One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: A prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System

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.

Innovations in Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Overview of the Intuity Rapid Deployment Valve

Rapid deployment/sutureless (RDS) valves have recently emerged as an innovative surgical solution, providing an alternative to traditional methods of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by eliminating the need for suture placement and tying. This innovation leads to a reduction in aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, enhancing the efficiency of the procedure. Among the 2 available RDS valves, the Edwards Intuity valve in particular has been demonstrated to be a particularly promising substitute in the field of SAVR. The Intuity valve distinguishes itself from other RDS and conventional valves by yielding superior outcomes, such as a significant reduction in mortality, increase in the longevity of the valve, and a marked decrease in both mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients. These benefits collectively contribute to its appeal as a favorable new solution. However, further investigation is needed to conclusively determine the long-term outcomes and safety of RDS valves. Nevertheless, the utilization of the Intuity valve presents an exciting solution to the existing limitations of conventional and minimally invasive SAVR, especially for patients afflicted with severe aortic stenosis.

Comparable Outcomes of Bicuspid Aortic Valves for Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Edwards Intuity is recognized as a relatively contraindicated bioprosthesis for bicuspid aortic valve disease. This study compared the early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves.

Methods

Of 278 patients who underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement using Intuity at Seoul National University Hospital, 252 patients were enrolled after excluding those with pure aortic regurgitation, prosthetic valve failure, endocarditis, and quadricuspid valves. The bicuspid and tricuspid groups included 147 and 105 patients, respectively. Early outcomes and the incidence of paravalvular leak were compared between the groups. A subgroup analysis compared the outcomes for type 0 versus type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves.

Results

The bicuspid group had more male and younger patients. Comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease, were less prevalent in the bicuspid group. Early echocardiographic evaluations demonstrated that the incidence of ≥mild paravalvular leak did not differ significantly between the groups (5.5% vs. 1.0% in the bicuspid vs. tricuspid groups, p=0.09), and the early clinical outcomes were also comparable between the groups. In the subgroup analysis between type 0 and type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves, the incidence of mild or greater paravalvular leak (2.4% vs. 6.7% in type 0 vs. type 1 or 2, p=0.34) and clinical outcomes were comparable.

Conclusion

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valves demonstrated comparable early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes to those for tricuspid aortic valves, and the outcomes were also satisfactory for type 0 bicuspid aortic valves.

Outcomes in Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

Increased rates of postoperative left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) frequently occur after implantation of rapid deployment valves. The impact of LBBB on follow-up outcomes remains controversial. So far, no data regarding long-term outcomes exist.

AIM

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of LBBB on postoperative outcomes after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR).

METHODS

A total of 620 consecutive patients without preexisting LBBB or PPI who underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2019 were included. New-onset LBBB was defined as any new LBBB that persisted at hospital discharge. The median follow-up time for clinical data was 1.7 years post-RDAVR.

RESULTS

At discharge, new-onset LBBB was seen in 109 patients (17.5%). There were no differences between the LBBB groups and no-LBBB groups regarding baseline characteristics. At a median follow-up of 1.7 years, no difference was found between LBBB groups and no-LBBB groups concerning all-cause mortality (12.8 vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.53; p = 0.54). Nevertheless, new-onset LBBB was associated with significant higher pacemaker implantation rates at follow-up (10.1 vs. 6.3%; HR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.89-6.81 p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

After a median follow-up of 1.7 years, new-onset LBBB was not associated with increased mortality. Nevertheless, higher pacemaker implantation rates were observed in patients with new-onset LBBB after RDAVR.

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.

Early-Term Results of Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement versus Standard Bioprosthesis Implantation Combined with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

OBJECTIVES

Aortic stenosis is highly prevalent among patients with concomitant coronary artery disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting is usually the treatment of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome and hemodynamic results of the implantation of rapid-deployment valves (Rapid-Deployment Edwards Intuity Valve System [RDAVR]) versus conventional sutured valves (CSAVR) in combined surgery.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and January 2017, 120 patients underwent replacement via RDAVR and 133 patients underwent replacement using CSAVR with concomitant coronary bypass grafting. Clinical and echocardiographic data were compared.

RESULTS

The mean age was 76 ± 7 for RDAVR patients and 74 ± 6 years for CSAVR patients (p = 0.054); 48% in the RDAVR group were female versus 17% in the CSAVR group (p <0.002). Other characteristics such as diabetes mellitus, body-mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nicotine consumption, and extracardiac arteriopathy were similar. Coronary three-vessel disease was more common in the RDAVR group (42.5 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.017). Both mean EuroSCORE II (6.6 ± 5.4 vs. 4.3 ± 3.0, p = 0.001) and STS score (5.4 ± 4.4 vs. 3.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the RDAVR group. Mean cross-clamp time (82 ± 25 vs. 100 ± 30 minutes, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (119 ± 38 vs. 147 ± 53 minutes, p < 0.001) were shorter with RDAVR. The mean number of bypass grafts, length of hospital and ICU stays, and mechanical ventilation time were not statistically significant different. Hospital mortality was 2.5% for RDAVR and 9.7% for CSAVR (p = 0.019). There was a similar rate of stroke (5.8 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.990) and postoperative delirium (14.1 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.728). Mean gradients were 8.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg in the RDAVR group vs. 11.3 ± 4.6 mm Hg in the CSAVR group (p = 0.001) at discharge.

