surg
2015
;
100
:
1298
304
.

6

Onorati
F
,
Biancari
F
,
De Feo
M
,
Mariscalco
G
,
Messina
A
,
Santarpino
G
et al.
Outcome of redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients 80 years and older: results from the Multicenter RECORD Initiative
.
Ann Thorac Surg
2014
;
97
:
537
43
.

7

Timek
TA
,
Turfe
Z
,
Hooker
RL
,
Davis
AT
,
Willekes
CL
,
Murphy
ET
et al.
Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians with prior cardiac surgery
.
Ann Thorac Surg
2015
;
99
:
518
23
.

8

Tourmousoglou
C
,
Rao
V
,
Lalos
S
,
Dougenis
D
.
What is the best approach in a patient with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve: transcatheter aortic valve replacement or redo aortic valve replacement?
Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg
2015
;
20
:
837
43
.

9

Dobrilovic
N
,
Fingleton
JG
,
Maslow
A
,
Machan
J
,
Feng
W
,
Casey
P
et al.
Mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement after previous coronary artery bypass grafting
.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
2012
;
42
:
819
24
;
discussion 824–5
.

10

Sundt
TM
,
Murphy
SF
,
Barzilai
B
,
Schuessler
RB
,
Mendelhoff
EN
,
Huddleston
CB
et al.
Previous coronary artery bypass grafting is not a risk factor for aortic valve replacement
.
Ann Thorac Surg
1997
;
64
:
651
8
.

11

Onorati
F
,
Biancari
F
,
De Feo
M
,
Mariscalco
G
,
Messina
A
,
Santarpino
G
et al.
Mid-term results of aortic valve surgery in redo scenarios in the current practice: results from the multicentre European RECORD (REdo Cardiac Operation Research Database) initiative
.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
2015
;
47
:
269
80
;
discussion 280
.

12

Okita
Y
,
Miyata
H
,
Motomura
N
,
Takamoto
S
,
Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database Organization
.
A study of brain protection during total arch replacement comparing antegrade cerebral perfusion versus hypothermic circulatory arrest, with or without retrograde cerebral perfusion: analysis based on the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database
.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2015
;
149
:
S65
73
.

13

Minakata
K
,
Tanaka
S
,
Okawa
Y
,
Shimamoto
M
,
Kaneko
T
,
Takahara
Y
et al.
Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position in Japanese patients
.
Circ J
2014
;
78
:
882
9
.

14

Holmes
DR
Jr,
Brennan
JM
,
Rumsfeld
JS
,
Dai
D
,
O'Brien
SM
,
Vemulapalli
S
et al.
Clinical outcomes at 1 year following transcatheter aortic valve replacement
.
J Am Med Assoc
2015
;
313
:
1019
28
.

15

Wilbring
M
,
Tugtekin
SM
,
Alexiou
K
,
Simonis
G
,
Matschke
K
,
Kappert
U
.
Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs conventional aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with previous cardiac surgery: a propensity-score analysis
.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
2013
;
44
:
42
7
.

16

Minha
S
,
Magalhaes
MA
,
Barbash
IM
,
Ben-Dor
I
,
Dvir
D
,
Okubagzi
PG
et al.
Impact of previous coronary artery bypass grafting on patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis
.
Am J Cardiol
2014
;
113
:
1222
7
.

17

Stortecky
S
,
Brinks
H
,
Wenaweser
P
,
Huber
C
,
Pilgrim
T
,
Windecker
S
et al.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement as redo procedure after prior coronary artery bypass grafting
.
Ann Thorac Surg
2011
;
92
:
1324
30
;
discussion 1230–1
.

18

Ando
T
,
Briasoulis
A
,
Holmes
AA
,
Afonso
L
,
Schreiber
T
,
Kondur
A
.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with previous coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Int J Cardiol
2016
;
215
:
14
9
.

19

Phan
K
,
Zhao
DF
,
Wang
N
,
Huo
YR
,
Di Eusanio
M
,
Yan
TD
.
Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus reoperative conventional aortic valve replacement: a systematic review
.
J Thorac Dis
2016
;
8
:
E83
93
.

20

Dvir
D
,
Webb
J
,
Brecker
S
,
Bleiziffer
S
,
Hildick-Smith
D
,
Colombo
A
et al.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry
.
Circulation
2012
;
126
:
2335
44
.

21

Eggebrecht
H
,
Schafer
U
,
Treede
H
,
Boekstegers
P
,
Babin-Ebell
J
,
Ferrari
M
et al.
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic heart valves
.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv
2011
;
4
:
1218
27
.

22

LaValley
MP
.
Statistical primer for cardiovascular research: logistic regression
.
Circulation
2008
;
117
:
2395
9
.

23

Guida
P
,
Mastro
F
,
Scrascia
G
,
Whitlock
R
,
Paparella
D
.
Performance of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II: a meta-analysis of 22 studies involving 145,592 cardiac surgery procedures
.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2014
;
148
:
3049
57 e1
.

24

Committee for Scientific Affairs, The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery
Masuda
M
,
Kuwano
H
,
Okumura
M
,
Amano
J
et al.
Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery in Japan during 2012 : annual report by The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery
.
Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2014
;
62
:
734
64
.

25

Messe
SR
,
Acker
MA
,
Kasner
SE
,
Fanning
M
,
Giovannetti
T
,
Ratcliffe
SJ
et al.
Stroke after aortic valve surgery: results from a prospective cohort
.
Circulation
2014
;
129
:
2253
61
.

26

Schurr
UP
,
Berli
J
,
Berdajs
D
,
Hausler
A
,
Dzemali
O
,
Emmert
M
et al.
Incidence and risk factors for pacemaker implantation following aortic valve replacement
.
Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg
2010
;
11
:
556
60
.

27

Chiam
PT
,
Koh
AS
,
Ewe
SH
,
Sin
YK
,
Chao
VT
,
Ng
CK
et al.
Iliofemoral anatomy among Asians: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation
.
Int J Cardiol
2013
;
167
:
1373
9
.

Author notes

Presented at the 80th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Japanese Circulation Society, Sendai, Japan, 18–20 March 2016.