Better Short-Term Outcome by Using Sutureless Valves: A Propensity-Matched Score Analysis

The Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve: Evolution of Surgical Valve Technology

OBJECTIVE

The surgical treatment of aortic stenosis continues to evolve, and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) is an emerging technology. With the Perceval S (Corcym, London, UK) as the only true sutureless valve on the market, the objective of this review is to analyze the current literature on Perceval S. Focusing on valve design and deployment as well as applications of the technology for challenging pathology, clinical outcomes are assessed, including a comparison with transcatheter AVR (TAVR).

METHODS

PubMed and MEDLINE were searched by 3 authors for studies analyzing SUAVR from inception to May 19, 2023.

RESULTS

SUAVR facilitates minimally invasive surgery and offers an alternative strategy for patients with small aortic annuli. It also has a time-saving advantage for patients who require complex operations. SUAVR results in excellent long-term morbidity, mortality, durability, and hemodynamic function. In comparison with conventional surgical AVR (SAVR), SUAVR does have a greater risk of postoperative pacemaker implantation; however, increasing user experience and refinements in implantation technique have contributed to reductions in this outcome. SUAVR results in morbidity and mortality that is similar to rapid-deployment AVR. Midterm outcomes are superior to TAVR; however, further robust investigation into all of these comparisons is ultimately necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

SUAVR bridges the gap in technology between SAVR and TAVR. The application of this exciting technology will undoubtedly grow in the coming years, during which additional investigation is paramount to optimize preoperative planning, valve deployment, and reintervention strategies.

Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) has become an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment due to its advantages in reducing surgery time and improving outcomes. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of SUAVR vs. CAVR treatment for patients with moderate to severe AS in Thailand.

METHODS

A two-part constructed model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from both societal and healthcare perspectives. Data on short-term mortality, complications, cost, and utility data were obtained from the Thai population. Long-term clinical data were derived from clinical studies. Costs and QALYs were discounted annually at 3% and presented as 2022 values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine additional cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SUAVR treatment incurred higher costs compared with CAVR treatment from both societal (THB 1,733,355 [USD 147,897] vs THB 1,220,643 [USD 104,150]) and healthcare provider perspectives (THB 1,594,174 [USD 136,022] vs THB 1,065,460 [USD 90,910]). In addition, SUAVR treatment resulted in lower health outcomes, with 6.20 life-years (LYs) and 4.95 QALYs, while CAVR treatment achieved 6.29 LYs and 5.08 QALYs. SUAVR treatment was considered as a dominated treatment strategy using both perspectives. Sensitivity analyses indicated the significant impact of changes in utilities and long-term mortality on the model.

CONCLUSION

SUAVR treatment is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with CAVR treatment for patients with moderate-severe AS in Thailand, as it leads to higher costs and inferior health outcomes. Other important issues related to specific patients such as those with minimally invasive surgery, those undergoing AVR with concomitant procedures, and those with calcified and small aortic root should be taken into account.

The Northern New England Rapid Deployment Valve Experience: Survival and Procedural Outcomes From 2015 to 2021

OBJECTIVE

The optimal approach and choice of initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) is evolving in the growing era of transcatheter AVR. Further survival and hemodynamic data are needed to compare the emerging role of rapid deployment (rdAVR) versus stented (sAVR) valve options for AVR.

METHODS

The Northern New England Cardiovascular Database was queried for patients undergoing either isolated AVR or AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with rdAVR or sAVR aortic valves between 2015 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, mechanical valves, dissection, emergency case status, and prior sternotomy. This resulted in a cohort including 1,616 sAVR and 538 rdAVR cases. After propensity weighting, procedural characteristics, hemodynamic variables, and survival outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

