One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: A prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System

Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Study From the UK National Data

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective option but remains underused. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of isolated MIAVR compared with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR).

Current Clinical Evidence on Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Sutureless Aortic Bioprostheses

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the Western world. It is caused primarily by age-related degeneration and progressive calcification typically detected in patients 65 years and older. In patients presenting with symptoms of heart failure, the average survival rate is only 2 years without appropriate treatment. Approximately one half of all patients die within the first 2 to 3 years of symptom onset. In addition, the age of the patients presenting for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is increased along with the demographic changes. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database shows that the number of patients older than 80 years has increased from 12% to 24% during the past 20 years. At the same time, the percentage of candidates requiring AVR as well as concomitant coronary bypass surgery has increased from 5% to 25%. Surgical AVR continues to be the criterion standard for treatment of aortic stenosis, improving survival and quality of life. Recent advances in prosthetic valve technology, such as transcatheter AVR, have expanded the indication for AVR to the extreme high-risk population, and the most recent surgical innovation, rapid deployment AVR, provides an additional tool to the surgeons’ armamentarium.

Rapid Deployment Aortic Replacement (RADAR) Registry in Spain: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Rapid deployment valves (RDV) represent a newly introduced approach to aortic valve replacement which facilitates surgical implantation and minimally invasive techniques, shortens surgical times and shows excellent haemodynamic performance. However, evidence on their safety, efficacy and potential complications is mostly fitted with small-volume and retrospective studies. Moreover, no current guidelines exist. To improve our knowledge on this technology, The Rapid Deployment Aortic Replacement (RADAR) Registry will be established across Spain with the aim of assessing RDV outcomes in the real-world setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The RADAR Registry is designed as a product registry that would provide information on its use and outcomes in clinical practice. This multicentre, prospective, national effort will initially involve 4 centres in Spain. Any patient undergoing cardiac surgery for aortic valve replacement and receiving an RDV as an isolated operation or in combination with other cardiac procedures may be included. Participation is voluntary. Data collection is equal to information obtained during standard care and is prospectively entered by the participating physicians perioperatively and during subsequent follow-up visits. The primary outcome assessed is in-hospital and up to 5 years of follow-up, prosthetic valve functioning and clinical status. Secondary outcomes are to perform subgroup analysis, to compare outcomes with other existing approaches and to develop future clinical guidelines. The follow-up assessments are timed with routine clinical appointments. Dissociated data will be extracted and collectively analysed. Initial target sample size for the registry is 500 participants entered with complete follow-up information. Different substudies will be implemented within the registry to investigate specific populations undergoing aortic valve replacement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol is approved by all local institutional ethics committees. Findings will be shared by the participant hospitals, policymakers and the academic community to promote quality monitoring and efficient use of this technology.

Sutureless Aortic Valves: Combining the Best or the Worst?

Aortic valve replacement is a life saving intervention. Significant progress has been made toward reducing surgical trauma through minimally invasive surgery and transcatheter techniques. Each of these approaches has its advantages and limitations. Sutureless aortic valves have been proposed to overcome these limitations and have been in use in Europe. It is however less than clear whether these valves will prove advantageous and whether they will have a role in the future. We review the published literature for sutureless aortic valves and their performance against standard and transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement after Previous Mechanical Valve Implantation

Recent studies report a reproducible reduction of myocardial ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times along with excellent hemodynamics and low rates of paravalvular leakage for rapid-deployment valves. A 68-year-old female patient with aortic stenosis and a mechanical mitral valve which was implanted in 2006 received rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. The procedure could be performed with a cross-clamp time of 45 minutes and a cardiopulmonary bypass time of 60 minutes. Postoperative course was uncomplicated and the patient was discharged to the referring hospital on postoperative day 8.

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.

The economic value of INTUITY in aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

The recent development of the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite™ (EIE) valve system enables the rapid deployment of a prosthetic surgical heart valve in an aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedure via both the minimally invasive (MISAVR) and conventional (CAVR) approaches. In order to understand its economic value, this study performed a cost evaluation of the EIE valve system used in a MIS rapid-deployment approach (MIS-RDAVR) vs MISAVR and CAVR, respectively, compared to standard prosthetic aortic valves.

