Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Minithoracotomy: Can Sutureless Technology Improve Clinical Outcomes?

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.

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.

Consensus statement on aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy in the UK healthcare setting

The wide uptake of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) as an approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been limited despite initial reports of its use in 1993. Compared with median sternotomy, and even ministernotomy, ART is considered to be less traumatic to the chest wall and to help facilitate quicker patient recovery. In this statement, a consensus agreement is outlined that describes the potential benefits of the ART AVR. The technical considerations that require specific attention are described and the initiation of an ART programme at a UK centre is recommended through simulation and/or use of specialist instruments in conventional cases. The use of soft tissue retractors, peripheral cannulation, modified aortic clamping and the use of intraoperative adjuncts, such as sutureless valves and/or automated knot fasteners, are important to consider in order to circumvent the challenges of minimal the altered exposure via an ART.A coordinated team-based approach that encourages ownership of the programme by team members is critical. A designated proctor/mentor is also recommended. The organisation of structured training and simulation, as well as planning the initial cases are important steps to consider.

Incidence of persistent left bundle branch block after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the incidence, prognosis and predictive factors of new onset of persistent left bundle branch block(NOP-LBBB) after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement(RD-AVR).

METHODS

This study was an observational, retrospective, single-center study of 274 consecutive patients with no baseline ventricular conduction disorder and no previous permanent pacemaker implantation(PPI) who underwent RD-AVR with an INTUITY valve(n=55) and INTUITY Elite Valve(n=219). Twelve-lead electrocardiography and transthoracic echocardiography were performed preoperatively, upon discharge, at 1-month and 1-year intervals. The incidence, prognosis, and predictive factors of NOP-LBBB were evaluated.

RESULTS

NOP-LBBB occurred in 58 patients(21.2%) upon discharge. In multivariate analysis, age (p <0.01), Intuity valve diameter ≥ 23 mm (p = 0.02) and INTUITY ELITE implantation(p=0.01) were independent predictors of NOP-LBBB. By 1:1 propensity matching analysis between the NOP-LBBB group and the control group, there were no significant differences in one-year overall mortality(p=0.23), hospitalization for CHF(p=0.99) or PPI(p=0.99). NOP-LBBB exposed patients to a high rate of dysrhythmic events(12.1%vs.1.4%,p<0.01) and was associated with a significant decrease in LVEF (62±9.5% vs. 65.2±7.83%, p=0.02) without an impact on NYHA functional status(1.25±0.32 and 1.52±0.70,p=0.32). Seventeen patients(6.2%) had a PPI before discharge, including 14 NOP-LBBB patients.

CONCLUSIONS

NOP-LBBB after RD-AVR is prevalent in patients with no prior conduction disorders. INTUITY ELITE is associated with a significantly higher rate of NOP-LBBB. The persistence of NOP-LBBB predisposed patients to the occurrence of high-grade conduction disorders and might have led to PPI but did not increase mortality or hospitalization for CHF.

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.

Converging rapid deployment prostheses with minimal access surgery: analysis of early outcomes

Background

Sutureless prostheses may have added benefit when combined with minimal access surgery, although this has not been fully assessed in the literature. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the Perceval valve comparing median sternotomy (MS) with mini-sternotomy (MIS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted for all isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), using the Perceval valve, for severe aortic stenosis cases in the period 2014 to 2019. Patients undergoing concomitant valve or revascularisation surgery were excluded.

Results

A total of 78 patients were included: MS group 41; MIS group 37. Operatively, bypass times were comparable between MS and MIS groups (mean 89.3 vs 83.4, p = 0.307), as were aortic cross clamp times (58.4 vs 55.9, p = 0.434). There were no operative deaths or new onset post-operative neurology. MIS was a predictor of reduced stay in the intensive care unit (coef − 3.25, 95% CI [− 4.93, − 0.59], p = 0.036) and hospital stay overall (p = 0.004). Blood transfusion units were comparable as were the incidence of heart block (n = 5 vs n = 3, p = 0.429) and new onset atrial fibrillation (n = 15 vs n = 9, p = 0.250). Follow-up echocardiography found a significant improvement in effective orifice area, left ventricular dimension and volume indices, and LVEF (p > 0.05) for all patients. Multivariate analysis found mini-sternotomy to be a predictor for reduced LV diastolic volume (coef − 0.35, 95% CI [− 1.02, − 0.05], p = 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of minimal access surgery and sutureless AVR may enhance patient recovery and provide early LV remodelling.