CONCLUSION

RDAVR combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) can be performed extremely safely. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times can be significantly reduced with rapid deployment aortic valve system in the scenario of combined CABG. RDAVR resulted in lower gradients than CSAVR in patients implanted with prostheses of the same size.

Conduction Disorders after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Using a Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Prosthesis: Medium-Term Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

We have previously reported that the incidence of postoperative conduction disorders, especially left bundle branch block (LBBB), after implantation of a rapid deployment Intuity™ Elite aortic valve prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA), was significantly increased compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. We were now interested in how these disorders behaved at intermediate follow-up.

METHODS

All 87 patients who had undergone surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using the rapid deployment Intuity™ Elite prosthesis and were shown to have conduction disorders at the time of hospital discharge were followed up after surgery. These patients' ECGs were recorded at least 1 year after surgery, and the persistence of the new postoperative conduction disorders was assessed.

RESULTS

At hospital discharge, 48.1% of the patients had developed new postoperative conduction disorders, with LBBB being the predominant conduction disturbance (36.5%). At medium-term follow-up (526 days, standard deviation (SD) = 169.6, standard error (SE) = 19.3 days, respectively), 44% of the new LBBB and 50% of the new right bundle branch block (RBBB) had disappeared. There was no new atrio-ventricular block III (AVB III) that occurred. One new pacemaker (PM) was implanted during follow-up because of AVB II Mobitz type II.

CONCLUSIONS

At medium-term follow-up after the implantation of a rapid deployment Intuity™ Elite aortic valve prosthesis, the number of new postoperative conduction disorders, especially LBBB, has considerably decreased but remains high. The incidence of postoperative AV block III remained stable.

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.

High Incidence of Transient Permanent Pacemaker Rate After Rapid Deployment Valve Replacement: Insights of a 9-Year Single-Centre Experience

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) remains debated. Expertise in this field has significantly increased over the last decade. This study aimed to investigate the need for PPI following implantation of a rapid deployment (RD) valve.

METHODS

Analysis of n=372 patients who underwent Edwards INTUITY (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n=251) and Perceval (Sorin/LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) (n=121) valve replacement at the current institution between May 2012 and August 2018 was performed. Coronary artery bypass graft procedures were additionally performed in patients with coronary artery disease. Baseline, preoperative and postoperative outcomes were examined regarding correctness and completeness of the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 23.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients (aged 75±6.3 yrs) with a high grade of aortic valve stenosis underwent either Edwards INTUITY (67%) or Perceval (33%) valve replacement. Seventy-six (76) patients (20%) presented with preoperative conduction disorders. Sixty (60) patients (16%) underwent PPI, which in most cases was performed during the first month after the initial operation. Follow-up was performed up to 9 years, presenting a persistent pacemaker dependency rate of 50% among all patients who underwent PPI. Twenty (20) (40%) PPI recipients showed no dependency on pacemaker, while 10 (10%) required temporary pacemaker support. Mean length of ICU stay was 4±5.1 days and in-hospital stay was 8.2±7.6 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPI after RD valve implantation still remains high compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. However, this study shows that this phenomenon appears to be transient in a significant proportion of the patients undergoing RD valve replacement. These findings might contribute to the scientific discussion and should be taken into consideration for the indication of RD valve replacement.

Pearls, pitfalls, and surgical indications of the Intuity TM heart valve: A rapid deployment bioprosthesis. A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To highlight short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the Intuity TM rapid deployment prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

We reviewed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, SciELO, LILACS, CCTR/CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for clinical trials, retrospective clinical studies, meta-analysis, and gray literature.

RESULTS

Fourty-five clinical studies with 12.714 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-day mortality ranged from 3.8% for Intuity and 3.9% for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 2.17%), permanent pacemaker implantation (Intuity 11.11% and TAVR 12.5%), stroke (Intuity 2.2% and TAVR 2.6%), myocardial infarction (MI) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 1%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other sutured bioprosthesis (SB), mortality ranged from 0% to 3.9% for Intuity and 0%-6.9% for SB. Long-term cardiac mortality ranged from 0.9% to 1.55% for Intuity and 1.4%-3.3% for the Perceval valve. The incidence of PVL (Intuity 0.24%-0.7% and Perceval 0%-1%), endocarditis (Intuity 0.2%-0.7% and Perceval 1.6%-6.6%), stroke (Intuity 0.36%-1.4% and Perceval 0%-0.8%), MI (Intuity 0.07%-0.26%), and SVD (Intuity 0.12%-0.7% and Perceval 0%) were comparable. Compared to standard full sternotomy (SFS), minimally invasive surgery (MINV) mortality ranged from 0% to 4.3% for MINV and 0%-2.1% for SFS. Hospital costs outcomes ranged from $37,187-$44,368 for the Intuity, $69,389 for TAVR, and $13,543 for SB. Intuity short-term mortality ranged between 0.9% and 12.4% while long-term mortality ranged between 2.6% and 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript provides a 360° overview of the current rapid deployments, sutureless, and TAVR prosthesis.

Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis of impact and force to identify key and facilitating advanced training

Background

The number of citations an article receives is a marker of its scientific influence within a particular specialty. This bibliometric analysis intended to recognise the top 100 cited articles in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery, to determine the fundamental subject areas that have borne considerable influence upon clinical practice and academic knowledge whilst also considering bibliometric scope. This is increasingly relevant in a continually advancing specialty and one where minimally-invasive cardiac procedures have the potential for huge benefits to patient outcomes.

Methods

The Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) data citation index database was searched with the following terms: [Minimal* AND Invasive* AND Card* AND Surg*]. Results were limited to full text English language manuscripts and ranked by citation number. Further analysis of the top 100 cited articles was carried out according to subject, author, publication year, journal, institution and country of origin.

Results

A total of 4716 eligible manuscripts were retrieved. Of the top 100 papers, the median (range) citation number was 101 (51–414). The most cited paper by Lichtenstein et al. (Circulation 114(6):591–596, 2006) published in Circulation with 414 citations focused on transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a viable alternative to aortic valve replacement with cardiopulmonary bypass in selected patients with aortic stenosis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery published the most papers and received the most citations (n = 35; 3036 citations). The United States of America had the most publications and citations (n = 52; 5303 citations), followed by Germany (n = 27; 2598 citations). Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, published the most papers of all institutions. Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery pertaining to valve surgery (n = 42) and coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 30) were the two most frequent topics by a large margin.

Conclusions

This work establishes a comprehensive and informative analysis of the most influential publications in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery and outlines what constitutes a citable article. Undertaking a quantitative evaluation of the top 100 papers aids in recognising the contributions of key authors and institutions as well as guiding future efforts in this field to continually improve the quality of care offered to complex cardiac patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable aortic bioprostheses in the elderly: a comparison between rapid deployment and transcatheter implantation

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid deployment valve (RDV) is a relatively recent treatment option. Aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable (BE)-RDVs and BE-transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in a high surgical risk and frail-elderly population.

METHODS

BE-THVs and BE-RDVs were respectively implanted in 138 and 47 patients, all older than 75 years and with a Canadian Study of Health and Aging category of 5 or above. Echocardiographic assessment was performed at discharge and at six months.

RESULTS

At discharge, transprosthetic pressure gradients and indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) were similar in both cohorts. At six-month follow-up, BE-RDV showed lower peak (14.69 vs 20.86 mmHg; p <0.001) and mean (7.82 vs 11.83 mmHg; p <0.001) gradients, as well as larger iEOA (1.05 vs 0.84 cm²/m²; p <0.001). Similar findings were also shown considering only small sized valves. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage was more prevalent in BE-THVs at discharge (14.49 vs 0.00%; p=0.032) and, considering exclusively small prostheses, at six months too (57.69 vs 15.00%; p=0.014). Nevertheless, BE-THVs determined amelioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (53.79 vs 60.14%; p <0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (35.81 vs 33.15 mmHg; p=0.042) and tricuspid regurgitation severity (40.58 vs 19.57%; p=0.031) from discharge to mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-RDVs showed better hemodynamic performance, especially when implanted in small annulus. Despite their worse baseline conditions, transcatheter patients still exhibited a greater improvement of their echocardiographic profile at mid-term follow-up.

Biomechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has grown exponentially within the cardiology and cardiac surgical spheres. It has now become a routine approach for treating aortic stenosis. Several concerns have been raised about TAVI in comparison to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The primary concerns regard the longevity of the valves. Several factors have been identified which may predict poor outcomes following TAVI. To this end, the lesser-used finite element analysis (FEA) was used to quantify the properties of calcifications which affect TAVI valves. This method can also be used in conjunction with other integrated software to ascertain the functionality of these valves. Other imaging modalities such as multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) are now widely available, which can accurately size aortic valve annuli. This may help reduce the incidence of paravalvular leaks and regurgitation which may necessitate further intervention. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) remains a key factor, with varying results from current studies. The true incidence of SVD in TAVI compared to SAVR remains unclear due to the lack of long-term data. It is now widely accepted that both are part of the armamentarium and are not mutually exclusive. Decision making in terms of appropriate interventions should be undertaken via shared decision making involving heart teams.

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.

Rhythm disturbances following rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement

Objectives

There have been reports of postoperative conduction disturbances after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. Our objective was to assess electrocardiogram changes in patients undergoing this procedure and review the literature on this topic.

Methods

In this retrospective case series, clinical data were extracted from patient records at St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne and the Australia New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons database. Electrocardiogram data were obtained at baseline and postoperatively on day 5 and at week 6 and reviewed for rhythm disturbances and intracardiac conduction problems. Pacemaker status was also recorded.

Results

From 2013 to 2017, 100 consecutive patients underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with 1 valve type at our institution. Three patients were excluded because of paced rhythm preoperatively, leaving 97 patients (mean age 74.7 ± 8.12 years; 56.7% male) for analysis. Some 18.6% of patients developed new left bundle branch block at 5 days postoperatively and only 4.1% of patients found with persistent left bundle branch block at 6-week follow-up compared with preoperatively. No significant changes were observed in the frequencies of atrial fibrillation, first-degree heart block, and right bundle branch block. However, there was evidence of increases in paced rhythm and subsequent need for a permanent pacemaker. A total of 14 patients (14.4%) had a permanent pacemaker implanted at an average of 11.1 ± 2.9 days postoperatively.

