Effect of sutureless implantation of the Perceval S aortic valve bioprosthesis on intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes

[Surgical treatment of aortic valve stenosis]

Surgical aortic valve replacement still represents the gold standard in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. In addition to conventional aortic valve replacement by mechanical or biological prostheses via a median sternotomy, novel approaches including minimally invasive strategies and new devices, such as so-called rapid deployment prostheses, are becoming increasingly more established. Autologous replacement strategies including the Ross and the Ozaki procedures have evolved into reliable options at selected centers of excellence. These novel treatment approaches in aortic valve surgery result in excellent short and long-term outcomes with a reduction of procedure-related complications. Taken together, these modern surgical replacement strategies enable a personalized surgical treatment in patients with aortic valve stenosis, which are tailored to the individual patient.

Early results of the Sorin® Perceval S sutureless valve: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MAVR) has demonstrated a benefit with respect to increased patient satisfaction due to minimised pain and earlier recovery. Sutureless valves may benefit MAVR and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) by reducing operative times and blood transfusion requirements. The Perceval valve (Sorin, Salluggia, Italy) is a self-expanding prosthesis made from bovine pericardium mounted in a nitinol stent, designed to simplify the implantation of an aortic valve. This meta-analysis evaluates the clinical, haemodynamic, and survival outcomes of the Perceval sutureless valve.

METHODS

An electronic search of 4 databases was performed from January 2000 to December 2016. Primary outcomes included mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included minimally invasive access, paravalvular leak, overall long-term survival, postoperative echocardiographic findings, and functional class improvement.

RESULTS

After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 of 66 relevant articles were selected for assessment. Of these 14 studies, a total number of 2,505 patients were included. The current evidence on the Perceval valve for aortic valve disease is limited to observational studies only. Minimally invasive surgery was performed in 976 patients, of which 336 were via the right anterior thoracotomy approach. The Perceval M and L sutureless valves were the most frequently used, 782 and 770 respectively. The incidence of major adverse events included 30-day mortality (0 to 4.9%), cerebrovascular accident (0 to 3%), permanent pacemaker insertion (0 to 17%), moderate to severe paravalvular leak (0 to 8.6%), and re-operation (0 to 4.8%). Post-operative mean aortic valve gradient ranged from 9 to 15.9 mmHg and post-operative New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class I or II ranged from 82% to 96%. The 1-year survival ranged from 86% to 100%; and 5-year survival was 71.3% to 85.5% in two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval valve is associated with excellent post-operative results in MAVR and in conventional AVR. Larger randomised controlled studies are required to evaluate the long-term efficacy of the prosthesis.

Sutureless Sorin Perceval Aortic Valve Implantation

The sutureless Perceval aortic valve (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy) is a device increasingly used in many European cardiac surgery centers. Since the first reports evaluating implantation feasibility and valve safety in humans in 2007, an increasing amount of data have become available, including premarketing clinical results and experience in particular conditions. Overall, excellent performances have been demonstrated in hemodynamic outcomes, safety, and versatility of use. However, several questions remain unanswered, especially regarding long-term durability, risk for endocarditis, and the need for postoperative pacemaker implantation. In this article, the most important studies published until now in the literature will be described, providing a state-of-the-art overview of current knowledge as well as future directions and indications for the use of the Perceval valve based on preliminary results of ongoing studies.

Pledget-Armed Sutures Affect the Haemodynamic Performance of Biologic Aortic Valve Substitutes: A Preliminary Experimental and Computational Study

Surgical aortic valve replacement is the most common procedure of choice for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. Bioprosthetic valves are traditionally sewed-in the aortic root by means of pledget-armed sutures during open-heart surgery. Recently, novel bioprostheses which include a stent-based anchoring system have been introduced to allow rapid implantation, therefore reducing the duration and invasiveness of the intervention. Different effects on the hemodynamics were clinically reported associated with the two technologies. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether the differences in hemodynamic performances are an effect of different anchoring systems. Two commercially available bio-prosthetic aortic valves, one sewed-in with pledget-armed sutures and one rapid-deployment, were thus tested in this study by means of a combined approach of experimental and computational tools. In vitro experiments were performed to evaluate the overall hydrodynamic performance under identical standard conditions; computational fluid dynamics analyses were set-up to explore local flow variations due to different design of the anchoring system. The results showed how the performance of cardiac valve substitutes is negatively affected by the presence of pledget-armed sutures. These are causing flow disturbances, which in turn increase the mean pressure gradient and decrease the effective orifice area. The combined approach of experiments and numerical simulations can be effectively used to quantify the detailed relationship between local fluid-dynamics and overall performances associated with different valve technologies.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies

BACKGROUND

With improving technologies and an increasingly elderly populations, there have been an increasing number of therapeutic options available for patients requiring aortic valve replacement. Recent evidence suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one suitable option for high risk inoperable patients, as well as high risk operable patients. Sutureless valve technology has also been developed concurrently, with facilitates surgical aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) by allow resection and replacement of the native aortic valve with minimal sutures and prosthesis anchoring required. For patients amenable for both TAVI and SUAVR, the evidence is unclear with regards to the benefits and risks of either approach. The objectives are to compare the perioperative outcomes and intermediate-term survival rates of TAVI and SUAVR in matched or propensity score matched studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to include all matched or propensity score matched studies comparing SUAVR versus TAVI for severe aortic stenosis. A meta-analysis with odds ratios (OR) and mean differences were performed to compare key outcomes including paravalvular regurgitation and short and intermediate term mortality.

RESULTS

Six studies met our inclusion criteria giving a total of 741 patients in both the SUAVR and TAVI arm of the study. Compared to TAVI, SUAVR had a lower incidence of paravalvular leak (OR =0.06; 95% CI: 0.03-0.12, P<0.01). There was no difference in perioperative mortality, however SUAVR patients had significantly better survival rates at 1 (OR =2.40; 95% CI: 1.40-4.11, P<0.01) and 2 years (OR =4.62; 95% CI: 2.62-8.12, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study supports the use of minimally invasive SUAVR as an alternative to TAVI in high risk patients requiring aortic replacement. The presented results require further validation in prospective, randomized controlled studies.

Aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common valve disease in the western world. Over the past few years the number of aortic valve replacement (AVR) interventions has increased with outcomes that have been improved despite increasing age of patients and increasing burden of comorbidities. However, despite such excellent results and its well-established position, conventional AVR has undergone great development over the previous two decades. Such progress, by way of less invasive incisions and use of new technologies, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation and sutureless valve prostheses, is intended to reduce the traumatic impact of the surgical procedure, thus fulfilling lower risk patients' expectations on the one hand, and extending the operability toward increasingly high-risk patients on the other. Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valves are biological, pericardial prostheses that anchor within the aortic annulus with no more than three sutures. The sutureless prostheses, by avoiding the passage and the tying of the sutures, significantly reduce operative times and may improve outcomes. However, there is still a paucity of robust, evidence-based data on the role and performance of sutureless AVR. Therefore, strongest long-term data, randomized studies and registry data are required to adequately assess the durability and long-term outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement.

The sutureless aortic valve at 1 year: A large multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) offers an alternative to standard AVR in aortic stenosis. This prospective, single-arm study aimed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of a bovine pericardial sutureless aortic valve at 1 year.

METHODS

From February 2010 to September 2013, 658 patients (mean age 78.3 ± 5.6 years; 40.0% octogenarian; 64.4% female; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 7.2 ± 7.4) underwent sutureless AVR in 25 European centers. Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in 29.5% and minimally invasive cardiac surgery in 33.3%.

RESULTS

One-year site-reported event rates were 8.1% for all-cause mortality, 4.5% for cardiac mortality, 3.0% for stroke, 1.9% for valve-related reoperation, 1.4% for endocarditis, and 0.6% for major paravalvular leak. No valve thrombosis, migration, or structural valve deterioration occurred. New York Heart Association class improved at least 1 level in 77.5% and remained stable (70.4% New York Heart Association class I or II at 1 year). Mean effective orifice area was 1.5 ± 0.4 cm(2); pressure gradient was 9.2 ± 5.0 mm Hg. Left ventricular mass decreased from 138.5 g/m(2) before surgery to 115.3 g/m(2) at 1 year (P < .001). Echocardiographic core laboratory findings confirmed that paravalvular leak was rare and remained stable during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval sutureless valve resulted in low 1-year event rates in intermediate-risk patients undergoing AVR. New York Heart Association class improved in more than three-quarters of patients and remained stable. These data support the safety and efficacy to 1 year of the Perceval sutureless valve in this intermediate-risk population.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement with Perceval bioprosthesis: are there predicting factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation?