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.

Rapid deployment versus trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

There are insufficient studies comparing rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and trans-aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

AIMS

We compared 2-year outcomes between RDAVR with INTUITY and TAVR with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients with AS.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were patients with severe AS at a EuroSCORE II ≥ 4%, who received RDAVR or TAVR implantation and clinical evaluation by the Heart Team. Regression adjustment for the propensity score was used to compare RDAVR and TAVR. Primary outcome was the composite criterion of death, disabling stroke, or rehospitalization.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

major bleeding complications postoperation, paravalvular regurgitation ≥ 2, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients were included from 2012 to 2018: 48 in the RDAVR group and 104 in the TAVR group. The mean age was 82.7 ± 6.0,51.3% patients were female, the mean EuroSCORE II was 6.03 ± 1.6%, mean baseline LVEF was 56 ± 13%, mean indexed effective orifice area was 0.41 ± 0.1 cm/m² , and the mean gradient was 51.7 ± 14.7 mmHg. RDAVR patients were younger (79.5 ± 6 years vs. 82.6 ± 6 years; p = .01), and at higher risk (EuroSCORE II, 6.61 ± 1.8% vs. 5.63 ± 1.5%; p = .005), Twenty-two patients (45.99%) in the RDAVR group and 32 (66.67%) in the TAVR group met the composite criterion. Through the 1:1 propensity score matching analysis, there was a significant difference between the groups, favoring RDAVR (HR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.34-1.00]; p = .04). No differences were observed in terms of patient-prosthesis mismatch (0.83 [0.35-1.94]; p = .67), major bleeding events (1.33 [0.47-3.93]; p = .59), paravalvular regurgitation ≥ 2 (0.33[0-6.28]; p = .46), or pacemaker implantation (0.84 [0.25-2.84]; p = .77) CONCLUSION: RDAVR was associated with better 2-year outcomes than TAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS.

Early and Two-year Outcomes after Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: a Nationwide Population-based Study

BACKGROUND

We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data.

METHODS

From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs.

RESULTS

Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR grouP = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

Minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: Propensity matched data from two centers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to gain popularity. This study compares outcomes of AVR through right anterolateral thoracotomy (RALT) to those of AVR through full median sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

Outcomes of two propensity-matched groups of 85 each, out of 250 patients that underwent isolated AVR through RALT or MS at our two institutions, were compared in a retrospective study.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 85 matched pairs with balanced preoperative characteristics. Procedure times were significantly shorter in the RALT group (median difference: 13 min [-25 to -0.5]; p = .039), cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer (median difference: 17 min [10-23.5]; p = < .001) and ventilation times shorter (median difference: 259 min [-390 to -122.5]; p = < .001). There was no significant difference in aortic cross-clamp times (median difference: 1.5 min [-3.5 to 6.5]; p = .573). The RALT group had lower rates of perioperative platelet transfusions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.00 [0.00-0.59]; p = .0078) and postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.10 [0.00-0.70]; p = .012), as well as shorter hospitalization times (median difference: 2.5 days [-4.5 to -1]; p = .005). There were no significant differences regarding paravalvular leakage (p = .25), postoperative stroke (p = 1), postoperative atrial fibrillation (p = .12) or 1-year-mortality (p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found RALT to be an equally safe approach to surgical AVR as MS. Furthermore, RALT showed advantages regarding important aspects of postoperative recovery, especially concerning pulmonary function.

Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement via an anterolateral approach using a standard prosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still a challenging operation, and only a few series reports exist in the literature. The purposes of this study were to establish a method for endoscopic AVR and evaluate its initial results.

METHODS

A total of 47 patients (median age 76 years, 17 men) underwent endoscopic AVR. The main wound was created in the right anterolateral 4th intercostal space through a 4-cm skin incision. No rib spreader was used. A 3-dimensional endoscope was inserted at the midaxillary line. A 5.5-mm trocar was inserted in the 3rd intercostal space, thus creating a 3-port setting similar to that used for endoscopic mitral valve surgery. A standard prosthesis was used, and the sutures were tied using a knot pusher. Results were compared with those of 157 patients who underwent right transaxillary AVR with direct vision plus endoscopic assist.

