Sutureless Versus Stented Valve in Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Annulus

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.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in a Real-World All-Comers Population

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR) using Edwards Intuity.

METHODS

A total of 215 patients underwent rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity at our institution. The median follow-up duration was 22 months (interquartile range, 8-36). Primary outcomes were overall survival, cumulative incidence of cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were early and 1-year hemodynamic performances of the bioprosthetic valve.

RESULTS

The mean age was 68.6 ± 10.5 years, and EuroSCORE II was 3.09 ± 4.5. The study population included 113 patients (52.6%) with bicuspid valves (24 patients with type 0 bicuspid valves), 20 patients (9.3%) with pure aortic regurgitation, and 3 patients (1.4%) with infective endocarditis. Isolated AVR was performed in 70 patients (32.4%) and concomitant procedures were performed in 146 patients (67.6%), including aorta surgery (42.3%) and mitral valve procedure (22.3%). Operative mortality was 2.8%. Complete atrioventricular block occurred in 12 patients, but most of them were transient and only 3 patients received permanent pacemaker implantation before discharge. Overall survival at 3 years was 92.3%. Early hemodynamic data showed mean pressure gradients of 15.5 ± 5.0 and 12.7 ± 4.2 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively. One-year hemodynamics were also excellent with mean pressure gradients of 14.7 ± 5.3 and 10.7 ± 3.6 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on a real-world all-comers population, rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity could be performed for various indications, including bicuspid valve, pure aortic regurgitation, and infective endocarditis, and the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were excellent.

Managing the challenge of a small aortic annulus in patients with severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Small aortic annulus (SAA) poses a challenge in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement - both surgical and transcatheter - since it has been associated with worse clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to comprehensively summarize the available evidence regarding the management of aortic stenosis in patients with SAA and discuss the current controversies as well as future perspectives in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

It is paramount to agree in a common definition for diagnosing and properly treating SAA patients, and for that purpose, multidetector computer tomography is essential. The results of recent trials led to the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement among patients of all the surgical-risk spectrum, and the choice of treatment (transcatheter, surgical) should be based on patient comorbidities, anatomical characteristics, and patient preferences.

Sutureless vs. rapid-deployment valve: a systemic review and meta-analysis for a direct comparison of intraoperative performance and clinical outcomes

Background

Sutureless and rapid-deployment valves are bioprostheses anchoring within the aortic annulus with few sutures, and they act as a hybrid of conventional surgical and transcatheter valves under aortic valve replacement. Considering that the 3F Enable valve is now off-market, the only two sutureless and rapid-deployment valves available on the world marketplace are the Perceval and Intuity valves. However, a direct comparison of the function of these two valves eludes researchers.

Purpose

Against this background, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the intraoperative performance and early clinical outcomes between the Perceval valve and the Intuity valve under sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement.

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases through PubMed/MEDLINE, OvidWeb, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from the establishment of the database to November 17, 2022, without language restriction) for studies comparing the sutureless valve (the Perceval) and the rapid-deployment valve (the Intuity) under aortic valve replacement. Our primary outcomes were early mortality and postoperative transvalvular pressure gradients. The secondary outcomes were defined to include aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time, paravalvular leak (any paravalvular leak, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak) after aortic valve replacement, need for pacemaker implantation, postoperative neurological events (stroke), and intensive care unit stay.

Results

This meta-analysis included ten non-randomized trials with 3,526 patients enrolled (sutureless group = 1,772 and rapid-deployment group = 1,754). Quality assessments were performed, with the mean scores of the studies reading 6.90 (SD = 0.99) out of 9 according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Compared with rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement, sutureless aortic valve replacement was associated with higher mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients postoperatively. In contrast, aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary time were needed less in sutureless aortic valve replacement vs. rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. There was no evidence of significant publication bias observed by the funnel plot and Egger's test.

Conclusions

For postoperative hemodynamics, sutureless aortic valve replacement was associated with increased mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients compared with rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. In sharp contrast, sutureless aortic valve replacement significantly reduced the amount of time needed for fixing the aortic cross-clamp and the cardiopulmonary bypass procedure.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022343884.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

KEY QUESTION

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

KEY FINDINGS

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

KEY OUTCOMES

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

Extent of Left Ventricular Mass Regression and Impact of Global Left Ventricular Afterload on Cardiac Events and Mortality after Aortic Valve Replacement