Conclusions

Rhythm disturbances and conduction abnormalities are noted with the rapid-deployment aortic valves used at our institution, but appear comparable to other rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement bioprostheses. These abnormalities may be related to the effect of the sub-annular stent frame of the valve system and implantation technique.

Effect of conventional and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement on the distance from the aortic annulus to coronary arteries

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) on coronary height in patients undergoing SAVR with rapid-deployment or SAVR with several standard sutured bioprostheses. This study may identify patients at higher risk of coronary obstruction during valve-in-valve procedures.

METHODS

We analysed 112 patients [mean age 71 (9 SD) years] who underwent SAVR with either a rapid-deployment aortic bioprosthesis (EDWARDS INTUITY Elite Valve) or other standard sutured biological valves. The coronary heights were assessed by computed tomography scan with the Philips 3D HeartNavigator system.

RESULTS

Two groups of patients were analysed: 51 (45.5%) patients implanted with an RD-AVR, which is a supra-annular valve that requires 3 anchoring sutures without the use of pledgets, and 61 (54.5%) patients implanted with a conventional supra-annular sutured bioprosthesis. The mean right and left coronary artery-to-annulus (RCAA and LCAA) heights at baseline were 16.9 (4.6 SD) and 14.2 (4.0 SD) mm in the standard sutured group and 16.3 (3.5 SD) and 12.8 (2.9 SD) mm in the RD-AVR group, respectively; a significantly shorter distance was observed for the left coronary artery in the rapid-deployment group (P = 0.420 for RCAA height and P = 0.044 for LCAA). Postoperatively, the mean RCAA and LCAA heights were significantly decreased in both groups compared to baseline. A mean of 11.5 (4.8 SD) mm for the RCAA and 7.9 (4.3 SD) mm for the LCAA in the standard sutured group as well as 14.4 (3.9 SD) mm for the RCAA and 9.0 (3.1 SD) mm for the LCAA in the RD-AVR group were observed (P < 0.001 for RCAA and LCAA in both the sutured and rapid-deployment groups). Despite the significant difference in the mean distance from the left coronary artery to annulus between the groups at baseline, the postoperative mean distance of the LCAA to the sewing ring was still higher in the RD-AVR group.

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly shorter coronary artery-to-aortic annulus distance for both the right and left main coronary arteries was observed after AVR with different conventional sutured supra-annular bioprostheses compared to AVR with rapid-deployment valves. These findings might be relevant for bioprosthesis selection, especially for young patients.

Mid-term outcomes of rapid deployment aortic prostheses in patients with small aortic annulus

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards Intuity valve is a rapid deployment aortic prosthesis that favours less invasive approaches. However, evidence about the clinical behaviour of their smaller sizes is scarce. Herein, we studied haemodynamic behaviours and clinical outcomes of small Intuity prostheses (19-21 mm) in comparison to larger Intuity prostheses (>21 mm).

METHODS

This is an observational study including patients implanted with an Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis. Patients with prosthesis sizes 19-21 and >21 mm were included. Baseline and perioperative variables, as well as adverse events during the follow-up were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients (37% female, mean age 75 ± 4.5 years) were included, of whom 54 (45%) were implanted with a small prosthesis and 68 (55%) with a prosthesis >21 mm. There were no significant differences between patients with small Intuity prostheses and patients with larger prostheses regarding in-hospital mortality (2% vs 4%, P = 0.43) or mortality during the follow-up (3.41 vs 2.45 per 100 patients-years; P = 0.58). Survival in the small Intuity valve group was 95% at 1 year and 83% at 6 years, whereas in the larger Intuity valve group was 96% at 1 year and 78% at 6 years. The presence of a small prosthesis did not influence mid-term survival (log-rank P-value = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed good clinical performance of Intuity aortic prostheses with appropriate mid-term survival in patients with the small aortic annulus. Thus, the Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis may be considered as a potential option in patients with the small aortic annulus.

Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves.

METHOD AND RESULTS

From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18-29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16-29] mm Hg and 18 [14-24] mm Hg, p < 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Percutaneous versus Surgical Intervention for Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Aortic stenosis is a disease that is increasing in prevalence and manifests as decreased cardiac output, which if left untreated can result in heart failure and ultimately death. It is primarily a disease of the elderly who often have multiple comorbidities. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve therapies has changed the way we treat these conditions. However, long-term results of these therapies remain uncertain. Recently, there has been an increasing number of studies examining the role of both surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We therefore performed a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two investigators searched papers published between January 1, 2007, and to date using the following terms: "aortic valve stenosis," "aortic valve operation," and "transcatheter aortic valve therapy." Both strategies in aortic stenosis treatment highlighted specific indications alongside the pitfalls such as structural valve degeneration and valve thrombosis which have a bearing on clinical outcomes. We propose some recommendations to help clinicians in the decision-making process as technological improvements make both surgical and transcatheter therapies viable options for patients with aortic stenosis. Finally, we assess the role of finite element analysis in patient selection for aortic valve replacement. THVT and AVR-S are both useful tools in the armamentarium against aortic stenosis. The decision between the two treatment strategies should be best guided by a strong robust evidence base, ideally with a long-term follow-up. This is best performed by the heart team with the patient as the center of the discussion.