The breakdown of the overall cohort (2,154) included 1,164 isolated AVR (222 rdAVR, 942 sAVR) and 990 AVR + CABG (316 rdAVR, 674 sAVR). After inverse propensity weighting, cohorts were well matched, notable only for more patients <50 years in the sAVR group (4.0% vs 1.9%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.12). Cross-clamp (89 vs 64 min, SMD = -0.71) and cardiopulmonary bypass (121 vs 91 min, SMD = -0.68) times were considerably longer for sAVR versus rdAVR. Immediate postreplacement aortic gradient decreased with larger valve size but did not differ significantly between comparable sAVR and rdAVR valve sizes or overall (6.5 vs 6.7 mm Hg, SMD = 0.09). Implanted rdAVR tended to be larger with 51% either size L or XL versus 37.4% of sAVR ≥25 mm. Despite a temporal decrease in pacemaker rate within the rdAVR cohort, the overall pacemaker frequency was less in sAVR versus rdAVR (4.4% vs 7.4%, SMD = 0.12), and significantly higher rates were seen in size L (10.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.002) and XL (15% vs 5.6%, P < 0.004) rdAVR versus sAVR. No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (4.6% vs 4.6%, SMD = 0.01), 30-day survival (1.5% vs 2.6%, SMD = 0.08), or long-term survival out to 4 years were seen between sAVR and rdAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment valves offer a safe alternative to sAVR with significantly decreased cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Despite larger implantation sizes, we did not appreciate a comparative difference in immediate postoperative gradients, and although pacemaker rates are improving, they remain higher in rdAVR compared with sAVR. Longer-term hemodynamic and survival follow-up are needed.

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.

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.

Ten years' experience with the sutureless aortic valve replacement: incidence and predictors for survival and valve durability at follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement with a sutureless prosthesis [sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR)] is an option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, data regarding long-term outcomes and prosthesis durability are still lacking.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who successfully underwent Su-AVR with the Perceval valve in our centre between 2010 and 2020 were included in the analysis and followed prospectively with echocardiography. Risk factor analysis was performed to assess variables associated with worse survival and bioprosthetic valve failure.

RESULTS

Study population consisted of 547 patients: the mean age was 76.4 (5.2) years, 51% were female and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 13% (11). The median survival was 7.76 years [95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.9-8.6]. Risk factor analysis identified age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.11; P < 0.001), EuroSCORE II (HR 1.08, 1.02-1.13; P < 0.001), baseline dialysis (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.4-4.4; P = 0.038) and postoperative acute kidney injury ≥2 (HR 8.97, 95% CI 4.58-17.6; P < 0.001) as factors significantly correlated with worse survival. The reported HRs for age are per 1 year and for EuroSCORE II is 1 percentage point. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was observed in 23 patients, of whom 19 underwent reintervention (median freedom from SVD 10.3 years). In multivariable Cox analysis, age (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.95; P < 0.001) was found to be a significant predictor of SVD. Overall, 1.8% was referred for prosthetic valve endocarditis (confirmed or suspected) during follow-up. One patient showed moderate non-SVD and none developed prosthetic valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The sutureless valve represents a reliable bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with a 10-year life expectancy. Younger age at the time of implant is the only factor associated with the risk of long-term SVD.

In-Hospital Mortality and Risk Prediction in Minimally Invasive Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective. Available evidence suggests that a minimally invasive approach with the use of sutureless bioprostheses has a favorable impact on the outcome of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods. From 2010 to 2019, 2732 patients underwent conventional AVR through median sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis (n = 2048) or minimally invasive AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis (n = 684). Results. Using the propensity score, 206 patients in each group were matched, and the matched groups were well balanced regarding preoperative risk factors. Both unmatched and matched patients of the sutureless + minimally invasive group showed significantly shorter cross-clamp times and longer ICU stay. In-hospital mortality was the only outcome measure that was confirmed in both analyses, and was higher in the stented + conventional group (2.54% and 2.43% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) compared with the sutureless + minimally invasive group (0.88% and 0.97% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) (p = 0.0047 and p < 0.0001, respectively). No differences in postoperative pacemaker implantation were recorded in matched patients of both groups (n = 2 [1%] in the stented + conventional group vs. n = 4 [2%] in the sutureless + minimally invasive group; p = 0.41). The discrimination power of EuroSCORE II was not confirmed in the sutureless + minimally invasive group, yielding an area under the ROC curve of 0.568. Conclusions. Minimally invasive sutureless AVR has a favorable impact on the immediate outcome and is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with conventional AVR, resulting in the absence of the discrimination power of EuroSCORE II for predicting AVR outcomes.

Sutureless bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: Surgical and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The aging population and the increase in comorbidities urge the development of safer alternatives to the current surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis has shown promising results, especially in complex procedures and in patients requiring concomitant surgeries.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the clinical and hemodynamic performance, safety, and durability of the Perceval® prosthetic valve.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data from all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval® prosthetic valve between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients included (mean age 77.20 ± 5.08 years; 45.4% female; mean EuroSCORE II 2.91 ± 2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 33.31 ± 14.09 min and 45.55 ± 19.04 min, respectively. Mean intensive care unit and hospital stay were 3.32 ± 3.24 days and 7.70 ± 5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 98.99%, as two explants occurred. Four valves were reimplanted due to intraoperative misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82 ± 3.62 mmHg. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, new-onset atrial fibrillation in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary for 3.1%. Early mortality was 2.0%. We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes, or endocarditis, and one successfully treated valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the excellent clinical and hemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, up to a 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable option for the treatment of isolated aortic valve disease.