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) causes a high transvalvular pressure gradient and residual left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, consequently influencing long-term results. This study aimed to find the relationships between hemodynamic parameters and LV mass regression and determine the risk predictors of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis. Methods and Results: Preoperative and postoperative Doppler echocardiography data were evaluated for 120 patients after AVR. The patients' mean age was 67.7 years; 55% of the patients were male. Forty-four (37%) patients suffered from MACCE during a mean follow-up period of 3.6 ± 2 years. The following hemodynamic parameters at follow-up were associated with lower relative indexed LV mass (LVMI) regression: lower postoperative indexed effective orifice area, greater mean transvalvular pressure gradient (MPG), greater stroke work loss (SWL), and concentric or eccentric LV remodeling mode. The following hemodynamic parameters at follow-up were associated with a higher risk of MACCE: higher valvuloarterial impedance (Z_VA), greater SWL, greater MPG, greater relative wall thickness, greater LVMI, and hypertrophic LV remodeling mode. Lower relative LVMI regression was associated with a higher risk of MACCE (hazard ratio, 1.01: 95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.03). The corresponding cutoff of relative LVMI regression was -14%. Conclusions: Changes in hemodynamic parameters were independently associated with relative LVMI regression. Impaired reverse remodeling and persistent residual LV hypertrophy were independent risk predictors of MACCE. An LVMI regression lower than 14% indicated higher MACCE. A postoperative Z_VA greater than 3.5 mmHg/mL/m² was an independent risk predictor of cardiac events and mortality after AVR. Preventive strategies should be used at the time of the operation to avoid PPM.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with a small aortic annulus: performance of supra-, intra- and infra-annular transcatheter heart valves

BACKGROUND

A small aortic annulus is associated with increased risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Whether specific transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs yield superior hemodynamic performance in these small anatomies remains unclear.

METHODS

Data from 8411 consecutive patients treated with TAVI from May 2012 to April 2019 at four German centers were retrospectively evaluated. A small aortic annulus was defined as multidetector computed tomography-derived annulus area < 400 mm². TAVI was performed with a balloon-expanding intra-annular (Sapien-3, n = 288), self-expanding intra-annular (Portico, n = 110), self-expanding supra-annular (Evolut, n = 179 and Acurate-Neo, n = 428) and mechanically expanding infra-annular (Lotus, n = 64) THV according to local practice. PPM was defined as indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.85cm²/m².

RESULTS

A small annulus was found in 1069 (12.7%) patients. PPM was detected in 38.3% overall with a higher prevalence after implantation of a balloon-expanding intra-annular or mechanically expanding infra-annular THV compared to self-expanding intra- and supra-annular THV. Multivariable analysis linked self-expanding THV (Evolut: Odds ratio [OR] 0.341, Acurate-Neo: OR 0.436, Portico: OR 0.291), postdilatation (OR 0.648) and age (OR 0.968) to lower rates of PPM, while aortic valve calcification was associated with an increased risk (OR 1.001). Paravalvular regurgitation > mild was more frequent after TAVI with self-expanding THV (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In this large contemporary multicenter patient population, a substantial number of patients with a small aortic anatomy were left with PPM after TAVI. Self-expanding supra- and intra-annular THV demonstrated superior hemodynamics in these patients at risk, however at the cost of higher rates of residual paravalvular regurgitation.

Surgical aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus

BACKGROUND

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the standard of treatment for severe aortic stenosis, a small aortic annulus (SAA) poses significant challenges. Improvements in valve designs and evolution in surgical techniques have led to improved outcomes, however, the ideal prosthetic valve remains elusive.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature review to discuss the surgical management of aortic stenosis, with a special focus on patients with SAA.

RESULTS

Stentless valves and root replacement techniques have been shown to overcome the hemodynamic challenges associated with conventional stented bioprostheses, but are technically challenging and require longer cross-clamp times. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves mitigate the long operative time while maintaining the hemodynamic advantages. The use of transcatheter AVR has emerged as another reasonable alternative and has shown promise among patients with SAA, however, long-term outcomes are awaited.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus regarding the type of valve prosthesis or replacement technique among patients with SAA. Consideration of patient comorbidities and valvular anatomy is paramount in planning the optimal strategy for AVR. Further long-term clinical trials are necessary to assess outcomes and achieve progress toward the development of the ideal prosthesis.

Direct comparison of rapid deployment versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis

Background

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the procedural and early outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using rapid deployment valve (RD group) versus sutureless valve (SU group).

Methods

A literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were mean transvalvular pressure gradient (MPG) after AVR, the incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL) and the need for a permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The secondary outcomes included aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, early mortality and other postoperative complications, such as atrial fibrillation, bleeding reoperation and stroke.