METHODS

A simulation model was developed using TreeAge (and validated with MS Excel) to compare the inpatient utilization and complication costs for each treatment arm. Thirty-day clinical end-points for the MIS-RDAVR (mortality and complications) were taken from the TRANSFORM trial; and a best evidence review of the published literature was used for the MISAVR and CAVR approaches. Studies were pooled and parameter estimates were weighted by sample size in order to compare the TRANSFORM patients. Cost data (2016 USD) were taken from the Premier database. Incremental cost and cost-effectiveness was assessed and one-way/probabilistic sensitivity analyses performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

MIS-RDAVR costs $2,621 less than CAVR and had lower mortality rates, making it a superior (dominant) technology relative to CAVR. MIS-RDAVR costs $4,560 more than MISAVR, but was associated with an additional 0.20 life years-per-patient. This implies a cost-effectiveness ratio of $22,903 per-life-year-gained. Thus, MIS-RDAVR is cost-effective compared to MISAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

The EIE valve system deployed in a MIS approach appears to be a cost-effective technology compared to MISAVR and CAVR. When compared to CAVR it may achieve cost savings as well. These results suggest that MIS-RDAVR confers superior economic value compared to both standard MISAVR and CAVR via lowered key complication rates (re-operation, renal complications, wound infection, TIA, endocarditis) and utilization (cross-clamp time, hospital ward days).

Patient-prosthesis mismatch: surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high risk patients with aortic stenosis

Patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) can occur when a prosthetic aortic valve has an effective orifice area (EOA) less than that of a native valve. A recent study by Zorn and colleagues evaluated the incidence and significance of PPM in high risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who were randomized to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is associated with decreased incidence of severe PPM compared to traditional SAVR valves. Severe PPM increases risk for death at 1 year postoperatively in high risk patients. The increased incidence of PPM is largely due to differences in valve design and should encourage development of newer SAVR valves to reduce risk for PPM. In addition more vigorous approaches to root enlargement in small annulus should be performed with SAVR to prevent PPM.

Aortic Annulus Stabilization Technique for Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) with the use of rapid deployment valve systems represents a smart alternative to the use of standard aortic bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement. Nevertheless, its use is still debatable in patients with pure aortic valve regurgitation or true bicuspid aortic valve because of the risk of postoperative paravalvular leak. To address this issue, an optimal annulus-valve size match seems to be the ideal surgical strategy. This article describes a new technique developed to stabilize the aortic annulus and prevent paravalvular leak after RDAVR. To confirm the feasibility, this technique was performed in six patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who were scheduled to undergo aortic valve replacement at our center. All patients survived surgery and were discharged from the hospital. There were no new intracardiac conduction system disturbances observed, and a permanent pacemaker implantation was not required in any of the patients. The intraoperative and postoperative echocardiogram confirmed successful positioning of the valve, and no paravalvular leak was observed. In this preliminary experience, RDAVR through a full sternotomy or an upper hemisternotomy approach with the use of aortic annulus stabilization technique was safe, and no leak was observed. Future studies on large series of patients are necessary to confirm the safety and effectiveness of this technique in preventing paravalvular leak in patients with true bicuspid aortic valves or pure aortic regurgitation.

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.

Edwards Intuity Aortic Bioprosthesis in Patient with Bicuspid Aortic Valve

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is generally considered to be a contraindication to sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR). Implantation of the Edwards Intuity aortic bioprosthesis is an innovative approach associated with superior hemodynamic performance, significantly reduced myocardial ischaemia and cardiopulmonary bypass times and proves to be suitable for type 1 and 2 of bicuspid aortic valves replacement. We report a case of successful AVR using a fast deployment bioprosthesis,the Edwards Intuity Valve System, in a 67-year-old woman with a bicuspid aortic valve and concomitant severe aortic stenosis.

Mini-aortic surgery with percutaneous cannulation and rapid-deployment valve

Background

We aimed to evaluate the results of the combined use of rapid-deployment valves, percutaneous cardioplegia delivery and left heart venting during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery.