RESULTS

Patient backgrounds did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. No deaths occurred in the entire series. There was no conversion to thoracotomy or sternotomy in the endoscopic AVR group. The complication rate did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. The total operating time was significantly shorter in endoscopic AVR (188-206 min); the cardiopulmonary bypass time (130-128 min) and the cross-clamp time (90-95 min) did not differ significantly (median, endoscopic AVR, right transaxillary AVR). Two patients underwent endoscopic double-valve (aortic and mitral) surgery under the same conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic AVR was possible through 3 ports created in the right anterolateral chest, similar to the procedure for endoscopic mitral valve surgery. By adopting a common approach for both the aortic and the mitral valve operations, endoscopic double-valve surgery can be performed seamlessly.

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.

Right anterior mini-thoracotomy and sutureless valves: the perfect marriage

Background

A minimally invasive approach (MIA) reduces mortality and morbidity in patients referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Sutureless technology facilitates a MIA. We describe our experience with the sutureless Perceval (LivaNova, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis through a right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) approach.

Methods

Between March 2011 and October 2019, 1,049 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis. Five hundred and three patients (48%) were operated through a RAMT approach in the second intercostal space. Considering only isolated AVR (881), 98% of patients were operated with MIA, and Perceval in RAMT approach was performed in 57% of these patients. Eight patients (1.6%) had previously undergone cardiac surgery. The prosthesis sizes implanted were: S (n=91), M (n=154), L (n=218) and XL (n=40). Concomitant procedures were mitral valve surgery (n=6), tricuspid valve repair (n=1), mitral valve repair and tricuspid valve repair (n=1) and miectomy (n=2). Mean age was 78±4 years (range, 65-89 years), 317 patients were female (63%) and EuroSCORE II was 5.9%±8.4%.

Results

The 30-day mortality was 0.8% (4/503). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times were 81.6±30.8 and 50.3±24.5 minutes respectively for stand-alone procedures. In two patients, early moderate paravalvular leakage appeared as a result of incomplete expansion of the sutureless valve due to oversizing of the bioprosthesis, requiring reoperations at two and nine postoperative days with sutured aortic bioprosthesis implantation. Permanent pacemaker implantation within the first thirty days was necessary in 26 (5.2%) patients. At the mean follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 1 month to 8.6 years), survival was 96%, freedom from reoperation was 99.2%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 11.9±4.3 mmHg.

Conclusions

AVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis in a RAMT approach is a safe and feasible procedure associated with low mortality and excellent hemodynamic performance. Sutureless technology facilitates a RAMT approach.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through anterior right thoracotomy: Clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance

BACKGROUND

The ease of implantation of the rapid deployment (RD) and sutureless valves has contributed to the adoption of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR).

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study evaluates the safety and haemodynamic performance of minimally invasive AVR through ART using the RD valves.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center review of a total of 50 consecutive patients who received RD-AVR through ART.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 69-80), and median Euroscore II was 5.1 (IQR: 2.4-7.5). ART RD-AVR was successfully performed in all cases with no conversion to sternotomy, paravalvular leaks or need for valve explantation. The mean size of the implanted valve was 23.2  ± 2.3 mm. In-hospital mortality was 2%. The mean and maximum pressure gradients across the aortic prosthesis were 10 mm Hg (IQR: 9-12) and 19 mm Hg (IQR: 16-23).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement can be safely performed through anterior right thoracotomy wit excellent haemodynamic performance and low postoperative complications rate.

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.

Peri-procedural thrombocytopenia after aortic bioprosthesis implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparison among conventional, stentless, rapid-deployment, and transcatheter valves

BACKGROUND

Thrombocytopenia has been shown to occur soon after surgical biological aortic valve replacement (AVR), and recently reported also after transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI). The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still unknown, and its clinical impact on the peri-operative outcome has been poorly investigated.

METHODS

A systematic review and a meta-analysis of all available studies reporting data about peri-procedural thrombocytopenia on isolated bio-AVR, comparing rapid-deployment (RDV), stentless (stentless-AVR), and TAVI vs. stented (stented-AVR) valves, have been performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials (2.163 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Perioperative platelet reduction ranged from 35% to 55% in stented-AVR, from 60% to 77% in stentless-AVR, from 53% to 60% in RDV, and from to 21% to 72% in TAVI (apparently, balloon-expandable valves more frequently associated to thrombocytopenia). Stented-AVR required more red blood cells transfusion than stentless-AVR (P < 0.0001), whereas no difference has been found between RDV and stented-AVR. Platelet transfusion rate was very low in all surgical groups. No difference has been found in RDV and stentless-AVR vs. stented-AVR, in terms of reoperation for bleeding, and length-of-intensive care unit or hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombocytopenia-related major adverse events were mainly reported in TAVI patients, whereas clinically meaningless in surgical patients. Transient peri-procedural thrombocytopenia is common after bio-AVR, regardless of prosthesis's type or implant modality. It should receive appropriate monitoring and focused investigations.