A survey of cardiac surgeons to evaluate the use of sutureless aortic valve replacement in Canada

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is gaining popularity for the treatment of aortic stenosis. We aimed to describe Canadian cardiac surgeons' practice patterns and perceptions regarding SuAVR.

METHODS

Content experts (clinicians and methodologists) developed the survey. Domains in the questionnaire include: respondent characteristics, factors influencing the decision to implant a SuAVR, barriers to SuAVR use, and interest in participating in a trial.

RESULTS

A total of 66 cardiac surgeons (median duration of practice: 15 years; range 8-20 years) from 18 hospitals across Canada responded to the survey for a response rate of 84%. Surgeons reported that the following patient characteristics increased the likelihood they would choose SuAVR: hostile root (73%), small annular size (55%), high Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (42%), older age (40%), to support minimally invasive surgery (25%) and redo-operation (23%). The following patient characteristics made surgeons less likely to pursue SuAVR: young age (73%), low STS score (40%), and large annular size (30%). Reported barriers to SuAVR use included: cost (33%), permanent pacemaker risk (27%) and uncertain durability (12%). Of respondents, 73% were interested in participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing SuAVR with transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary reasons for surgeons selecting SuAVR were high surgical risk and anatomical challenges. Cost is a primary factor limiting SuAVR use.

Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

Objective: To highlight the main target points covered by clinical studies on the Perceval sutureless valve for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and raise a point of discussion for further expansion of its use when compared with stented bioprostheses (SB) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods: We reviewed clinical trials and retrospective studies published up to date and compared the outcomes in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) stroke, paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding and long-term outcomes.

Results: Clinical studies showed that 30-day mortality ranged from 0–4% for Perceval and 2.9–7% for TAVR. The incidence of PVL (Perceval 1.9–19.4 vs. TAVR 9–53.5%), PPI (Perceval 2–11.2 vs. TAVR 4.9–25.5%), stroke (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–2.8%), MI (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–3.5%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0–6.4% for Perceval and 0–5.9% for SB. The incidence of PVR (Perceval 1–19.4 vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7 vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), stroke (Perceval 0–3.7 vs. SB 1.8–7.3%) and MI (Perceval 0–7.8 vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable among the groups. In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, mortality rate was (0–4%) and PVL incidence was (0–2.3%). However, there was a high incidence of PPI (0–20%), and stroke (0–8%). Long-term survival ranged between 96.7–98.6%.

Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its implantation speed, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, the reduced aortic cross-clamp time and the shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

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.

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.

Early conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement with the sutureless Perceval prosthesis

BACKGROUND

To determine the incidence of postoperative conduction disorders and need for pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement(AVR) with the Perceval prosthesis.

METHODS

From January 2007 to December 2017, 908 patients underwent AVR with Perceval S in 5 participating centers. Study endpoints focused on electrocardiographic changes after AVR and the incidence of new pacemaker(PM) implantation in 801 patients after exclusion of patients with previous PM(n=48) or patients undergoing tricuspid(n=28) and/or AF ablation(n=31) surgery. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors for PM need.

RESULTS

Mean age was 79.7±5.2 years, 476(59.4%) were females. Median logistic Euroscore II was 4.1%(IQR 2.6-6.0). Isolated AVR was performed in 441(55.1%) patients. Associated procedures were CABG(n=309, 38.6%) and mitral valve surgery(n=51, 6.4%). Overall 30d-mortality was 3.9%, and 2.8% for isolated AVR. Electrocardiographic changes included a significant increase of LBBB (7.4 to 23.7%, p<0.001) and development of complete AV block, requiring PM implantation in 9.5%. Multivariable analysis revealed independent of a learning period(OR 1.91, 95%CI 1.16-3.13, p=0.011), pre-existing RBBB(OR 2.77, 95%CI 1.40-5.48, p=0.003), intra-operative prosthesis repositioning(OR 6.70, 95%CI 1.89-24.40, p=0.003) and size XL(OR 6.81, 95%CI 1.55-29.96, p=0.011) as significant predictors of PM implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a challenging elderly population, use of the Perceval S for AVR provides low operative mortality, but at the risk of an increased PM implantation rate. Besides to pre-existing right-bundle branch block, the significant effect of size XL, an increased valve size/BSA ratio and need for intra-operative repositioning on PM rate are underscoring the reappraisal of the annular sizing policy.