Results

Eight articles were included, and all outcomes except MPG after AVR in matched valve sizes were extracted from 7 studies (RD group =842 patients and SU group =1,386 patients). The pooled analysis demonstrated a lower MPG in the RD group than in the SU group, with mean difference (MD) of 2.64 mmHg. The pooled risk ratios of any PVL and grade ≥2 (or moderate) PVL were not significantly different between the groups; however, the incidence of PPI was significantly lower in the RD group than in the SU group, with a risk ratio of 0.69. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly longer in the RD group than in the SU group, with weighted MDs of 8.74 (P<0.001) and 9.94 (P<0.001) minutes, respectively. The risks of early mortality and other postoperative complications were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

AVR using RD valve was associated with better valve hemodynamics in terms of the MPG than AVR using SU valve, and better outcomes were observed in the RD group regarding PPI. Procedural times were longer in AVR using RD valve than SU valve. Early clinical outcomes showed no difference between RD and SU valve.

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.

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.

Determinants of effective orifice area in aortic valve replacement: anatomic and clinical factors

Background

Obtaining adequate effective orifice area (EOA) in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is important to minimize pressure gradients across the prosthetic aortic valve (AV) and improve clinical outcomes. However, the predictors of EOA are unclear.

Methods

From July 2011 to March 2016, patients undergoing SAVR who were preoperatively evaluated using a computed tomography (CT) on the aortic root were enrolled. Indexed EOA (iEOA) was used as an indicator of prosthetic AV opening area. The aortic root parameters investigated were the annular diameter (max and min), annular perimeter, annular area, and maximal dimensions of the proximal ascending aorta. These variables were evaluated as predictors of EOA, and an individual surgeon was incorporated in analysis for verifying surgeon dependent factors.

Results

Among the 710 patients included in this study [age: 64.9±10.8 years; females: n=285 (40.1%)], 370 (52.1%) were implanted with bio-prosthesis. Mean prosthetic iEOA was 1.1±0.3 cm²/m². Univariable linear regression analysis showed that all indexed aortic root parameters (maximal and minimal annular diameters, annular perimeter, annular area, and sinus dimensions) were significantly associated with iEOA (P<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that indexed aortic annular area, indexed maximal diameter of the Valsalva sinus, female sex, and bio-prosthesis, supra-annular type prosthesis and surgeon were significant and independent determinants of iEOA (adjusted R²=0.513, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Aortic annular area and Valsalva sinus diameter are independent determinants for iEOA measured by preoperative CT; surgeon-dependent factors are also significant determinants in SAVR.

Safety and Haemodynamic Outcomes of Currently Available Suture-less Aortic Valves in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Suture-less aortic valves aim to achieve better outcomes and to aid and facilitate the minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedure by tackling the issue of cross-clamp time, which is an independent predictor of postoperative outcomes, especially in patients with serious comorbidities. By reducing the number of sutures, the time for suture placement is reduced. Our meta-analysis tried to assess the safety and haemodynamic performance of the suture-less aortic valve prostheses to ascertain their benefits as a viable alternative to current established measures.

METHOD

From their inceptions to February 2017, six electronic databases were searched. Relevant studies using commercially accessible suture-free valves to replace the aortic valve have been recognised. Based on the predefined endpoints, data were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

For incorporation in qualitative and quantitative analyses, 24 studies were recognised, with a total number of 5,073 patients undergoing suture-less aortic valve replacement. Mortality incidence at the 30-day and 12-month follow-ups were 2.5% and 2.7%, respectively, while the incidences of thromboembolic events (1.6%) and paravalvular leak (0.5%) were acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Current available evidence indicates that sutureless aortic valve replacement is a safe operation showing low mortality and complication rates, with satisfactory haemodynamic performance.

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 in Elderly Patients With Small Aortic Annulus: Results With Three Different Bioprostheses

Objectives

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with small aortic annulus (diameter ≤21 mm) is considered a challenging scenario because of technical aspects and the high risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). The choice of the appropriate prosthesis is crucial, and at the moment, an ideal device has yet to be identified. We compare clinical and hemodynamic results after AVR with three bioprostheses with different design and characteristics.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 76 consecutive patients from two cardiac surgery centers who underwent AVR (Trifecta = 24; Edwards INTUITY Elite valve system = 26, and Perceval = 26) for severe aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2017. Patients selected were older than 75 years and with an annulus diameter ≤21 mm at preoperative echocardiogram. Reinterventions and combined procedures were excluded. Minimally invasive AVR was performed in 44 (57.8%) patients. Telephonic interview was obtained at 2.9 ± 0.5 years and echocardiographic follow-up at 2.2 ± 0.8 years.

Results

Clinical outcome was similar in the three groups. At follow-up, Trifecta patients presented significantly higher peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients ( P = 0.04 and 0.01). Effective orifice area and left ventricular mass regression were comparable, although an advantage was observed in Perceval patients without reaching the statistical significance. Incidence of moderate ( P = 0.2) and severe PPM ( P = 0.7) was comparable.