Five-year outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the Edwards Intuity valve

BACKGROUND

This report presents 5-year outcomes of the rapid-deployment Edwards Intuity valve in a prospective, single-center study.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an aortic valve replacement (AVR) with an Edwards Intuity bioprosthesis at La Timone Hospital, Marseille, France, from July 2012 to June 2015 were assessed over a 5-year follow-up period. The primary outcome was overall mortality at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were reoperation, overall mortality and stroke, cardiovascular mortality, composite endpoints defined by the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2), periprosthetic regurgitation, prosthesis-patient mismatch, and the need for new pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

In total, 170 consecutive patients were assessed, of which 67.1% were males. The mean age was 76 years, mean EuroSCORE II was 3.5% and 5-year overall mortality was 12.4%. At 5 years, reoperation was 2.9%, overall mortality and stroke was 4.1% per patient-year, and cardiovascular mortality was 4.7%. VARC clinical efficacy and VARC time-related valve safety were achieved in 46.0% and 59.9% of patients, respectively. At one month VARC device success was 71.2% and VARC early safety was 87.1%. At one year, mild and moderate periprosthetic regurgitation were 2.4% and 0.6%, respectively, and moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were 18.8% and 4.8%, respectively. Conduction disturbances needing new PPI occurred in 3.5% patients.

CONCLUSION

The 5-year outcomes of AVR with the Edwards Intuity valve system demonstrate satisfactory midterm safety and excellent haemodynamic performance.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Rapid-Deployment Aortic Bioprostheses

Aim of this retrospective, multicenter study was to evaluate early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with Intuity rapid-deployment bioprostheses (RDB) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). We analyzed data from the Italian Registry of Intuity Valve (INTU-ITA registry) that is a national, real-world and independent from the industry registry. Preoperative variables were defined according to EuroSCORE and postoperative outcomes according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC). Survival distribution was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier approach. A Cox-Proportional Hazard Model was employed to assess the effect of the covariates on patients' survival. The registry included 1687 patients from 23 centers (June 2012-September 2019). Aortic cross clamp time for isolated SAVR was 55 minutes (IQR: 45-70 minute). Postoperative pace-maker rate was 6.3%. At discharge transaortic peak and mean gradients were: 18 mm Hg (IQR: 14-23 mm Hg) and 10 mmHg (IQR: 8-13 mm Hg), respectively. Indexed effective orifice area was 1.10 cm²/m² (IQR: 0.91-1.31 cm²/m²) and the incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was 0.6%. Hemodynamic data for all valve sizes remained stable during follow-up. Thirty-day overall mortality was 1.8% (30 patients), and at follow-up it was 5.3% (89 patients). Kaplan-Meier overall survival was 95.5% (94.3-96.7%); 90.7% (88.3-93.1%); 86.4% (82.6-90.4%) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Serum creatinine (HR: 1.36; 95%CI: 1.04-1.81; p = 0.0397) and cross-clamp time (HR: 1.01; 95%CI: 1.002-1.017; p = 0.0077) were identified as independent predictors of mortality. According to our data from the INTU-ITA registry, SAVR with RDB provides good early clinical and hemodynamic results that are confirmed at follow-up.

Need for permanent pacemaker implantation following implantation of the rapid deployment valve in combined procedures: a single centre cohort study

Background

Rapid deployment aortic valves may interfere with the cardiac conduction system. We investigated the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following the implantation of Edwards INTUITY valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA).

Methods

One hundred twenty patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the INTUITY valve in a combined procedure at the German Heart Centre Munich between April 2016 and December 2019. Twenty-four patients with prior PPI or concomitant ablation procedures (24/120, 20%) were excluded. Patient-specific, procedural and post-procedural outcomes were assessed in the remaining 96 cases.

Results

AVR was successful in all cases. Seventy-four percent of the study population were men. Mean age was 69.5±7.6 years. EuroSCORE II was 3.2±2.9. Forty-six patients (46/96, 47.9%) presented with pre-operative conduction disorders, right bundle branch block (RBBB) (17/96, 17.7%) and first-degree or second degree atrio-ventricular block (AVB) (18/96, 18.8%), in particular. In total, 9 patients (9/96, 9.4%) underwent PPI. PPI was required in 3 patients (3/50, 6.0%) who did not have a pre-existing conduction disorder due to new high degree AVB. 6 patients with pre-operative conduction disorders (6/46, 13%) needed PPI. Timing of PPI was 5.2±1.5 days (median 5). Independent predictors of PPI were preoperative RBBB [odds ratio (OR) =4.554, P=0.049] and large valve size (#27) (OR =5.527, P=0.031).