Methods

We identified 2 propensity-matched cohorts of patients who underwent primary elective isolated minimally invasive aortic valve surgery at our center over a 3-years period: 30 patients in group A had a conventional valve prosthesis and 30 patients in group B received a rapid-deployment valve using percutaneous cardioplegia delivery and percutaneous left heart venting. Skin incision length, intraoperative times, postoperative hospital outcomes, and 30-day echocardiographic results were compared between the 2 groups.

Results

Patients in group B had significantly shorter operative times and shorter skin incisions compared to group A (total operative time 196.0 ± 40.6 vs. 225.1 ± 30.8 min, respectively, p < 0.003; cardiopulmonary bypass time 79.9 ± 10.6 vs. 92.9 ± 17.2 min respectively, p < 0.001; crossclamp time 52.3 ± 9.6 vs. 74.9 ± 10.2 min, respectively, p < 0.001; incision length 3.6 ± 0.5 vs. 6.0 ± 0.6 cm, respectively, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

The combined use of rapid-deployment valves, percutaneous cardioplegia, and left heart venting is safe and effective and allows a significant reduction of the skin incision together with a significant reduction of intraoperative times without affecting hospital outcomes or hemodynamic performance of the prosthetic valves.

Conventional versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a single-centre comparison between the Edwards Magna valve and its rapid-deployment successor

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless and rapid-deployment valves were recently introduced into clinical practice. The Edwards INTUITY valve system is a combination of the Edwards Magna pericardial valve and a subvalvular stent-frame to enable rapid deployment. We performed a parallel cohort study for comparison of the two valve types.

METHODS

All patients receiving either an Edwards Magna Ease valve or an Edwards INTUITY valve system due to aortic stenosis from May 2010 until July 2014 were included. Patients undergoing bypass surgery, an additional valve procedure, atrial ablation surgery or replacement of the ascending aorta were excluded. Preoperative characteristics, operative specifications, survival, valve-related adverse events and transvalvulvar gradients were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement [mean age 75 years (SD: 8); 62% female] and 132 patients underwent conventional aortic valve replacement [70 years (SD: 9); 31% female; P < 0.001]. Conventional valve patients were taller and heavier. The mean EuroSCORE II was 3.1% (SD: 2.7) and 4.4% (SD: 6.0) for rapid-deployment and conventional valve patients, respectively (P = 0.085). The mean implanted valve size was higher in the conventional group [23.2 mm (SD: 2.0) vs 22.5 mm (SD: 2.2); P = 0.007], but postoperative transvalvular mean gradients were comparable [15 mmHg (SD: 6) vs 14 mmHg (SD: 5); P = 0.457]. A subgroup analysis of the most common valve sizes (21 and 23 mm; implanted in 63% of patients) revealed significantly reduced mean postoperative transvalvular gradients in the rapid-deployment group [14 mmHg (SD: 4) vs 16 mmHg (SD: 5); P = 0.025]. A significantly higher percentage received minimally invasive procedures in the rapid-deployment group (59 vs 39%; P < 0.001). The 1- and 3-year survival rate was 96 and 90% in the rapid-deployment group and 95 and 89% in the conventional group (P = 0.521), respectively. Valve-related pacemaker implantations were more common in the rapid-deployment group (9 vs 2%; P = 0.014) and postoperative stroke was more common in the conventional group (1.6 vs 0% per patient year; P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that this rapid-deployment valve probably facilitates minimally invasive surgery. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis showed reduced transvalvular gradients in smaller valve sizes compared with the conventionally implanted valve of the same type. The favourable haemodynamic profile and the potentially different spectrum of valve-related adverse events should be addressed in further clinical trials.

Advances in the management of severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Recent developments in the management of severe aortic stenosis have resulted in a paradigm shift in the way we view the condition. Patients previously denied intervention in the form of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are now candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation and the risk and age profiles of those undergoing SAVR are rising with the ageing population. This review article is designed to provide an overview of developments in the surgical management of severe aortic stenosis. We also discuss the expanding role of minimally invasive surgical approaches to outline the current techniques available to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis.

