Sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: results from a multicentric registry

Sutureless Valves, a "Wireless" Option for Patients With Aortic Valve Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter technologies triggered the recent revision of the guidelines that progressively widened the indications for the treatment of aortic stenosis. On the surgical realm, a technology avoiding the need for sutures to anchor the prosthesis to the aortic annulus has been developed with the aim to reduce the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and simplify the process of valve implantation. In addition to a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-like stent that exerts a radial force, these so-called "rapid deployment valves" or "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement also have cuffs to improve sealing and reduce the risk of paravalvular leak. Despite promising, the actual advantage of sutureless valves over traditional surgical procedures (surgical aortic valve replacement) or TAVR is still debated. This review summarizes the current comparative evidence reporting outcomes of "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement to TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

Rapid deployment aortic valve implantation in complex patients with infective endocarditis or aortic valve insufficiency

BACKGROUND

New prosthetic valves and surgical approaches that shorten operation time and improve the outcome of patients with aortic valve (AV) infective endocarditis (IE) and AV insufficiency (AVI) are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with AV IE or AVI treated with the EDWARDS INTUITY Rapid-Deployment AV prosthesis for this off-label indication.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective study analyzed data from patients who underwent AV replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Rapid-Deployment AV prosthesis for AV IE or regurgitation. (n = 8 for IE and n = 6 for AVI).

RESULTS

Heart-lung machine times were significantly shorter in the AVI group (111.3 ± 20.7 min) compared to the IE group (171.9 ± 52.4 min) (p = 0.02). Aortic cross-clamp followed a similar trend (73.7 ± 9.9 min for AVI vs. 113.4 ± 35.6 min for IE) (p = 0.02). The length of ICU stay was also shorter in the AVI group (3.8 ± 2.6 days) compared to the IE group (16.9 ± 8.9 days) (p = 0.005). Postoperative echocardiography revealed no paravalvular leakage or significant valvular dysfunction in any patient. One patient died postoperatively from aspiration pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

The INTUITY valve demonstrates as a safe option for complex AV IE and AVI surgery. Further prospective studies with larger patient cohorts are necessary to confirm these findings and explore the long-term benefits of this approach.

Aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprosthesis in case of infective endocarditis: a literature review

Purpose

Recently, the use of rapid deployment (RD) aortic valve prostheses has been introduced for the treatment of aortic valve replacement (AVR), showing excellent hemodynamic performances.According to these data, some groups have proposed new RD valves as an alternative solution in the case of infective aortic endocarditis (IAE) to reduce the use of foreign materials, and the manipulation of the annulus.The aim of this review is to report the results of early clinical experiences with the use of RD bioprostheses in the case of IAE, in order to discuss technical and clinical aspects of this emerging strategy to better elucidate its advantages and limitations as a potential therapeutic solution.

Methods

An in-depth search of PubMed from January to March 2023 was performed. English-language articles were selected independently by authors following the criteria in order to consider all available experiences (full papers, case reports, and case series) that have investigated the use of RD in case of IAE.

Results

The use of rapid deployment bioprosthesis represents a bailout strategy in case of severe aortic valve endocarditis and should be evaluated with caution in selected cases. This review collects the first, initial, and pioneering experiences of the use of the RD prosthesis in case of infective endocarditis, particularly when the fragility of the annular tissues precludes a secure anchoring of sutured prostheses.The reduced use of foreign materials by minimizing the number of stitches, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times, and the excellent hemodynamic performances associated with the use of RD bioprosthesis represent the most important advantages that could justify their use in the setting of aortic valve endocarditis.