Conclusions

The analysis of the data collected enabled us to identify patient factors associated with higher risk for post-operative PPI following AVR with the INTUITY valve. Patient factors associated with post-operative PPI, were RBBB and large valve size. These patients should be closely monitored following the procedure, in particular.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

RESULTS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

Since their introduction, it has been demonstrated that minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of aortic valve diseases. To date, the main advantage of these approaches is represented by the reduced surgical trauma, with a subsequent reduced complication rate and faster recovery. This makes such approaches an appealing choice also for frail patients [obese, aged, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. The standardization of the minimally invasive techniques, together with the implementation of preoperative workup and anesthesiological intra- and post-operative care, led to an amelioration of surgical results and reduction of surgical times. Moreover, the improvement of surgical technology and the introduction of new devices such as sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves, has helped the achievement of comparable results to traditional surgery. However, transcatheter technologies are nowadays more and more important in the treatment of aortic valve disease, also in low risk patients. For this reason surgeons should put new efforts for further reducing the surgical trauma in the future, even taking inspiration from other disciplines. In this review, we aim to present a review of literature evidences regarding minimally invasive treatment of aortic diseases, also reflecting our personal experience with MIAVR techniques. This review could represent a tool for a well-structured patient assessment and preoperative planning, in order to safely carrying out an MIAVR procedure with satisfactory outcomes.

Comparing quality of life and postoperative pain after limited access and conventional aortic valve replacement: Design and rationale of the LImited access aortic valve replacement (LIAR) trial

Background

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) via limited access approaches (‘mini-AVR’) have proven to be safe alternative for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease. However, it remains unclear whether these less invasive approaches are associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain when compared to conventional SAVR via full median sternotomy (FMS).

Study design

The LImited access Aortic valve Replacement (LIAR) trial is a single-center, single blind randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 2 arms of 80 patients undergoing limited access SAVR via J-shaped upper hemi-sternotomy (UHS) or conventional SAVR through FMS. In all randomized patients, the diseased native aortic valve is planned to be replaced with a rapid deployment stented bioprosthesis. Patients unwilling or unable to participate in the randomized trial will be treated conventionally via SAVR via FMS and with implantation of a sutured valve prosthesis. These patients will participate in a prospective registry.

Study methods

Primary outcome is improvement in cardiac-specific quality of life, measured by two domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire up to one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include, but are not limited to: generic quality of life measured with the Short Form-36, postoperative pain, perioperative (technical success rate, operating time) and postoperative outcomes (30-day and one-year mortality), complication rate and hospital length of stay.

Conclusion

The LIAR trial is designed to determine whether a limited access approach for SAVR (‘mini-AVR’) is associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain compared with conventional SAVR through FMS.

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04012060.

Current Surgical Risk Scores Overestimate Risk in Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

Risk-scoring systems for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) were largely derived from sternotomy cases. We evaluated the accuracy of current risk scores in predicting outcomes after minimally invasive AVR (mini-AVR). Because transcatheter AVR (TAVR) is being considered for use in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, accurate mini-AVR risk assessment is necessary.

METHODS

We reviewed 1,018 consecutive isolated mini-AVR cases (2009 to 2015). After excluding patients with Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) scores ≥4, we calculated each patient's European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II, TAVR Risk Score (TAVR-RS), and age, creatinine, and ejection fraction score (ACEF). We compared all 4 scores' accuracy in predicting mini-AVR 30-day mortality by computing each score's observed-to-expected mortality ratio (O:E). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested discrimination, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tested calibration.

RESULTS

Among 941 patients (mean age, 72 ± 12 years), 6 deaths occurred within 30 days (actual mortality rate, 0.6%). All 4 scoring systems overpredicted expected mortality after mini-AVR: ACEF (1.4%), EuroSCORE II (1.9%), STS-PROM (2.0%), and TAVR-RS (2.1%). STS-PROM best estimated risk for patients with STS-PROM scores 0 to <1 (0.6 O:E), ACEF for patients with STS-PROM scores 2 to <3 (0.6 O:E), and TAVR-RS for patients with STS-PROM scores 3 to <4 (0.7 O:E). ROC curves showed only fair discrimination and calibration across all risk scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients who underwent mini-AVR, current surgical scoring systems overpredicted mortality 2-to-3-fold. Alternative dedicated scoring systems for mini-AVR are needed for more accurate outcomes assessment.

Conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses: early occurrence and one-year evolution

Background

Rapid-deployment bioprostheses represent one of the newest aortic valve substitutes introduced into clinical practice. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to evaluate the occurrence of conduction disorders (CDs) after rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation at discharge and at 1-year follow-up, and to identify risk factors for CDs and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI).

Methods

All patients who reached 1-year follow-up after isolated or combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) with rapid-deployment bioprostheses (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) at our institution were included in this study. Standard 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) were recorded before the procedure (within 24 hours), after the procedure as soon as the patient was moved to the intensive care unit (ICU), every day during in-hospital stay and at 1-year follow-up. The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative CDs at discharge and at 1-year follow up. Patients were divided in two groups: those who developed the primary endpoint (Group CD) and those who didn't (Group Non-CD).

Results

A total of 98 consecutive patients were included in the study. At discharge, the primary endpoint occurred in 40 patients (40.8%). In particular, new CDs and PPI occurred in 33 (33.7%) and in 7 (7.1%) patients, respectively. Valve size was the only independent predictor of primary endpoint at discharge. At 1-year, 30 patients (31.3%) presented with CDs or pacemaker-induced rhythm. In particular, in 25 patients of Group CD (64.1%), 1-year follow-up ECG revealed the persistence of the same CD as at discharge or pacemaker-induced rhythm, while 14 patients (35.9%) showed recovery of their CD. Age and prosthesis size were identified as independent predictors of CDs/pacemaker-induced rhythm at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusions

According to our data, nearly 40% of patients develop a new CD after rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation. Of these, one third recover after one year. Bioprosthesis size and age were identified as independent risk factors for occurrence of CD after surgery.