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.

Morphologic investigation on Perceval S, a sutureless pericardial valve prosthesis: collagen integrity after collapsing-ballooning and structural valve deterioration at distance

Perceval S is a self-expandable, stent-mounted bioprosthetic valve (BPV), with glutaraldehyde treated bovine pericardium, processed with homocysteic acid as an anti-calcification treatment. The stent is crimpable but the valve insertion is done surgically via a shorter procedure which does not require sutures. OBJECTIVES: MATERIAL AND METHODS: RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS: Collapsing and ballooning do not alter cusp collagen periodicity. Structural valve deterioration with stenosis, due to dystrophic calcification and fibrous tissue overgrowth, seldom occurred in the mid-term. Glutaraldehyde fixed pericardium has the potential to undergo structural valve deterioration with time, similar to well-known BPV failure. This supports the recommendation to pursue improvement of tissue valve treatment with enhanced durability.

Clinical outcomes after implantation of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis with concomitant mitral valve surgery: the SURE-AVR registry

Background

Early treatment of aortic valve stenosis is recommended in eligible symptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis who would otherwise have a poor prognosis. The sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis offers an alternative to standard aortic valve replacement with a sutured valve, but limited data are available in patients who have undergone multiple valve procedures involving the new, sutureless technology. We sought to investigate outcomes in high operative risk patients with previous or concomitant valve surgery who were implanted with a sutureless valve.

Methods

SURE-AVR is an ongoing, prospective, multinational registry of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. In-hospital and post-discharge outcomes up to 5 years were collected.

Results

The study population comprised 78 patients (mean ± SD: age 73.6 ± 7.6 years, logistic EuroSCORE 18.0 ± 17.5) enrolled at 13 sites who presented for concomitant or previous mitral valve repair (n = 45) or replacement (n = 33), with or without additional concomitant procedures, and were implanted with a sutureless valve. Mean ± SD overall aortic cross-clamp time was 109 ± 41 min and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 152 ± 49 min. Mean ± SD aortic pressure gradients decreased from 37.6 ± 17.7 mmHg preoperatively to 13.0 ± 5.7 mmHg at hospital discharge, and peak aortic pressure gradient from 61.5 ± 28.7 to 23.4 ± 10.6 mmHg. Early events included 1 death, 1 transient ischaemic attack, and 1 bleed (all 1.3%); a permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 6 patients (7.7%), and 2 reoperations (not valve related) (2.6%) took place. Over a median follow-up of 55.5 months (Q1 13.4, Q3 68.6), 12 patients died (6 cardiovascular and 6 non-cardiovascular, both 2.1% per patient-year). Five-year survival was 81.3%. Late paravalvular leak occurred in 2 patients (0.7% per patient-year) and permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 3 patients (0.1% per patient-year). There was no apparent rise in mean or peak aortic pressure gradient over the study.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the sutureless implant is a technically feasible procedure during mitral surgery and is associated with good clinical outcomes.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have been introduced to facilitate the implant process, speed up the operating time and improve haemodynamic performance. The goal of this study was to assess the potential advantages of using sutureless prostheses during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in a large multicentre population.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2019, a total of 3402 patients in 11 hospitals underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with minimal access approaches using a bioprosthesis. A total of 475 patients received sutureless valves; 2927 received standard valves. The primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day deaths. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of major complications following procedures performed with sutureless or standard bioprostheses. Propensity matched comparisons was performed based on a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The annual number of sutureless valve implants increased over the years. The matching procedure paired 430 sutureless with 860 standard aortic valve replacements. A total of 0.7% and 2.1% patients with sutureless and standard prostheses, respectively, died within 30 days (P = 0.076). Cross-clamp times [48 (40-62) vs 63 min (48-74); P = 0.001] and need for blood transfusions (27.4% vs 33.5%; P = 0.022) were lower in patients with sutureless valves. No difference in permanent pacemaker insertions was observed in the overall population (3.3% vs 4.4% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.221) and in the matched groups (3.6% vs 4.7% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.364).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sutureless prostheses is advantageous and facilitates the adoption of a minimally invasive approach, reducing cardiac arrest time and the number of blood transfusions. No increased risk of permanent pacemaker insertion was observed.