METHODS

PubMed was searched using the terms 'severe aortic stenosis', 'surgical aortic valve replacement', 'transcatheter aortic valve replacement', 'mechanical aortic valve replacement' and 'sutureless aortic valve replacement'. Selection of articles was based on peer review, journal and relevance. Where possible articles from high-impact factor peer review journals were included.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive operative approaches include mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy. Sutureless aortic prostheses reduce aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time; however, long-term follow-up data are unavailable at this time. Mechanical prostheses are advised for those under 60.

CONCLUSION

Multiple advances in the surgical management of aortic stenosis have occured in the past decade. An evolving spectrum of surgical and transcatheter interventions is now available depending on patient age and operative risk.

Early outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment aortic valve

OBJECTIVE

Minimal access aortic valve replacement is associated with favorable clinical outcomes; however, several meta-analyses have reported significantly longer crossclamp times compared with a full sternotomy. We examined the procedural and early safety outcomes after isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement by surgical approach in patients enrolled in the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial.

METHODS

The Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, with successful implants in 287 patients with aortic valve stenosis who underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement using the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif). Patients were evaluated perioperatively for procedural times and technical success rates; at discharge, for hospital length of stay; and, at 30 days, for early adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (n = 71), upper hemisternotomy (n = 77), or right anterior thoracotomy (n = 10). Mean age at baseline was 75.7 ± 7.2 years. Mean aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) were similar for full sternotomy and upper hemisternotomy, 43.5 ± 32.5/71.6 ± 41.8 and 43.1 ± 13.1/69.6 ± 19.1, respectively, and significantly longer for right anterior thoracotomy, 88.3 ± 18.6/122.2 ± 22.1 (P < .000). Early adverse event rates were similar, and in-hospital mortality rates were low regardless of surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through an upper hemisternotomy can lead to shorter crossclamp times than has been reported historically in the literature. This may facilitate minimal access aortic valve replacement by eliminating the issue of prolonged crossclamp times. Further, low in-hospital mortality and new permanent pacemaker implant rates were observed regardless of surgical approach.

Hemodynamic performance of Edwards Intuity valve in a compliant aortic root model

Numerous designs of bioprosthetic valves exist. The sutureless surgical valve is a newer design concept which combines elements of the transcatheter valve technology with surgical valves. This design aims at shorter and easier implantation. It was the aim of this study to perform hemodynamic and kinematic measurements for this type of valves to serve as a baseline for following studies which investigate the effect of the aortic root on the valve performance. To this end, the Edwards Intuity aortic valve was investigated in a new in vitro flow loop mimicking the left heart. The valve was implanted in a transparent, compliant aortic root model, and the valve kinematics was investigated using a high speed camera together with synchronized hemodynamic measurements of pressures and flows. The valve closure was asynchronous (one by one leaflet), and the valve started to close before the deceleration of the fluid. The aortic root model showed a dilation of the sinuses which was different to the ascending aorta, and the annulus was found to move towards the left ventricle during diastole and towards the aorta during systole.

Reoperation for aortic homograft failure using an Edwards Intuity valve

We report the case of a 50-year old patient with deterioration of an aortic homograft, who successfully underwent aortic valve replacement using an Edwards Intuity sutureless bioprosthesis. The patient presented with rupture of the cusps and severe calcification of the aortic annulus of the homograft, which prevented us from using a standard bioprosthesis for the replacement.

A Meta-Analysis Examining Differences in Short-Term Outcomes between Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Prostheses

Objective

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses are anchored by radial force in a mechanism similar to that of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with an increased permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirement in a significant proportion of patients. We undertook a meta-analysis to examine the incidence of PPM insertion associated with sutureless compared with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Prisma guidelines.1 All searches were performed on August 10, 2014. Studies between 2007 and 2014 were included in the search.

Results

A total of 832 patients were included in the sutureless group and 3,740 in the conventional group. Aortic cross-clamp (39.8 vs 62.4 minutes; P < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass (64.9 vs 86.7 minutes; P = 0.002) times were shorter in the sutureless group. Permanent pacemaker implantation rate was higher in the sutureless cohort (9.1% vs 2.4%; P = 0.025).

