Hospital cost savings and other advantages of sutureless vs stented aortic valves for intermediate-risk elderly patients

Conventional vs. Sutureless Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis: Is Faster Better?

Purpose: The benefits of sutureless compared to conventional aortic valve prosthesis replacement remain controversial. Supposed advantages of sutureless aortic valve replacement include shortened cross-clamp and implantation time, as well as improved overall safety and good post-operative performance. We aimed to compare the early outcomes and performance of sutureless aortic valve replacement (su-AVR) with the sutureless Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) vs. the conventional AVR with a conventional counterpart, in this case, the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. Methods: We compared two types of aortic valve prostheses, the sutureless (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and the conventional valve Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP), implanted between August 2014 and May 2019 in our Department of Cardiac Surgery at RWTH Aachen University Hospital. Data were collected from 141 patients who received the Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and 138 who received the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. After matching the two groups considering STS mortality risk and pre-operative LDH levels, 201 patients were included in our final study cohort. Seventy-one patients (17 from the Perceval group and 54 from the Dokimos group) were excluded due to the lack of complete data, particularly standardized echocardiographic data (n = 71). Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and pacemaker implantation. Secondary endpoints were echocardiographic parameters, major adverse cardiovascular events, and prosthesis failure (grade II aortic regurgitation, paravalvular leak with reintervention). Results: Bypass and cross-clamp time proved to be shorter in the Perceval group, while hospital stays were longer. The faster implantation had no effect on the 30-day mortality primary endpoint. Transvalvular gradients were significantly higher in the Perceval group, in addition to a smaller effective orifice area. The LDH values were remarkably higher post-operatively in the Perceval group. Conclusions: Regarding the clinical outcomes, Perceval was equivalent and not superior to the Dokimus bioprosthesis. The suitability of a Perceval prosthesis implantation must be determined on a case-by-case basis and reserved for elderly patients with increased comorbidity.

Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement

Objectives

Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.

Methods

A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity‐matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).

Results

Random‐effects meta‐analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−1.35, −1.20], p < .001) and cross‐clamp times (SMD: −1.05, 95% CI: [−1.12, −0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: −0.385, 95% CI: [−0.679, −0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow‐up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05).

Conclusions

Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.

Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multicenter analysis of "real-world" data

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggested that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be indicated also for low-risk patients. However, robust evidence is still lacking, particularly regarding valve performance at follow-up that confers a limitation to its use in young patients. Moreover, a literature gap exists in terms of 'real-world' data analysis. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus transfemoral TAVR.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrieved from a centralized database of nine cardiac surgery centers between 2010 and 2018. Follow-up was completed in June 2019. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Patients in the TAVR group (n=1002) were older and with more comorbidities than SuAVR patients (n=443). The PSM analysis generated 172 pairs. No differences were recorded between groups in 30-day mortality [SuAVR vs TAVR: n=7 (4%) vs n=5 (2.9%); p=0.7] and need for pacemaker implant [n=10 (5.8%) vs n=20 (11.6%); p=0.1], but costs were lower in the SuAVR group (20486.6±4188€ vs 24181.5±3632€; p<0.01). Mean follow-up was 1304±660 days. SuAVR patients had a significantly higher probability of survival than TAVR patients (no. of fatal events: 22 vs 74; p<0.014). Median follow-up was 2231 days and 2394 days in the SuAVR and TAVR group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of aortic valve stenosis with surgical sutureless or transcatheter prostheses is safe and effective. By comparing the two approaches, patients who can undergo surgery after heart team evaluation show longer lasting results and a more favorable cost ratio.

Use of an Aortic Valve Replacement Simulation Model to Understand Hospital Costs and Resource Utilization Associated With Rapid-deployment Valves

PURPOSE

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common cause of adult valvular heart disease. In the past decade, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to treat AS has gained popularity, especially if performed in combination with rapid deployment valves (RDVs), which shorten cross-clamp time (XCT). This study examines specific outcomes and related costs of aortic valve replacement (AVR) before and after the introduction of RDVs.

METHODS

We used the AVR simulator, an economic model developed to correlate cost and resource utilization associated with the adoption of RDVs, to compare 2 scenarios: (1) a current scenario based on standard AVR practices and (2) a proposed scenario based on increasing use of RDVs and an MIS approach. Both scenarios involved 3 subgroups of patients treated with (1) conventional AVR, (2) MIS, and (3) AVR combined with a coronary artery bypass graft. The current scenario (status quo) involved patients treated with traditional biological valves, and the proposed scenario involved patients who underwent implantation with an RDV. The AVR simulator was fed with real-world input data to estimate complication rates and resource consumption in the proposed scenario. Real-world input data for this analysis were obtained from patients diagnosed with a symptomatic heart valve disease between 2015 and 2018, at Clinica-San-Gaudenzio, Novara, Italy. Lastly, the AVR simulator estimated hospital savings by comparing the 2 scenarios.

FINDINGS

A total of 132 patients underwent implantation with a traditional biological valve, and 107 were treated with a commercial valve system. The RDV was associated with an increase of 52% of patients undergoing MIS, which generated a 6.1-h reduction of XCT and a total savings of €6695. RDVs also reduced intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital ward length of stay (LOS), leading to savings of €677 and €595 per patient, respectively. Mortality and blood transfusions also improved. The savings for the hospital (related to shorter XCT, hospital ward LOS, and ICU LOS) amounted to €144.111. Our findings were consistent with data gathered from our real-word setting, and results of a sensitivity analysis indicate that our findings were robust across different possible situations.