Sutureless aortic valves in elderly patients with aortic stenosis and intermediate-risk profile

AIMS

Sutureless valves became an alternative to standard bioprostheses, allowing surgeons to significantly reduce cross-clamping and extracorporeal circulation times, with a potential positive impact on major postoperative complications. The aim of this European multicentre study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sutureless valves in patients with an intermediate-risk profile undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

We investigated early and mid-term outcomes of 518 elderly patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate-risk profile (mean STS Score 6.1 ± 2%) undergoing AVR with sutureless aortic valve. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and freedom from all-cause death at follow-up. The secondary endpoint was survival freedom from MACCEs [all-cause death, stroke/transitory ischemic attack (TIA), bleeding, myocardial infarction, aortic regurgitation Grade II, endocarditis, reintervention and pacemaker implant; VARC 1--2 criteria].

RESULTS

Sutureless valve implantation was successfully performed in 508 patients, with a procedural success rate of 98.1% (508/518) as per VARC criteria. Concomitant myocardial revascularization [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] was performed in 74 out of 518 patients (14.3%). In-hospital mortality was 1.9% (10/518). Postoperative complications included revision for bleeding (23/518; 4.4%), prolonged intubation more than 48h (4/518; 0.7%), acute renal failure (14/518; 2.7%), stroke/TIA (11/518; 2.1%), pacemaker implantation (26/518; 5.1%) and aortic regurgitation more than Grade II (7/518; 1.4%). At 48-month follow-up, Kaplan-Meier overall survival and freedom from MACCEs in patients receiving isolated AVR were 83.7% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 81.1-86.3] and 78.4% (95% CI: 75.5-81.4), respectively, while in patients with concomitant CABG, Kaplan-Meier overall survival and freedom from MACCEs were 82.3% (95% CI: 73.3-91.3) and 79.1% (95% CI: 69.9-88.3), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of sutureless aortic valves in elderly patients with an intermediate-risk profile provided excellent early and mid-term outcomes, providing a reliable tool in patients undergoing surgical AVR in this specific subset of population. These preliminary data need to be investigated with a TAVI control-group in further studies.

[Current problems of simultaneous surgery of the aortic valve and ischaemic heart disease]

Surgical policy in treatment of patients suffering from concomitant valvular pathology and ischaemic heart disease is an extremely important problem of contemporary cardiac surgery. With the advent of advanced techniques and due to the improvement of old ones, there have over the last decades appeared new approaches to treatment of this cohort of patients. Presented in the article is a review of current publications regarding the problem of surgical treatment of patients with a combination of pronounced valvular pathology requiring surgical correction and ischaemic heart disease necessitating the need for myocardial revascularization. This is followed by providing the data concerning contemporary strategies of treatment of patients with concomitant pathology, as well as the comparison of various approaches and the effect of the chosen technique on the outcome.

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.

Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perceval S Bioprosthesis Through Ministernotomy: A Single-Center Experience

Objectives Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has the potential advantage of faster postoperative recovery compared to open procedures. Moreover, aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve shortens procedure time. The aim of this study is to report early postoperative outcomes and one-year survival of patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S bioprosthesis (LivaNova, Milan, Italy) through a ministernotomy. Methods A total of 110 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement in our center with the Perceval S bioprosthesis through a ministernotomy between February 2016 and March 2019. Data regarding preoperative and operative details, hospital stay, postoperative outcomes within 30 days after surgery, and one-year mortality were assessed. Results The mean cross-clamping time and extracorporeal circulation time were 54 ± 14 and 78 ± 21 minutes, respectively. No conversion to full median sternotomy was needed perioperatively. In-hospital mortality was 0.9%. Postoperative peak gradient was 13.3 mmHg; no major paravalvular leakage or valve migration occurred postoperatively. Postoperative complications consisted of one (0.9%) patient requiring full sternotomy for bleeding and two (1.8%) patients requiring re-ministernotomy due to acute tamponade. Pacemaker implantation was needed in four (3.6%) patients. Postoperative ischemic stroke rate and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 0.9% (n = 1) and 20% (n = 22), respectively, and one-year survival was 97.3%. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay were one and eight day(s), respectively. Conclusion Minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S bioprosthesis through a ministernotomy appears to be a safe procedure with good postoperative results and one-year survival. Further follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes.