Conclusions

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses are associated with significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times and a higher incidence of PPM insertion than conventional. Further investigation of the prognostic significance is required.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the emergence of rapid deployment aortic valves, there is a resurgent interest in minimizing the trauma of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present review summarizes the history of minimal access AVR and attempts to collate the existing evidence regarding minimal access 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).

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.

Development of an algorithm to plan and simulate a new interventional procedure

OBJECTIVES

The number of implanted biological valves for treatment of valvular heart disease is growing and a percentage of these patients will eventually undergo a transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure. Some of these patients will represent challenging cases. The aim of this study was to develop a feasible algorithm to plan and in vitro simulate a new interventional procedure to improve patient outcome.

METHODS

In addition to standard diagnostic routine, our algorithm includes 3D printing of the annulus, hydrodynamic measurements and high-speed analysis of leaflet kinematics after simulation of the procedure in different prosthesis positions as well as X-ray imaging of the most suitable valve position to create a 'blueprint' for the patient procedure.

RESULTS

This algorithm was developed for a patient with a degenerated Perceval aortic sutureless prosthesis requiring a ViV procedure. Different ViV procedures were assessed in the algorithm and based on these results the best option for the patient was chosen. The actual procedure went exactly as planned with help of this algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we have developed a new technically feasible algorithm simulating important aspects of a novel interventional procedure prior to the actual procedure. This algorithm can be applied to virtually all patients requiring a novel interventional procedure to help identify risks and find optimal parameters for prosthesis selection and placement in order to maximize safety for the patient.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: the Leipzig experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques are progressively challenging traditional approaches in cardiothoracic surgery. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) has become a routine procedure at our institution.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients undergoing minimally invasive isolated AVR between January 2003 and March 2014, at our institution. Mean follow-up was 4.7±4.3 years (range: 0-18 years) and was 99.8% complete.

RESULTS

There were 1,714 patients who received an isolated minimally invasive AVR. The mean (± SD) patient age was 65±12.8 years, ejection fraction 60%±12% and log EuroSCORE 5.3%±5.1%. Mean cross-clamp time was 58±18 minutes and mean cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was 82.9±26.7 minutes. Thirty-day survival was 97.8%±0.4%, and 69.4%±1.7% at 10-years. The multivariate analysis revealed age at surgery [P=0.016; odds ratio (OR), 1.1], length of surgery time (P=0.002; OR, 1.01), female gender (P=0.023; OR, 3.54), preoperative myocardial infarction (MI) (P=0.006; OR, 7.87), preoperative stroke (P=0.001; OR, 13.76) and preoperative liver failure (P=0.015; OR, 10.28) as independent risk factors for mortality. Cox-regression analysis revealed the following predictors for long term mortality: age over 75 years (P<0.001; OR, 3.5), preoperative dialysis (P<0.01; OR, 2.14), ejection fraction less than 30% (P=0.003; OR, 3.28) and urgent or emergency operation (P<0.001; OR, 2.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive AVR can be performed safely and effectively with very few perioperative complications. The early and long-term outcomes in these patients are acceptable.

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is defined as an aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedure that involves a small chest wall incision as opposed to conventional full sternotomy (FS). The MIAVR approach is increasingly being used with the aim of reducing the "invasiveness" of the surgical procedure, while maintaining the same efficacy, quality and safety of a conventional approach. The most common MIAVR techniques are ministernotomy (MS) and right anterior minithoracotomy (RT) approaches. Compared with conventional surgery, MIAVR has been shown to reduce postoperative mortality and morbidity, providing faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and better cosmetics results, requires less rehabilitations resources and consequently cost reduction. Despite these advantages, MIAVR is limited by the longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, which have raised some concerns in fragile and high risk patients. However, with the introduction of sutureless and fast deployment valves, operative times have dramatically reduced by 35-40%, standardizing this procedure. According to these results, the MIAVR approach using sutureless valves may be the "real alternative" to the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures in high risk patients "operable" patients. Prospective randomized trials are required to confirm this hypothesis.