Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Use of Sutureless Valve in Aortic Root Enlargement

AIM

The small aortic annulus is a surgical challenge in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement which may lead to patient prosthesis mismatch. Management options include aortic root enlargement, aortic root replacement, and the use of sutureless valves. In this case series, we report our results with aortic root enlargement, sutureless valve implantation, and benchtop modelling of the radial forces exerted.

METHODS

Five patients underwent aortic root enlargement and insertion of the Perceval valve as part of the management strategy to enlarge their effective orifice area. We further investigate this strategy with a benchtop model to quantify the radial forces exerted by the Perceval valve on the aortic annulus. Radial and hoop forces on the aortic annulus and inner ring of the Perceval valve were recorded using a Mylar force tester.

RESULTS

Five female patients with native annulus between 18mm-20mm underwent root enlargement and insertion of a Perceval S valve. The postoperative course was uncomplicated for all patients except for one who required a permanent pacemaker insertion. Transvalvular pressure gradients remained low at up to 4 years of follow-up (12 mmHg-21 mmHg), with no evidence of paravalvular leak. Benchtop testing demonstrated radial forces exerted at the annulus in all-size Perceval S valves to be within physiological variables, whereas compressive forces required to deform the valves were supraphysiological.

CONCLUSIONS

The deployment of a sutureless valve within a surgical enlarged aortic root is a feasible solution in patients with a small aortic root.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March 2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n = 57), ViV-TAVR (n = 31) and redo-sutureless (n = 25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p = 0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Predictors of New and Persistent New Left Bundle Branch Block One Year after the Implantation of a Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Prosthesis

INTRODUCTION

Conduction disorders following aortic valve replacement therapy (AVR), either surgical or percutaneous, are related to a higher risk of complete atrioventricular block and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI).

AIM

The objective of this study was to assess risk factors regarding the incidence of new postoperative and persistent new left bundle branch block (LBBB) 1 year after the implantation of a sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) aortic valve prosthesis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The current study included 200 consecutive patients treated with isolated or concomitant AVR between May 2014 and May 2017 at the Department of Cardiac Surgery in Pasawa with SURD aortic valve EDWARDS INTUITY EliteTM implantation. The patients were divided according to the presence of new postoperative LBBB (67 patients, 33.5%) and persistent new LBBB 1 year after AVR (35 patients, 17.5%). A comparative analysis was performed between patients with and without new LBBB after AVR and those with and without persistent LBBB 1 year after AVR. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to extract the risk factors of LBBB occurrence.

RESULTS

Among the risk factors for the lack of new LBBB development after AVR, Euroscore II (p < 0.001) was found, while for the occurrence of persistent new LBBB 1 year after AVR, atrial fibrillation (p = 0.001), length of hospital stay (p = 0.001) and body mass index (p = 0.004) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with new or persistent new LBBB 1 year after AVR had lower mean Euroscore II and BMI values. Their stay at the hospital was also shorter.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment vs. Transcatheter Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients: Mid-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Recent trials showed that TAVI is neither inferior nor superior to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves (SuRD-AVR) when compared to TAVI in low surgical risk patients with isolated aortic stenosis.

METHODS

Data from five European Centers were retrospectively collected. We included 1306 consecutive patients at low surgical risk (EUROSCORE II < 4) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of SuRD-AVR (n = 636) or TAVI (n = 670) from 2014 to 2019. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score was performed, and two balanced groups of 346 patients each were obtained. The primary endpoints of the study were: 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. The secondary endpoint was 5-year survival freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was similar between the two groups (SuRD-AVR:1.7%, TAVI:2.0%, p = 0.779), while the TAVI group showed a significantly lower 5-year overall survival and survival freedom from MACCEs (5-year matched overall survival: SuRD-AVR: 78.5%, TAVI: 62.9%, p = 0.039; 5-year matched freedom from MACCEs: SuRD-AVR: 64.6%, TAVI: 48.7%, p = 0.004). The incidence of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and paravalvular leak grade ≥ 2 (PVL) were higher in the TAVI group. Multivariate Cox Regression analysis identified PPI as an independent predictor for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI patients had a significantly lower five-year survival and survival freedom from MACCEs with a higher rate of PPI and PVL ≥ 2 when compared to SuRD-AVR.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm²) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

KEY QUESTION

What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

KEY FINDINGS

Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

KEY OUTCOMES

Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

Sternal-sparing aortic valve replacement with sutureless valve in bicuspid valve

Over the last decade, sutureless valves (Perceval, LivaNova PLC) were brought to the market as an alternative to stented valves for patients requiring surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, Perceval demands special steps for implantation, among which we can mention specific training for the surgical team members. Sternal-sparing cardiac procedures are conceived to limit surgical trauma, but the technical requirements and preoperative planning are more challenging than those for conventional sternotomy. SAVR is frequently carried out through an upper hemisternotomy, but the right anterior thoracotomy (RAT) represents an even less traumatic, technical advancement. In the context of SAVR with RAT, Perceval has been considered the "perfect marriage." In patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), some surgeons initially avoided the Perceval valve but, with growing experience, the prosthesis has been used for a wide variety of indications. According to an international consensus statement recently published, there are 3 BAV types: the fused BAV, the 2-sinus BAV and the partial-fusion BAV, each with specific phenotypes. The 2-sinus BAV has 2 cusps, roughly equal in size and shape, each cusp occupying 180° of the annular circumference, with only 2 aortic sinuses, resulting in a 2-sinus/2-cusp valve without raphe and with 180° commissural angles. Since the elliptic aortic annulus in BAV patients poses a challenge for sutureless valves and the RAT approach has been increasingly adopted for minimally invasive SAVR, our description of the surgical technique focuses on the specific procedural details in the scenario of 2-sinus BAV laterolateral phenotype.