Conclusion

Although there are few anecdotal experiences, surgical aortic valve replacement with the use of RD represents an emerging strategy in case of aortic valve endocarditis. Its advantages, pros, and cons are under debate, and robust clinical trials are needed to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Single-Center Real-World Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Isolated and Combined Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Due to their favourable hemodynamic performance and the ability to enable minimally invasive access procedures, sutureless aortic valve prostheses have found their place in the armamentarium of cardiothoracic surgeons. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients who underwent an SU-AVR with a Perceval valve between December 2019 and February 2023.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 69.3 ± 8.1 years, and patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a mean logistic EuroSCORE-II of 5.2 ± 8.1%. An isolated SU-AVR was performed in 85 (42.5%) patients, concomitant CABG was performed in 75 (37.5%) and 40 patients (20%) underwent a multivalve procedure involving SU-AVR. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp (CC) times were 82.1 ± 35.1 and 55.5 ± 27.8 min, respectively. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 4.5%, 6.5%, 7.5% and 8.2%, respectively. The postoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradient was 6.3 ± 1.6 mmHg and stayed stable over the follow-up time. We reported no cases of paravalvular leakage, and the incidence of stroke was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

With their favourable hemodynamic performance and shorter CC and CPB times, sutureless aortic valve prostheses facilitate minimally invasive access surgery, being a safe and durable promising approach for the surgical AVR.

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.

Conventional Biological versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Prostheses in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have proven to provide a significant decrease in procedural, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, leading to a significant reduction in mortality risk in elderly high-risk cohorts. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience on the sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and the concomitant mitral valve replacement (SMVR), comparing the combined conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with SMVR.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Between March 2018 and July 2022, 114 consecutive patients underwent a combined aortic and mitral valve replacement at our institution. We stratified the patients according to the operative procedures into two groups and matched them 1:2: Group 1 underwent a combined conventional SAVR and SMVR (n = 46), and Group 2 included combined SU-AVR with Perceval prosthesis and SMVR (n = 23).

RESULTS

No significant differences in the preoperative characteristics were present. SU-AVR combined with SMVR demonstrated excellent haemodynamic performance, comparable to that of SAVR plus SMVR, with median postoperative gradients over the aortic valve of 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 1 and 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 2 (p = 0.67). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative major adverse events such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction and kidney failure between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the permanent pacemaker implantation rate, paravalvular leakage or valve dislocation. We also could not detect any significant difference in postoperative mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SU-AVR has proven to be a reliable alternative to conventional valve prostheses in patients with multivalve disease undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, offering shorter procedural time and outstanding hemodynamic performance compared to the conventional surgical method.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Sutureless or rapid deployment valves in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging surgical technique using the transcatheter valve technology, which may lead to reduction in cross-clamp time and potentially better hemodynamics compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve. The absence of subannular pledgets results to excellent hemodynamic performance with reduced turbulent flow and larger effective orifice area. However, complications from both surgical and transcatheter AVR may still occur and impact survival. The incidence of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation are not low. Although technical modifications can improve these outcomes, there is a learning curve effect. Therefore, technical and anatomical considerations as well as better patient selection are paramount for better outcomes. In this review, we discuss the use of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in setting of (1) complex procedures, (2) minimally invasive AVR, and (3) small aortic annulus. The advantage of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in terms of mortality remains to be clarified; therefore, it is necessary to accumulate long-term outcomes in an appropriate patient cohort.

Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Intuity Bioprosthesis Through a Right Lateral Approach

Robotic technology offers excellent visualization and surgical precision but has not been established for aortic valve surgery. We present the first 2 cases of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent successful robotic aortic valve replacement using a lateral approach and the Edwards Intuity® rapid-deployment bioprosthesis. Postoperative recovery was excellent, and both patients were discharged home on the fourth postoperative day. We believe this approach is valuable for robotic aortic valve replacement and may help to finally bridge the gap into routine clinical use, becoming a valuable option for the surgical treatment of the aortic valve in selected patients.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in pure aortic regurgitation: expanding the indications

Background

In the era of transcatheter methods, patients presenting with a pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are not considered eligible for transcatheter treatment and therefore require another less invasive surgical option. We sought to review our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in patients presenting with symptomatic pure AR, which until now is a contraindication for implementation of sutureless valve prostheses in Europe.