Operative outcome of patients at low, intermediate, high and 'very high' surgical risk undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment prostheses: results of the SURD-IR registry

OBJECTIVES

The ideal strategy for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients of varying risk categories has become a debated topic in the last years: should the transcatheter or surgical approach be adopted? The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of low-, intermediate-, high- and very high-risk patients undergoing sutureless, rapid deployment aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2017, data on a total of 3651 patients were collected from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR). Of these, 2057 patients who underwent primary isolated aortic valve replacement were considered for this analysis and classified as being at low (EuroSCORE <5; n = 500), intermediate (EuroSCORE 5-10; n = 901), high (EuroSCORE 11-20; n = 500) and very high (EuroSCORE >20; n = 156) preoperative risk.

RESULTS

Overall, a less invasive approach was used in 74.1% of patients and represented the most frequent (>50%) approach in all risk categories. The Perceval prosthesis was used more frequently than other devices, especially in patients at high and very high risk. Hospital mortality was 1.6%, 0.8%, 1.9% and 2.7% in low-, intermediate-, high- and very high-risk patients, respectively, with no significant differences among subgroups. Similarly, postoperative complication rates were similar across the different risk categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless, rapid deployment biological valve prostheses is associated with excellent results and represents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. This seems to be particularly true in patients with a higher risk profile.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.

The sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry: lessons learned from more than 4,500 patients

The treatment options for patients with aortic valve disease have considerably expanded over the last decade. The remarkable advances in catheter-based technology, the popularizing of minimally invasive (MI) surgery, and the introduction of new valve technologies, such as sutureless and rapid-deployment (SURD) valves have led to a paradigm shift in the management of aortic valve pathologies. Yet, given their recent introduction, the current evidence on sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been limited thus far. The Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR) was established in 2015 by a consortium of 18 research centers to assess safety, efficacy, short- and long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions. The present keynote lecture aims to assess and comment on the real-world evidence for SURD-AVR surgery generated from the SURD-IR.

Rapid deployment valves versus conventional tissue valves for aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Rapid deployment valves have been developed as a means to adjust for limitations in transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for the management of aortic valve disease. To date, many studies have shown that although rapid deployment valves facilitate a shorter surgical aortic valve replacement, they offer no clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of rapid deployment valves with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing tissue aortic valve replacement at a single center. The majority of patients were men and aged more than 60 years. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: (1) rapid deployment valves and (2) conventional sutured valve. Inverse probability treatment weighting method was used to create a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences in outcomes. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 2237 patients made up the study population from 2013 to 2019. After inverse probability treatment weighting, there were 295 patients in each group. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were found with the rapid deployment valves. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary and secondary outcomes. There was a significant difference in the rate of permanent pacemaker insertion with a 7% pacemaker rate in the rapid deployment valve group (P < .009).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that rapid deployment valves offer no benefit in straightforward aortic valve replacement, and further study will help identify which patient population the valve is suited for.

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses

Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the 'gold standard' for treatment of severe or symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The increasing age of patients and increasing comorbidities has led to the development of procedures to minimise operative time and reduce risks of surgery. One method of reducing operative times is the use of sutureless aortic valves (SU-AVR). We examine the current literature surrounding the use of SU-AVR. Alternatives to AVR are SU-AVR, sometimes referred to as rapid deployment valves, or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI has been demonstrated to be superior over medical therapy in patients deemed inoperable and non-inferior in high and intermediate-risk patients compared with surgical AVR. However, the lack of excision of the calcified aortic valve and annulus raises concerns regarding long-term durability and possibly thromboembolic complications. TAVI patients have increased rates of paravalvular leaks, major vascular complications and pacemaker implantation when compared with conventional AVR. SU-AVR minimises the need for suturing, leading to reduced operative times, while enabling complete removal of the calcified valve. The increase in use of SU-AVR has been mostly driven by minimally invasive surgery. Other indications include patients with a small and/or calcified aortic root, as well as patients requiring AVR and concomitant surgery. SU-AVR is associated with decreased operative times and possibly improved haemodynamics when compared with conventional AVR. However, this has to be weighed against the increased risk of paravalvular leak and pacemaker implantation when deciding which prosthesis to use for AVR.