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless bioprostheses has become an alternative to conventional AVR for patients with intermediate to high operative risk. However, this technique is associated with an increased risk of postoperative conduction disorders.

METHODS

We analysed 258 patients who underwent AVR with the Perceval prosthesis from July 2010 to September 2014 at our centre. Electrocardiography were obtained at baseline to record preoperatively the presence of conduction disorders. Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative procedures and complications (61 variables) were compared between patients with permanent pacemaker (PPM group) and without (no-PPM group) need for postoperative PPM implantation.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-nine patients underwent isolated AVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis, 89 patients had associated surgery and 23 patients underwent redo operations. The mean age was 77.7 ± 5 years, 139 patients were female (46%) and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 13.2 ± 11%. At baseline, 8 patients had already an implanted pacemaker. Postoperatively, 27 patients (10.5%) required new PPM implantation due to complete atrioventricular block. On univariate analysis, age (PPM vs no-PPM group: 80 ± 5 vs 77 ± 5 years, P = 0.009) and preoperative presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB) [overall n = 20 (7.8%); PPM vs no-PPM group: 9 vs 11 (33 vs 4.8%); P < 0.001] were identified as independent predictors of postoperative conduction disorders, but only pre-existing RBBB persisted on multivariate analysis (odds ratio 11.3-C-statistic 0.74, error estimate 0.064, confidence interval 0.672-0.801; P = 0.0002). Among patients undergoing sutureless AVR, the rate of PPM implantation was high.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the data collected made it possible to identify preoperatively a subset of patients undergoing sutureless AVR at higher risk of postoperative atrioventricular block. Additional surgical precautions should be implemented to prevent the occurrence of conduction disorders after sutureless AVR.

Minimal invasive implantation of an EDWARDS INTUITY rapid deployment aortic valve

The development of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic valves represents a translation of knowledge gained from the performance of transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedures combined with decades of experience of conventional AVR surgery. Such devices have gained increasing clinical acceptance-particularly in Europe-with almost 3000 total implants to date. Rapid deployment and sutureless valves facilitate minimal invasive AVR and are associated with significantly reduced myocardial ischaemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times. The reduced ischaemic times may also be important for patients requiring complex combined procedures, or those with poor left ventricular function. These devices are associated with excellent haemodynamic performance and acceptable rates of pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak. The current case involves a minimal invasive implantation of an EDWARDS INTUITY rapid deployment valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA).

Perceval Sutureless Valve - are Sutureless Valves Here?

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) techniques, a renewed interest has developed in sutureless aortic valve concepts in the last decade. The main feature of sutureless aortic valve implantation is the speed of insertion, thus making implantation easier for the surgeon. As a result, cross clamp times and myocardial ischemia may be reduced. The combined procedures (CABG with AVR in particular) can be done with a short cross clamp time. Perceval valve also provides an increased effective orifice area as compared with a stented bioprosthesis. Sutureless implantation of the Perceval valve is not only associated with shorter cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times but improved clinical outcomes too. This review covers the sutureless aortic valves and their evolution, with elaborate details on Perceval S valve in particular (which is the most widely used sutureless valve around the globe).

Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the Perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective European multicentre study (the Cavalier Trial)†

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the Cavalier trial was to evaluate the safety and performance of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We report the 30-day clinical and haemodynamic outcomes from the largest study cohort with a sutureless valve.

METHODS

From February 2010 to September 2013, 658 consecutive patients (mean age 77.8 years; 64.4% females; mean logistic EuroSCORE 10.2%) underwent AVR in 25 European Centres. Isolated AVRs were performed in 451 (68.5%) patients with a less invasive approach in 219 (33.3%) cases. Of the total, 40.0% were octogenarians. Congenital bicuspid aortic valve was considered an exclusion criterion.