History, development and clinical perspectives of sutureless and rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement

Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most frequent valvular heart disease in industrialized countries. Conservative treatment may beneficially influence symptoms but is never successful. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only recognized treatment option to provide substantially prolonged survival until 2008. Operative mortality of isolated SAVR has been reported as low as 0.5% to 1% in experienced institutions, while long-term survival is close to that observed in a control healthy population of similar age. A multitude of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of SAVR with regard to improvement in quality of life and physical performance in the majority of symptomatic patients. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an equal treatment modality, first in patients with high surgical risk and more recently in patients with intermediate and low surgical risk. Paravalvular regurgitation and the higher rate of pacemaker implantation remain points of consideration. Additionally, the long-term durability of TAVI devices and occurrence of stroke late after TAVI require additional analyses. Sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve (R-SAVR) were designed to simplify and accelerate a conventional or less invasive surgical procedure while allowing complete excision of the calcified native valve. From 3 different implants tested more than 10 to 15 years ago, only two are available on the market today: the Perceval^® valve from Liva Nova and the Intuity^® sutureless prosthesis from Edwards Lifesciences. There has been extensive experience with these two devices in previous years and the results obtained are comparable to those observed following the use of conventional implants. The sutureless devices may be of particular interest for more complex and combined surgical procedures. This review summarizes the sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve technologies and presents a clinical outlook for the patient population managed with these devices.

Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement With Rapid-Deployment Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to compare early and midterm clinical and hemodynamic results of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses performed through conventional full-sternotomy vs mini-sternotomy.

METHODS

Data from the Italian multicenter registry of aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprostheses (INTU-ITA registry) were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: full sternotomy (FS) and ministernotomy (MS). Primary endpoint was the comparison of early and midterm mortality. Secondary endpoints were: comparison of intraoperative variables, complications, and hemodynamic performance. A propensity score weighting approach was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1057 patients were analyzed: 435 (41.2%) and 622 (58.8%) in group FS and MS, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% and 0.6% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .074). cardiopulmonary bypass time was 78.5 minutes and 83 minutes in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .414). In the overall cohort, the incidence of intraoperative complications and of device success was 3.8% (40 patients) and 95.9% (1014 patients), respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 94.1%, 98.1%, 88.5% and 91.8%, 85.2%, and 84.8% in FS and MS groups, respectively (P = .412). The 2 groups showed similar postoperative gradients (median mean gradient, FS: 10.0 mm Hg, MS: 11.0 mm Hg; P = .170) and also similar incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (FS: 7%, MS: 6.4%, P = .647).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, rapid-deployment bioprostheses allow the performance of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with similar surgical times and similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes to conventional surgery and should be considered the first choice in these procedures.

Intermediate-term outcome of 500 consecutive rapid-deployment surgical aortic valve procedures†

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards INTUITY Valve System is a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, inspired from the Edwards Magna valve and transcatheter technology, with a subvalvular stent frame to enable rapid deployment. We report a single-centre experience of aortic valve replacement with this novel bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Five hundred consecutive patients, of whom 45.6% were female with a mean age of 73.5 [standard deviation (SD) 7.9 years], with severe aortic stenosis who received a rapid deployment aortic valve between May 2010 and July 2017 were included in a prospective and ongoing database. The median follow-up time was 12 months, and the total accumulated follow-up time was 818 patient years. Preoperative characteristics, operative parameters, survival, valve-related adverse events and valve haemodynamics were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was 0.8% (4/500), and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 94%, 89% and 81%, respectively. A minimally invasive surgical approach was chosen in 236 patients (47%), of which 122 (24%) were operated on through an anterior right thoracotomy. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times for isolated aortic valve replacement were 53 (SD 17) and 89 (SD 29) min for full sternotomy as well as 75 (SD 23) and 110 (SD 31) min for minimally invasive surgery approaches (P < 0.001). Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13 (SD 5), 11 (SD 4), 12 (SD 5) and 11 (SD 3) mmHg, respectively. New pacemaker implantation was necessary in 8.6% of patients. A single case (0.2%) of structural degeneration was registered after 6 years. Valve explantation for non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis occurred in 9 patients (1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid deployment aortic valve has shown excellent results concerning haemodynamic performance, durability and safety. Implantation requires specific training, and the rate of pacemaker implantation remains a matter of concern. This novel valve also facilitates minimally invasive approaches and may be beneficial in complex combined procedures.

Learning From Controversy: Contemporary Surgical Management of Aortic Valve Endocarditis

Aortic valve replacement is the commonest cardiac surgical operation performed worldwide for infective endocarditis (IE). Long-term durability and avoidance of infection relapse are goals of the procedure. However, no detailed guidelines on prosthesis selection and surgical strategies guided by the comprehensive evaluation of the extension of the infection and its microbiological characteristics, clinical profile of the patient, and risk of infection recurrence are currently available. Conventional mechanical or stented xenografts are the preferred choice for localized aortic infection. However, in cases of complex IE with the involvement of the root or the aortomitral continuity, the use of homograft is suggested according to the surgeon and center experience. Homograft use should be counterbalanced against the risk of structural degeneration. Prosthetic bioroot or prosthetic valved conduit (mechanical and bioprosthetic) are also potentially suitable alternatives. Further development of preservation techniques enabling longer durability of allogenic substitutes is required. We evaluate the current evidence for the use of valve substitutes in aortic valve endocarditis and propose an evidence-based algorithm to guide the choice of therapy. We performed a systemic review to clarify the contemporary surgical management of aortic valve endocarditis.