Recent advances in aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve replacement has stood the test of time but is no longer an operation that is exclusively approached through a median sternotomy using only sutured prostheses. Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed through a number of minimally invasive approaches employing conventional mechanical or bioprostheses as well as sutureless valves. In either case, the direct surgical access allows inspection of the valve, complete excision of the diseased leaflets, and debridement of the annulus in a controlled and thorough manner under visual control. It can be employed to treat aortic valve pathologies of all natures and aetiologies. When compared with transcatheter valves in patients with a high or intermediate preoperative predictive risk, conventional surgery has not been shown to be inferior to transcatheter valve implants. As our understanding of sutureless valves and their applicability to minimally invasive surgery advances, the invasiveness and trauma of surgery can be reduced and outcomes can improve. This warrants further comparative trials comparing sutureless and transcatheter valves.

Aortic Valve Replacement with a Conventional Stented Bioprosthesis versus Sutureless Bioprosthesis: a Study of 763 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare early postoperative outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless bioprostheses and conventional stented bioprostheses implanted through median sternotomy.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2016, 763 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses; of these, 139 received a Perceval S sutureless valve (Group A) and 624 received a Perimount Magna Ease valve (Group B). These groups were further divided into A1 (isolated Perceval AVR), A2 (Perceval AVR with coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), B1 (isolated conventional stented bioprosthesis), and B2 (conventional stented bioprosthesis + CABG).

RESULTS

Patients in Group A were older (mean 74 years vs. 71 years; P<0.0001), predominantly women (53% vs. 32%; P<0.0001), had a higher logistic EuroSCORE (3.26 vs. 2.43; P<0.001), more preoperative atrial fibrillation (20% vs. 13%; P=0.03), and had a lower reopening rate for bleeding (2.1% vs. 6.7%; P=0.04). Compared to Group B1, Group A1 had shorter cross-clamp (mean 40 min vs. 57 min; P≤0.0001) and bypass times (mean 63 min vs. mean 80 min; P=0.02), and they bled less postoperatively (mean 295 ml vs. mean 393 ml; P=0.002). The mean gradient across Perceval valve was 12.5 mmHg while its effective orifice area was 1.5 cm2.

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective study of 763 patients, sutureless valve group patients are older, mostly women, more symptomatic preoperatively, and have higher logistic EuroSCORE. They have shorter cross-clamp and bypass times, less postoperative bleeding, and reduced incidence of reopening. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical benefits in short, mid, and long-terms.

Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients

Background

Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR).

Methods

Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes.

Results

The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR.

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.

Hemodynamic and clinical performance of Solo stentless bioprosthetic aortic valves

OBJECTIVE

To report the hemodynamic profile and short- and medium-term outcomes of Freedom Solo and Solo Smart stentless aortic valves implanted at our center.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2015, all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement using Solo stentless valves at our center were enrolled. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was carried out six months postoperatively. Survival and major events, including structural valve deterioration and non-structural valve dysfunction, endocarditis, reoperation and stroke, were assessed through medical records or telephone interview with the referring cardiologist up to November 2015 (mean and maximum follow-up 39±22 and 78 months, respectively).

RESULTS

Patients' (n=345) mean age was 72±8 years, 52% were female and median euroSCORE II was 2.7 (1.5-4.7). There was no intraoperative mortality and in-hospital mortality was 2.6%. Postoperatively, mean transvalvular gradient was 11.9±4.5 mmHg and effective orifice area was 1.9±0.5 cm². Patient-prosthesis mismatch occurred in 14% but was severe in only one patient. Cumulative survival at six years was 72%. Six patients were reoperated: three due to endocarditis, two for structural prosthesis deterioration and one because of periprosthetic fistula. Five patients suffered stroke, three had medically-treated endocarditis and one had structural valve deterioration but was not considered suitable for reoperation. None of the remainder had structural valve deterioration or non-structural valve dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Solo stentless aortic valves are safe to implant, with promising clinical outcomes in short- and medium-term assessment. Moreover, they show an excellent hemodynamic performance: low transvalvular gradients, large effective orifice areas and low incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch.

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.

Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis replacement in elderly Asian patients with aortic stenosis: Experience in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has emerged as a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of SU-AVR in an elderly Asian population.

