Sutureless aortic valve replacement may improve early mortality compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A meta-analysis of comparative studies

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.

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.

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.

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.

AIM

We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ² and t-test.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.

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.

Are Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves a Serious Alternative to TA-TAVI? A Matched-Pairs Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement with expanding indication extending to low-risk patients. Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valves were developed to decrease procedural risks in conventional treatment. This paired-match analysis aims to compare patients undergoing surgical transcatheter aortic valve implantation to sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective database analysis between 2010 and 2016 revealed 214 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures through surgical access (predominantly transapical) and 62 sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve procedures including 26 patients in need of concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery. After matching, 52 pairs of patients were included and analyzed.

RESULTS

In-hospital death (5.8% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.308) was comparable between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (mean age 77 ± 4.3 years) and sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation groups (mean age 75 ± 4.0 years), including 32 females in each group. The logistic EuroSCORE was similar (19 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 10; p = 0.257). Postoperative renal failure (p = 0.087) and cerebrovascular accidents (p = 0.315) were without significant difference. The incidence of complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker treatment was relatively low for both groups (1.9% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.169) for TAVI and sutureless and rapid-deployment valves respectively. Intraoperative use of blood transfusion was higher in the sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation group (0.72 U vs. 1.46 U, p = 0.014). Estimated survival calculated no significant difference between both groups after 6 months (transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 74 ± 8% vs. sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation: 92 ± 5%; log rank p = 0.097).

CONCLUSION

Since sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation is as safe and effective as transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, combining the advantage of standard diseased-valve removal with shorter procedural times, sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement may be considered as an alternative for patients with elevated operative risk considered to be in the "gray zone" between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conventional surgery, especially if concomitant myocardial revascularization is required.

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses

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

Recent advances in aortic valve replacement

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Diastolic mitral regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Incidence, predictors, and association with clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Diastolic mitral regurgitation (DMR) results from atrioventricular conduction disturbances, acute aortic regurgitation, and/or marked elevation of left ventricular filling pressure. Generally benign, in some clinical circumstances DMR has presumed to result in hemodynamic decompensation. The aforementioned causes of DMR are frequently encountered in patients treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) but its clinical significance in this setting has not been studied. We sought to investigate the incidence of DMR and its prognostic implications following TAVR.

METHODS

Baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables from a prospective TAVR registry were analyzed to determine the correlates of post-procedural DMR and its impact on late outcomes (all-cause mortality and the composite of mortality and readmission due to heart failure).

RESULTS

Of 267 patients undergoing TAVR, post-procedural DMR was present in 25 (9.3%). Independent predictors of DMR included pacemaker implantation [OR=2.7 (95%CI 1.03-6.50)], post-procedural systolic MR and aortic regurgitation [OR=3.7 (1.20-10.80) and OR=4.1 (1.50-10.60), respectively], and use of self-expanding bioprostheses [OR=4.9 (1.60-21.0)]. The incidence of the combined endpoint of death and/or readmission for heart failure was higher in patients with versus those without DMR (25% vs. 41%, respectively, p=0.08), although this association did not attain statistical significance on multivariable analyses. Interaction term analysis indicated a trend toward a heightened risk for the composite endpoint among patients with post-procedural aortic regurgitation (≥moderate) in whom DMR occurred (χ² 2.94, p=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Although DMR following TAVR is common (occurring in approximately 1 of 10 patients), it is not independently associated with an increased risk of death and/or readmission for heart failure. Therefore, DMR post TAVR is more likely a marker of cardiac dysfunction than a causative factor.

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies

BACKGROUND

With improving technologies and an increasingly elderly populations, there have been an increasing number of therapeutic options available for patients requiring aortic valve replacement. Recent evidence suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one suitable option for high risk inoperable patients, as well as high risk operable patients. Sutureless valve technology has also been developed concurrently, with facilitates surgical aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) by allow resection and replacement of the native aortic valve with minimal sutures and prosthesis anchoring required. For patients amenable for both TAVI and SUAVR, the evidence is unclear with regards to the benefits and risks of either approach. The objectives are to compare the perioperative outcomes and intermediate-term survival rates of TAVI and SUAVR in matched or propensity score matched studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to include all matched or propensity score matched studies comparing SUAVR versus TAVI for severe aortic stenosis. A meta-analysis with odds ratios (OR) and mean differences were performed to compare key outcomes including paravalvular regurgitation and short and intermediate term mortality.

RESULTS

Six studies met our inclusion criteria giving a total of 741 patients in both the SUAVR and TAVI arm of the study. Compared to TAVI, SUAVR had a lower incidence of paravalvular leak (OR =0.06; 95% CI: 0.03-0.12, P<0.01). There was no difference in perioperative mortality, however SUAVR patients had significantly better survival rates at 1 (OR =2.40; 95% CI: 1.40-4.11, P<0.01) and 2 years (OR =4.62; 95% CI: 2.62-8.12, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study supports the use of minimally invasive SUAVR as an alternative to TAVI in high risk patients requiring aortic replacement. The presented results require further validation in prospective, randomized controlled studies.

Valve-in-Valve Replacement Using a Sutureless Aortic Valve

BACKGROUND We present a unique case of a 61-year-old female patient with homograft deterioration after redo surgery for prosthetic valve endocarditis with root abscess. CASE REPORT The first operation was performed for type A dissection with root, arch, and elephant trunk replacement of the thoracic aorta. The present re-redo surgery was performed as valve-in-valve with a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on day 6. CONCLUSIONS The current case report demonstrates that sutureless bioprostheses are an attractive option for surgical valve-in-valve procedures, which can reduce morbidity and mortality.