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.

The flutter-by effect: a comprehensive study of the fluttering cusps of the Perceval heart valve prosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses are gaining popularity due to the substantial reduction in cross-clamp time. In this study, we report our observations on the cusp-fluttering phenomenon of the Perceval bioprosthesis (LivaNova, London, UK) using a combination of technical and medical perspectives.

METHODS

Between August 2014 and December 2016, a total of 108 patients (69% women) with a mean age of 78 years had aortic valve replacement using the Perceval bioprosthesis (34 combined procedures). All patients underwent transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) intraoperatively. TOE was performed postoperatively to detect paravalvular leakage and to measure gradients, acceleration time, Doppler velocity indices (Vmax and LVOT/Vmax AV) and effective orifice area indices. In addition, a TOE examination was performed in 21 patients postoperatively. Data were collected retrospectively from our hospital database.

RESULTS

The retrospective evaluation of the intraoperative TOE examinations revealed consistent fluttering in all patients with the Perceval bioprosthesis. The echocardiographic postoperative measurements showed a mean effective orifice area index of 0.91 ± 0.12 cm2/m2. The overall mean pressure and peak pressure gradients were in a higher range (13.5 ± 5.1 mmHg and 25.5 ± 8.6 mmHg, respectively), whereas acceleration time (62.8 ± 16.4 ms) and Doppler velocity indices (0.43 ± 0.11) were within the normal range according to the American Society of Echocardiography or european association of echocardiography (EAE) guidelines. The 2-dimensional TOE in Motion Mode (M-Mode) that was performed in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels revealed remarkable fluttering of the cusps of the Perceval bioprosthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study cohort, we observed the fluttering phenomenon in all patients who received the Perceval bioprosthesis, which was correlated with elevated LDH levels and higher pressure gradients.

Mid-term follow-up after suture-less aortic heart valve implantation

Background

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valve disease in the adult population and its prevalence increases with age. Unfortunately, older age and comorbidities significantly increase mortality, operative risk and worsen prognosis. In recent years, sutureless bioprosthesis [sutureless-aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR)] has become an alternative to standard AVR or TAVI in high-risk patients. Compared to standard AVR, the advantages of SU-AVR include shorter valve implantation, shorter aortic cross clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and higher valve EOA with more favorable hemodynamic parameters. Good early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes have been reported in several studies. However, although early SU-AVR results reported in the literature are encouraging, there are few results of long term follow-up. The aim of this study is to present long term echocardiographic hemodynamic outcomes of the Enable sutureless bioprosthesis.

Methods

The first human implantation of the Enable sutureless bioprosthesis was performed on the 13th January, 2005 by the authors of this manuscript. From that time until July 2008, 25 patients underwent isolated SU-AVR implantation. The median preoperative logistic EuroSCORE was 1.92±0.17 [standard deviation (SD)] and the STS score was 2.96±2.73. Preoperatively, 65.4% of patients were in NYHA class III or IV, the peak/mean gradient transaortic gradient was 84.6/52.1 mmHg.

Results

After the SU-AVR procedure, the average peak/mean aortic gradients were respectively: 12.9/7.1 mmHg at the intraoperative time; 18.1/9.5 mmHg at 3-6 months; 18.3/9.6 mmHg at 11-14 months; 16.9/9.3 mmHg at 2 years; 15.3/8 mmHg at 3 years; 13.4/7.1 mmHg at 4 years; 16.7/8.9 mmHg at 5 years follow-up. Other hemodynamic echocardiographic parameters such as LVOT diameter, LVOT peak velocity, LVOT TVI, valve peak velocity and valve TVI were stable during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

In summary, sutureless bioprostheses are safe and effective treatments for valve stenosis with excellent outcomes and hemodynamic profile which remained stable during the follow-up period. The peak and mean gradients were 16.7 and 8.9 mmHg, respectively, over a 5-year follow-up period.