METHODS

From June 2015 to May 2016, 15 adults with severe aortic stenosis (9 females) with a median age of 79 years underwent Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (LivaNova, UK) implantation in a single Taiwanese institution; peri-operative recovery, clinical improvement, and valve performance were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three (20%) patients underwent concomitant procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting, 1 patient; maze, 2 patients) and 6/12 (50%) patients underwent J-ministernotomy for isolated SU-AVR. Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time were 105 min and 69 min, respectively. All sutureless bioprosthesis were implanted successfully without conversion to a traditional valve, but 2 patients (13.3%) need intraoperative valve repositioning because of paravalvular leakage. Median extubation time and intensive care unit stay were 5 h and 2 days, respectively. One patient experienced in-hospital mortality due to sudden collapse thought secondary to high degree atrioventricular block. Serial echocardiographic evaluations were performed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. The final echocardiographic exams showed nothing greater than mild aortic insufficiency and the median mean trans-valvular gradient was 13.2 (range, 6.0-26.3) mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

By simplified procedure and improved hemodynamics, SU-AVR can be implanted safely in elderly Asian population with excellent valvular performance.

Thrombocytopenia in Moderate- to High-Risk Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

This study aimed to compare preliminary data on the outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) with those of aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of SU-AVR in moderate- to high-risk patients from 2013 to 2016. Matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score with sex and age. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were operative outcomes and complications.

Results

A total of 277 patients were studied. Ten patients (50% males; median age, 81.5 years) underwent SU-AVR. Postoperative echocardiography showed impressive outcomes in the SU-AVR group. The 30-day mortality was 10% in both groups. In our study, the patients in the SU-AVR group developed postoperative thrombocytopenia. Platelet counts decreased from 225×10³/μL preoperatively to 94.5, 54.5, and 50.1×10³/μL on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, respectively, showing significant differences compared with the AVR group (p=0.04, p=0.16, and p=0.20, respectively). The median amount of platelet transfusion was higher in the AVR group (12.5 vs. 0 units, p=0.052).

Conclusion

There was no difference in the 30-day mortality of moderate- to high-risk patients depending on whether they underwent SU-AVR or AVR. Although SU-AVR is associated with favorable cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, it may be associated with postoperative thrombocytopenia.

Early Clinical Results of Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve in 139 Patients: Freeman Experience

Objective

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the safety and performance of the Perceval sutureless valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. We report the 30-day clinical outcomes of 139 patients.

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2016, 139 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement. Their operation notes, National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database and perioperative transoesophageal echocardiography findings were studied retrospectively.

Results

Ninety-two patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (group A) with Perceval valve and 47 patients had combined procedures of aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting (group B). The patients received a size S (n=23), M (n=39), L (n=42) or XL (n=35) prosthesis. Perceval valve was successfully implanted in 135 (97.1%) patients. Mean cross-clamping time and bypass time were 40 and 63 minutes for isolated cases, while 68 and 107 minutes for combined cases. Three (2.1%) patients died within 30 days. Four patients suffered stroke and 5 patients went into acute renal failure. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay was 2 and 8.5, respectively. Four valves were explanted due to significant paravalvular leak after surgery. Five patients had permanent pacemaker as a result of complete heart block and mean postoperative drainage was 295 mL for isolated case and 457 mL for combined cases. The mean gradient across Perceval valve was 12.5 mmHg while its effective orifice area was 1.5 cm².

Conclusion

Early postoperative results showed that Perceval valve is safe. Further follow up is needed to evaluate the long-term outcome with this bioprosthesis.

The Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve: Review of Outcomes, Complications, and Future Direction

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented prosthesis has been the standard of care procedure for aortic stenosis. The Perceval (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) is a sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis currently implanted in more than 20,000 patients. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available after 9 years of clinical experience of the Perceval aortic valve. PubMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. A meta-analysis of summary statistics from individual studies was conducted. A total of 333 studies were identified and 84 studies were included. Thirty-day mortality and 5-year survival ranged from 0% to 4.9% and 71.3% to 85.5%, respectively. Compared with stented prosthesis, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) with Perceval (38.6 vs 63.3 and 61.4 vs 84.9, P < 0.00001, respectively). Compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with Perceval in paravalvular leakage (1.26% vs 14.31%) and early mortality (2.3% vs 6.9%). Favorable hemodynamics, acceptable valve durability, and ease of implantation in minimally invasive cases were reported as benefits. A trend toward increased rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and low postoperative platelet count were identified. Special use and off-label procedures described included bicuspid aortic valves, valve-in-valve for homograft and stentless prosthesis failure, concomitant valvular procedures, porcelain aorta, and endocarditis. The Perceval valve has shown safe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Outcomes support its continued usage and potential expansion.