Methods

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 80 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. We analyzed the outcomes and postoperative complications of 12 patients presenting with a pure severe AR undergoing SU-AVR using Perceval (Corcym).

Results

The mean age of the patients was 67 ± 9.1 years old. All patients presented with symptomatic pure AR. Patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the mean EuroSCORE-II of 3.6 ± 2.6%. Six patients (50%) underwent a concomitant CABG procedure. The mean operating- and cross clamp time was 127.25 ± 45.9 and 40.33 ± 17.3 min respectively. All isolated SU-AVR were performed via J-sternotomy or right anterolateral thoracotomy. There were no cases of device dislocation. No patients presented with a paravalvular leakage. We observed excellent mean postoperative pressure gradient at follow-up 5.7 ± 1.5 mmHg.

Conclusions

Our experience with SU-AVR shows the feasibility of sutureless technologies in the aortic valve surgery due to pure AR. Besides the great technical success and excellent hemodynamics, SU-AVR in severe AR offers a great opportunity of reducing the invasivity of the surgical procedure and potentially reducing hospital cost without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay.

Non-Inferiority of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in the TAVR Era: David versus Goliath

BACKGROUND

The rapid development of transcatheter treatment methods has made transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) a feasible alternative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recently, indications for TAVR have been expanded to intermediate- and low-risk patients, although there still remains a portion of ineligible patients. We sought to evaluate and compare our experience with sutureless SAVR and transapical TAVR in the "grey-area" of patients unsuitable for transfemoral access.

METHODS

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 248 consecutive patients underwent a sutureless SAVR (SU-SAVR) or TA-TAVR at our institution. We performed a pair-matched analysis and identified 56 patient pairs based on the EuroSCORE II. All transcatheter procedures were performed using SAPIEN XT/3™ prostheses, while all surgical procedures deployed the Perceval (LivaNova) aortic valve.

RESULTS

All patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the median EuroSCORE-II of 3.1% (IQR 1.9-5.3). Thirty-four patients from the surgical group (60.7%) underwent a concomitant myocardial revascularization. There was no significant difference in major adverse events, pacemaker implantation or postoperative mortality during follow-up. Both interventions demonstrated technical success with similar mean postoperative pressure gradients at follow-up and no cases of paravalvular leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement constitutes a feasible treatment alternative for patients with aortic valve disease who are ineligible for transfemoral access route and/or require concomitant coronary revascularization. With its excellent hemodynamic performance, similar survival compared to TA-TAVR, and high cost-efficiency without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay SU-AVR might be considered for patients in the "grey-area" between TAVR and SAVR.

The Aortic Annulus Stabilization Technique Prevents Paravalvular Leaks after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment bioprosthesis guarantees good hemodynamic results but carries the risk of paravalvular leaks. To address this issue, an annulus stabilization technique has been recently developed.

METHODS

Clinical and hemodynamic parameters from patients treated for aortic valve replacement with the rapid deployment bioprosthesis and a concomitant annulus stabilization technique were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Echocardiographic data at discharge and at 1-year follow-up were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients (mean age 74.3 ± 6.1 years) with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement with the rapid deployment bioprosthesis and concomitant annulus stabilization technique (mean valve size: 23.8 ± 1.9 mm). Combined procedures accounted for 56.1%. Hospital mortality was 1.8% and a new pacemaker for conduction abnormalities was implanted in 10 patients. The pre-discharge echocardiographic control showed absence of paravalvular leaks of any degree in all patients with mean valve gradient of 9.6 ± 4.0 mmHg. The 1-year echocardiographic control confirmed the good valve hemodynamic (mean gradient of 8.0 ± 2.8 mmHg) and absence of leaks.

CONCLUSION

In this preliminary clinical experience, the annulus stabilization technique prevents postoperative paravalvular leaks after rapid deployment aortic valve implantation, up to 1-year postoperatively. Studies on larger series are of paramount importance to confirm the long-term efficacy of this new surgical technique.