Sutureless aortic valves: who is the right patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) has emerged as an alternative to traditional AVR for patients with aortic stenosis who present a higher surgical risk, such as the elderly, or those with small or highly calcified aortic roots. With transcatheter aortic valve implantation - the other major AVR alternative - being used in increasingly lower-risk patients, the place of sutureless valves in the AVR landscape needs to be defined. In this review, we discuss recent data and expert opinion as it pertains to the subject of sutureless AVR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent studies have evaluated the performance of sutureless valves in a variety of clinical contexts, including minimally invasive operations and high-risk surgical procedures. The optimal surgical technique for sutureless AVR has been refined through the publication of several reports addressing technical considerations. Reduction in operative times represents the main advantage of sutureless valves over conventional surgical prostheses, and the possibility of complete annular decalcification - and hence a reduced incidence of paravalvular leak - is the primary advantage over TAVI.

SUMMARY

Sutureless valves have emerged as an attractive option for high-risk patients or for complex surgeries where a minimization of bypass time is critical. However, there is limited data regarding long-term outcomes, durability or reoperation.

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.

Sutureless Perceval Aortic Valve Versus Conventional Stented Bioprostheses: Meta-Analysis of Postoperative and Midterm Results in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses.

Methods and Results

A total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross‐clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–1.88]; P=0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25–0.80]; P=0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 0.56–3.21]; P=0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 [95% CI, 0.60–1.06]; P=0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.16±1.2 versus 2.13±2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI, −1.22 to −0.75]; P=0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 [95% CI, 1.44–4.17]; P=0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42±1.73 versus 22.8±1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.62–1.18]; P=0.001), even during follow‐up (10.98±5.7 versus 13.06±6.2; mean difference: −2.08 [95% CI, −3.96 to −0.21]; P=0.030). We found no difference in 1‐year mortality.

Conclusions

The Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high‐risk patients.

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.

Hemodynamic assessment of Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis by dobutamine stress echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis under high workload at mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with a Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were enrolled in this study. S size prosthesis was deployed in 10 patients (31.3%), M size in 9 (28.1%), L size in 8 (25%) and XL size in 5 (15.6%). Effective orifice area (EOA), EOA index (EOAi), and transvalvular gradients were assessed at rest and during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) a median of 19.5 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) significantly increased heart rate, stroke volume, ejection fraction, and transvalvular gradients (peak gradient, 24.0 ± 7.6 vs 38.7 ± 13.6 mm Hg, P < .001; mean gradient, 12.6 ± 4.2 vs 19.8 ± 8.3, P < .001). When compared to baseline, estimated valve areas significantly increased at follow-up (EOA, 1.48 ± 0.46 vs 2.06 ± 0.67, P < .001; EOAi, 0.84 ± 0.26 vs 1.17 ± 0.37, P < .001). Mean percentage increase in EOAi was 40.3% ± 28.0%. S size prostheses had the highest increase in EOA1, but the difference was not significant (S 46.0% ± 27.5% vs M 45.4% ± 34.5% vs L 32.7% ± 26.4% vs XL 32.1% ± 20.5%, P = .66). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (EOAi ≤ 0.65 cm² /m² ) was present at rest in 8 patients (25%), but only in one patient (3.1%) during DSE.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis demonstrated good hemodynamics at rest and under high workload. The significant increase in EOAi during DSE suggests the potential advantages of Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in case of small aortic annulus or when patient-prosthesis mismatch is anticipated.

International Expert Consensus on Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves in Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive Approaches

Objective

To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach.

Results

No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed tomographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs.

Conclusions

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.

Rapid deployment valve system shortens operative times for aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence from the literature that right anterior minithoracotomy aortic valve replacement (RAT-AVR) improves clinical outcome. However, increased cross clamp time is the strongest argument for surgeons not performing RAT-AVR. Rapid deployment aortic valve systems have the potential to decrease cross-clamp time and ease this procedure. We assessed clinical outcome of rapid deployment and conventional valves through RAT.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients (mean age 76 ± 6 years, 32% females) underwent RAT-AVR between 9/2013 and 7/2015. According to the valve type implanted the patients were divided into two groups. In 43 patients (R-group; mean age 74.1 ± 6.6 years) a rapid deployment valve system (Edwards Intuity, Edwards Lifesciences Corp; Irvine, Calif) and in 25 patients (C-group; mean age 74.2 ± 6.6 years) a conventional stented biological aortic valve was implanted.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp (42.1 ± 12 min vs. 68.3 ± 20.3 min; p < 0.001) and bypass time (80.4 ± 39.3 min vs. 106.6 ± 23.2 min; p = 0.001) were shorter in the rapid deployment group (R-group). We observed no differences in clinical outcome. Postoperative gradients (R-group: max gradient, 14.3 ± 8 mmHg vs. 15.5 ± 5 mmHg (C-group), mean gradient, 9.2 ± 1.7 mmHg (R-group) vs. 9.1 ± 2.3 mmHg (C-group) revealed no differences. However, larger prostheses were implanted in C-group (25 mm; IQR 23-27 mm vs. 23 mm; IQR 21-25; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the rapid deployment aortic valve system reduced cross clamp and bypass time in patients undergoing RAT-AVR with similar hemodynamics as with larger size stented prosthesis. However, larger studies and long-term follow-up are mandatory to confirm our findings.