RESULTS

Implantation was successful in 628 patients (95.4%). In isolated AVR through sternotomy, the mean cross-clamp time and the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time were 32.6 and 53.7 min, and with the less invasive approach 38.8 and 64.5 min, respectively. The 30-day overall and valve-related mortality rates were 3.7 and 0.5%, respectively. Valve explants, stroke and endocarditis occurred in 0.6, 2.1 and in 0.1% of cases, respectively. Preoperative mean and peak pressure gradients decreased from 44.8 and 73.24 mmHg to 10.24 and 19.27 mmHg at discharge, respectively. The mean effective orifice area improved from 0.72 to 1.46 cm(2).

CONCLUSIONS

The current 30-day results show that the Perceval valve is safe (favourable haemodynamic effect and low complication rate), and can be implanted with a fast and reproducible technique after a short learning period. Short cross-clamp and CPB times were achieved in both isolated and combined procedures. The Perceval valve represents a promising alternative to biological AVR, especially with a less invasive approach and in older patients.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in the Setting of Triple-Valve Surgery

Sutureless aortic valve replacement is an emerging alternative to standard aortic valve replacement in high-risk surgical patients. We present our surgical technique for sutureless aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing triple-valve surgery. This procedure has been performed in six patients with excellent clinical and echocardiographic results. Despite some technical concerns, sutureless aortic valve replacement in the setting of triple-valve surgery is simple and reproducible.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in patients who have bicuspid aortic valve

OBJECTIVE

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is generally considered to be a contraindication to sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of this technique in patients with BAV.

METHODS

From June 2011 to January 2014, a total of 25 patients who underwent sutureless AVR had documented BAV. Thirteen patients (52%) had median sternotomy, and 12 patients (48%) a minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

The study population included 17 (68%) men with a median age of 77.8 ± 5.4 years. The mean EuroSCORE II was 3.4% ± 2.6%. Concomitant procedures included coronary artery bypass grafting in 8 patients (32%), 2 AVRs (8%), 1 mitral valve repair (4%), 1 septal myomectomy (4%), and 1 atrial septal defect closure (4%). The mean transaortic valve gradient decreased from 49.4 ± 15.7, to 14.5 ± 5.4 mm Hg postoperatively. The mean aortic valve area increased from 0.78 ± 0.18, to 1.75 ± 0.43 cm(2) postoperatively. Five patients (20%) suffered from atrioventricular block that required permanent pacemaker implantation. Two patients (8%) suffered a stroke. No major paravalvular leakage occurred, and no postoperative valve migration. In-hospital mortality occurred in 1 patient (4%). The mean intensive care unit length of stay was 3 ± 2 days postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a sutureless aortic valve can be deployed in patients with BAV without increasing the risk of paravalvular leakage. BAV should not be considered a contraindication to sutureless AVR.

Do we need sutureless or self-anchoring aortic valve prostheses?

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the 'gold standard' for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis. Due to the increasing age of the patient population (reflecting the demographic changes), the use of biological valves has increased over the past years. At the same time, a large proportion of these patients require concomitant surgical procedures in addition to AVR. Although trans-apical or trans-femoral aortic valve implantations (TAVI) have been introduced for high risk patients, they are limited to patients with isolated aortic valve pathology. Therefore, strategies for avoiding long ischemia times, as well as long periods of extra-corporeal circulation (ECC) resulting in reduced peri-operative risks should be welcomed among the surgical community. Modern 'sutureless valves' with reduced cross-clamp and cardio-pulmonary bypass times as a result of the absence of sutures, combined with excellent hemodynamics in the short and mid-term, may be an ideal solution for geriatric patients. Additionally, 'self-anchoring' valves will increase the armament of surgeons in treating 'technically difficult' group of patients needing AVR who have small calcified aortic roots and those coming back after aortic root replacement with homografts. These valves should also expand the application of minimally access AVR. Therefore, the question of whether we need 'self-anchoring valves' is not only redundant, but the time may have come for these type of valves to be considered as the 'valve of choice' for higher risk geriatric patients who may be 'high risk' for conventional valves but not ineligible for TAVIs.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SU-AVR-IR): design and rationale from the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG)

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) is an innovative approach which shortens cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp durations and may facilitate minimally invasive approach. Evidence outlining its safety, efficacy, hemodynamic profile and potential complications is replete with small-volume observational studies and few comparative publications.