Conclusions

Despite higher postoperative pressure gradients observed with the Trifecta valve, all three prostheses (Trifecta, Edwards INTUITY Elite, and Perceval) have proven to be reliable when implanted in small aortic annuli, with good clinical outcome and favorable left ventricular mass regression.

Stented versus Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Small Aortic Root

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare hemodynamic and perioperative outcomes of stented against stentless aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic root (21 mm or less).

Methods

A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing stentless to stented bioprosthetic valves in small aortic root patients. Odds ratios, weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were analyzed.

Results

A total of seven studies with a total of 965 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in preoperative baselines including mean age between both groups ( P = 0.08), peak aortic valve gradient ( P = 0.06), and effective orifice area ( P = 0.28), whereas higher mean aortic valve gradient in the stented group ( P = 0.007). No difference in cardiopulmonary bypass time ( P = 0.74), aortic cross-clamp times ( P = 0.88), intensive care unit stay ( P = 0.13), and stroke rate ( P = 0.56) were noted. However, stented group of patients showed higher rate of patient prosthesis mismatch ( P = 0.0001) and longer total hospital stay ( P = 0.002). Postoperatively, stentless group showed lower peak and mean aortic valve gradient ( P = 0.003 and P = 0.008, respectively) with a better effective orifice area ( P < 0.00001) at 6 months of follow-up. Mortality rates while in-hospital and at 1 year were similar in both groups ( P = 0.94 and P = 0.86, respectively).

Conclusions

Stentless aortic valves offer superior short-term hemodynamic outcomes in patients with small aortic root when compared with stented aortic valves. Although both groups have similar perioperative complications rates, stentless valves bring about a shorter hospital stay. A further large multicenter randomized controlled trial should address the longer-term benefit of stentless aortic valve over stented valve.

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.

Can Perceval sutureless valve reduce the rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch?†

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to compare the theoretical incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in patients undergoing a sutureless or a sutured aortic valve replacement using an exact statistical matching.

METHODS

Between May 2012 and March 2016, 65 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis underwent a sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval bioprosthesis in 2 centres. Moreover, 177 aortic valve replacements with conventional sutured bioprosthesis were performed between August 2003 and September 2015. Perceval and sutured patients were 1:1 exactly matched for sex and body surface area (BSA), resulting in 62 couples (sutureless: BSA 1.77 ± 0.16 m 2 , female 62.9% vs sutured: BSA 1.77 ± 0.15 m 2 , female 62.9%).

RESULTS

After matching, the indexed effective orifice area was 1.50 ± 0.18 cm 2 /m 2 and 0.81 ± 0.19 cm 2 /m 2 in the sutureless and the sutured group, respectively ( P  < 0.001). No PPM occurred in patients who received a Perceval bioprosthesis ( n  = 62). In the sutured group ( n  = 62), 38 patients (61.3%) developed a PPM, which was moderate in 41.9% ( n  = 26) and severe in 19.4% ( n  = 12) ( P  < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The indexed effective orifice area of the sutureless group was significantly larger than in the sutured one. The incidence of PPM with the conventional sutured biprosthesis was 61.3%, while it decreases to 0% in the sutureless group. No PPM was reported in the sutureless valve group. Therefore, the Perceval sutureless valve provides larger effective orifice areas compared to the sutured conventional bioprosthesis and could be considered as a good option to reduce the risk of a PPM.

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.

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.

Transcatheter Valve Underexpansion Limits Leaflet Durability: Implications for Valve-in-Valve Procedures

Transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) implantation within a failed bioprosthetic valve is a growing trend for high-risk patients. The non-compliant stent of the previous prosthesis may prevent full expansion of the TAV, which has been shown to distort the leaflet configuration, and has been hypothesized to adversely affect durability. In this study, TAV leaflet fatigue damage under cyclic pressurization in the setting of stent underexpansion by 0 (fully expanded), 1, 2 and 3 mm was simulated using finite element analysis to test this hypothesis. In the 2 and 3 mm underexpanded devices, the TAV leaflets exhibited severe pin-wheeling during valve closure, which increased leaflet stresses dramatically, and resulted in accelerated fatigue damage of the leaflets. The leaflet fatigue damage in the 1 mm underexpanded case was similar to that in the fully expanded case. Clinically a range of 10-15% underexpansion is generally considered acceptable; however, it was observed in this study that ≥2 mm (≥9.1%) underexpansion, will significantly impact device durability. Further study is necessary to determine the impact of various deployment conditions, i.e. non-uniform and non-circular deployments and different implantation heights, on differing TAV devices, but it is clear that the normal TAV leaflet configuration must be preserved in order to preserve durability.