Aortic Valve Surgery: Minimally Invasive Options

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery has not been adopted by a significant proportion of cardiac surgeons despite proven benefits. This may be related to a high learning curve and technical issues requiring retraining. In this review, we discuss the data for minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and describe our operative technique for both ministernotomy and anterior thoracotomy approaches. We also discuss the advent of novel sutureless valves and how these techniques compare to available transcatheter aortic valve procedures.

First in Human Totally Endoscopic Perceval Valve Implantation

Totally endoscopic cardiac operations for coronary procedures and atrial septal defect repair have demonstrated improved quality of life, but they have required longer cross-clamp times compared with open operations. Although transcatheter valve implantation remains appropriate for inoperable patients, the totally endoscopic approach could be an effective treatment for lower risk patients, including complete removal of the stenotic aortic valve, while minimizing surgical chest wall trauma, and providing excellent early quality of life. Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement procedures were previously performed with the 3f Enable bioprosthesis. We present the first case, to our knowledge, of Sorin Perceval implantation.

Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of perioperative mortality after sutureless or rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

To determine which procedure, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis (SL-AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), achieves better perioperative survival for severe aortic stenosis (AS), we conducted direct-comparison meta-analyses (DC-MAs) and an adjusted indirect-comparison meta-analysis (IDC-MA).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2016. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. We performed a DC-MA-[A] of SL-AVR versus TAVI, a DC-MA-[B] of SL-AVR versus conventional AVR (C-AVR), and a DC-MA-[C] TAVI versus C-AVR. Then, we computed a IDC-MA-[A'] of TAVI versus SL-AVR from the results of the DC-MA-[B] and the DC-MA-[C].

RESULTS

We identified 6 RCTs and 30 PSM studies enrolling a total of 15,887 patients. The 3 DC-MAs demonstrated significantly lower perioperative (30-day or in-hospital) all-cause mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.80; p=0.005) and no significant differences between SL-AVR and C-AVR (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.94; p=0.81) and between TAVI and C-AVR (1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.27; p=0.45). The computed IDC-MA-[A'] indicated no significant difference in mortality between SL-AVR and TAVI (1.01; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.86). Combining the results of the DC-MA-[A] and IDC-MA [A'] showed significantly lower mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with severe AS, SL-AVR may achieve better perioperative survival than TAVI.

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

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

Sutureless Aortic Valves: Combining the Best or the Worst?

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

Sutureless Sorin Perceval Aortic Valve Implantation

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

Recent advances in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis

Aortic valve replacement is no longer an operation that is approached solely through a median sternotomy. Recent advances in the fields of transcatheter valves have expanded the proportion of patients eligible for intervention. Comparisons between transcatheter valves and conventional surgery have shown non-inferiority of transcatheter valve implants in patients with a high or intermediate pre-operative predictive risk. With advances in our understanding of sutureless valves and their applicability to minimally invasive surgery, the invasiveness and trauma of surgery can be reduced with potential improvements in outcome. The strategy of care has radically changed over the last decade.

Aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses

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

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

Aortic valve disease is a prevalent disorder that affects approximately 2% of the general adult population. Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard treatment for symptomatic patients. This treatment has demonstrably proven to be both safe and effective. Over the last few decades, in an attempt to reduce surgical trauma, different minimally invasive approaches for aortic valve replacement have been developed and are now being increasingly utilized. A narrative review of the literature was carried out to describe the surgical techniques for minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and report the results from different experienced centers. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is associated with low perioperative morbidity, mortality and a low conversion rate to full sternotomy. Long-term survival appears to be at least comparable to that reported for conventional full sternotomy. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery, either with a partial upper sternotomy or a right anterior minithoracotomy provides early- and long-term benefits. Given these benefits, it may be considered the standard of care for isolated aortic valve disease.