METHODS

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and high-volume SU-AVR replacement centers were contacted for recruitment into a global collaborative coalition dedicated to sutureless valve research. A Research Steering Committee was formulated to direct research and support the mission of providing registry evidence warranted for SU-AVR.

RESULTS

The International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG) was formed under the auspices of the Research Steering Committee, comprised of 36 expert valvular surgeons from 27 major centers across the globe. IVSSG Sutureless Projects currently proceeding include the Retrospective and Prospective Phases of the SU-AVR International Registry (SU-AVR-IR).

CONCLUSIONS

The global pooling of data by the IVSSG Sutureless Projects will provide required robust clinical evidence on the safety, efficacy and hemodynamic outcomes of SU-AVR.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has emerged as an innovative alternative for treatment of aortic stenosis. By avoiding the placement of sutures, this approach aims to reduce cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) duration and thereby improve surgical outcomes and facilitate a minimally invasive approach suitable for higher risk patients. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of SU-AVR approach in the current literature.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to January 2014. Relevant studies utilizing sutureless valves for aortic valve implantation were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified for inclusion of qualitative and quantitative analyses, all of which were observational reports. The minimally invasive approach was used in 40.4% of included patients, while 22.8% underwent concomitant coronary bypass surgery. Pooled cross-clamp and CPB duration for isolated AVR was 56.7 and 46.5 minutes, respectively. Pooled 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 2.1% and 4.9%, respectively, while the incidences of strokes (1.5%), valve degenerations (0.4%) and paravalvular leaks (PVL) (3.0%) were acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of current observational evidence suggests that sutureless aortic valve implantation is a safe procedure associated with shorter cross-clamp and CPB duration, and comparable complication rates to the conventional approach in the short-term.

Left ventricular mass regression after two alternative sutureless aortic bioprostheses

OBJECTIVE

Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy in aortic stenosis (AS) constitutes a risk factor for cardiac morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of LV mass regression after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with two alternative sutureless self-expanding strategies: Perceval S (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy) (P) and 3f Enable (Medtronic, ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN USA) (E) aortic bioprostheses.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and December 2011, 129 patients with symptomatic AS underwent AVR with the Perceval S or 3f Enable bioprostheses in two cardiac surgery departments (Massa, Italy; Nuremberg, Germany). We analyzed 45 patients in group P and 19 in group E undergoing isolated AVR with a 6-month follow-up. The LV mass was calculated using the Devereux formula and was indexed to body surface area.

RESULTS

Baseline patient characteristics showed no significant differences between the two groups. There were no in-hospital deaths. Two patients in group P died at follow-up versus zero in group E (P = 0.49). Mean LV mass index decreased from 146.6 (78) g/m at baseline to 123.3 (63) g/m at follow-up (P < 0.001) in group P and from 146.1 (47.6) g/m to 118.1 (39.8) g/m (P = 0.003) in group E, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.315). This effect was accompanied by significant clinical improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

In isolated AS, AVR with sutureless bioprostheses is associated with a significant regression in LV mass at 6-month follow-up. No significant differences were present between the two alternative sutureless strategies. However, regression needs an evaluation with long-term echocardiographic examinations.

Available transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative and now recommended therapy for patients who meet indications for surgical valve replacement and are high or prohibitive surgical risk. Available TAVR technologies are rapidly emerging to treat this complex patient population. This review discusses the specific valve designs of the transcatheter heart valves currently used, newer generation modifications to overcome limitations of earlier valve designs, and novel imaging modalities, such as computed tomographic angiography-fluoroscopy and echocardiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging, available for pre-procedural planning and intra-procedural guidance.

Current status of surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis

In this review, we discuss the current surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis. Surgical strategy for treatment of aortic valve stenosis is based on the risk profile of the patient. We reviewed the existing literature and present the current state of the art of these various approaches, taking into account clinical outcomes, quality of life, costs, and learning curve.