IMPLICATIONS

Switching to RDVs and MIS procedures for AVRs was associated with a reduction of costs related to XCT, hospital ward LOS, and ICU LOS. Hospitals can upload literature- and experience-based clinical and cost values to the AVR simulator to estimate a hospital's performance with the introduction of RDVs compared with standard biological valves. This study was not randomized, so more extensive studies could confirm our results in the future.

Cost-utility of surgical sutureless bioprostheses vs TAVI in aortic valve replacement for patients at intermediate and high surgical risk

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implants (TAVIs) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) show differing effectiveness and safety profiles. The approaches also differ in their surgical cost (including operating room and device).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the incremental cost-utility of SU-AVR vs TAVIs for the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk patients in the US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Australia.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation compares in-hospital pathways of patients undergoing SU-AVR or TAVIs; later, patient history is modeled at the cohort level. Hospital outcomes for TAVIs reproduce data from recent series; in SU-AVR patients, outcomes are obtained by applying relative efficacy estimates in a recent meta-analysis on 1,462 patients. After discharge, survival depends on the development of paravalvular leak and the need for dialysis. A comprehensive third-party payer perspective encompassing both in-hospital and long-term costs was adopted.

RESULTS

Due to lower in-hospital (4.1% vs 7.0%) and overall mortality, patients treated with SU-AVR are expected to live an average of 1.25 years more compared with those undergoing TAVIs, with a mean gain of 1.14 quality-adjusted life-years. Both in-hospital and long-term costs were lower for SU-AVR than for TAVIs with total savings ranging from $4,158 (France) to $20,930 (US).

CONCLUSION

SU-AVR results dominant when compared to TAVIs in intermediate- to high-risk patients. Both in-hospital and long-term costs are lower for SU-AVR than for TAVI patients, with concomitant significant gains in life expectancy, both raw and adjusted for the quality of life.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: A clinical and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) by sutureless prostheses is changing surgeon options, although which patients benefit most, as well as their possible economic impact is still to be defined.

METHODS

Perceval-S prosthesis (LivaNova) is reserved, at the documented Institution, for patients at perceived high surgical risk. This retrospective analysis of outcome and resource consumption compared Perceval with other tissue valves. To clarify the comparison, only patients respecting 'instructions-for- use' of Perceval were reviewed.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

> 65 years, +/- coronary artery bypass grafting, patent foramen ovale closure or myectomy.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

bicuspid, combined valve or aortic sur- gery. Costs were calculated per patient on a daily basis including preoperative tests, operating costs (hourly basis), disposables, drugs, blood components and personnel.

RESULTS

The sutureless group (SU-AVR) had a higher risk profile than the sutured group (ST-AVR). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in SU-AVR (isolated AVR: cross-clamp 52.9 ± 12.6 vs. 69 ± 15.3 min, p < 0.001; CPB 79.4 ± 20.3 vs. 92.7 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was 0.9% in SU-AVR and nil in ST-AVR, p = 0.489; intubation 7 (IQR 5-10.7) and 7 h (IQR 5-9), p = 0.785; intensive care unit 1 (IQR 1-1) and 1 day (IQR 1-1), p = 0.258; ward stay 5.5 (IQR 4-7) and 5 days (IQR 4-6), p = 0.002; pacemaker 5.7% (6/106) and 0.9% (1/109), p = 0.063, respectively. Hospital costs (excluding the prosthesis) were $12,825 (IQR 11,733-15,334) for SU-AVR and $12,386 (IQR 11,217-14,230) in ST-AVR, p = 0.055.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher operative risks in SU-AVR, hospital mortality, morbidity and resource consumption did not differ. Operative times were shorter with the sutureless device and this improve- ment, along with more frequent ministernotomy, may have improved many postoperative aims.

Rapid deployment or sutureless versus conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the early and follow-up outcomes of aortic valve replacement using rapid deployment or sutureless (RD) valves (RDAVR group) with aortic valve replacement using conventional bioprostheses (CAVR group).

METHODS

A literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and the secondary outcomes included the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and early mortality and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles (RDAVR group = 1297 patients; CAVR group = 1488 patients) were selected. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly shorter in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (mean difference, -26.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -31.86 to -20.82 and mean difference, -25.33; 95% CI, -30.79 to -19.87, respectively). The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of any paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion were significantly higher in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.53-3.51 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49-2.90, respectively). The pooled analysis showed that the risk of a paravalvular leak grade ≥2 in the RDAVR group did not significantly differ between the RDAVR and CAVR groups (RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.71-5.93). The risk of PPM insertion remained significant when only studies reporting adjusted outcomes were pooled. The risks of other postoperative complications, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up were not significantly different between the RDAVR and CAVR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDAVR is associated with significantly shorter ACC and CPB times than CAVR, although this difference did not translate into improved postoperative outcomes, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Care might be needed when implanting RD valves because they are associated with a higher incidence of PPM insertion, regardless of the RD valve type.