Revisiting the guidelines and choice the ideal substitute for aortic valve endocarditis

Aortic valve replacement is the most commonly performed cardiac surgical operation worldwide for infective endocarditis (IE). Long-term durability and avoidance of infection relapse are the treatment goals. However, no detailed guidelines on prosthesis selection and surgical strategy are available. Management should be guided by a comprehensive evaluation of infection extension and its microbiological characteristics, the clinical profile of the patient and the risk of infection recurrence. We conducted a literature search of the PubMed database, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (through November 2019) for studies reporting to the use of biological substitutes in aortic valve endocarditis (AVE). Studies comparing long-term outcomes in the use of allogenic and autologous with conventional prostheses were investigated. Conventional mechanical or stented xenografts are the preferred choice for localized aortic infection. In cases of complex IE with the involvement of the root or the aorto-mitral continuity, the use of homografts are recommended, according to surgeon's and center experience. Homograft use needs to be balanced against the risk of structural degeneration. Prosthetic bioroot or prosthetic valved conduit with a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve are acceptable alternatives. The choice of aortic valves substitute and surgical strategy in IE is multifaceted. Principles guiding the selection of prosthesis and surgical approach rely on the long-term durability and the avoidance of infection relapse. A decisional algorithm considering the extension of the infection and its microbiological characteristics, the clinical profile of the patient and the risk of infection recurrence is provided. A multidisciplinary effort is required to achieve consistent outcomes.

Single-Center Outcomes with Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

 Rapid-deployment valves can reduce procedural times and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery. In our institution, more than 500 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

 A total of 510 patients underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2017, of whom 270 patients underwent isolated AVR and 240 underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The cumulative follow-up time was 1,444 patient-years, the median follow-up time 2.8 years, respectively RESULTS:  An early all-cause mortality of 3.5% (n = 18) was seen with a cumulative survival of 91.9 ± 2.2% after 12 months. Mean cross-clamp times were 37 ± 19 minutes for isolated AVR and 93 ± 29 minutes for AVR with concomitant procedures. The rate of new pacemaker implantation was 7.8% (n = 40). No case of structural degeneration occurred in the follow-up. Three (0.6%) cases of endocarditis were registered.

CONCLUSIONS

 Rapid deployment AVR can be performed safely with low complication rates and good hemodynamic results. Therefore, the relevance in aortic valve surgery can be stressed.

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.

Outcome of rapid deployment aortic valves: long-term experience after 700 implants

Background

The Edwards Intuity Valve System is a bioprosthesis with a balloon-expandable stent frame which enables rapid-deployment (RD). We aimed to analyze our single-center long-term experience with a follow-up until 9 years after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with this bioprosthesis.

Methods

Between May 2010 and May 2019, 700 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis or combined aortic valve disease, implanted with a RD valve at our institution, were included in a prospective database. Median follow-up was 19 months and the total accumulated follow-up was 2,140 patient-years. Pre-operative characteristics, operative parameters, survival rates, valve-related adverse events and valve hemodynamics were assessed.

Results

Mean age was 74±8 years, 45% female. Concomitant procedures were performed in 339 (48.4%) patients. In case of isolated AVR (361/700), a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach was conducted in 283 patients (78.4%). Cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times for isolated AVR were 107.7±28.2 and 73.8±21.3 minutes for MIS approaches and 92.8±28.8 and 57.5±20.6 minutes for full sternotomy (P<0.001), respectively. Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13±5, 11±4, 12±5 and 13±8 mmHg. New early pacemaker implantation was required in 8.9% of patients. Re-intervention or re-operation with valve explantation for structural degeneration, non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis, occurred in 21 cases (3%). Thirty-day mortality was 0.7% (5/700) and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 98%, 91% and 76%.

Conclusions

We report excellent long-term results in this updated single center experience for RD aortic valves regarding durability, safety and hemodynamic performance.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves for Patients With a Small Aortic Root: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic root is a matter of concern in terms of prosthesis-patient mismatch. We evaluated the survival and hemodynamic performance after implantation of a small rapid-deployment aortic valve (EDWARDS INTUITY valve system sizes 19 and 21 mm).

METHODS

Between May 2010 and November 2018, 659 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who received a rapid-deployment valve were included in a prospective and ongoing database. A small aortic bioprosthesis (sizes 19 mm and 21 mm) was implanted in 217 (32.9%) patients (mean age 74.9 ± 7.9 years, 85.3% women). Preoperative characteristics, operative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean gradients at discharge and 1 year were 14.8 ± 5.6 mm Hg and 13.6 ± 4.9 mm Hg, respectively. Mean effective orifice area and the indexed effective orifice area at discharge were 1.55 ± 0.36 cm² and 0.87 ± 0.22 cm²/m², respectively, and prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 77 (35.5%) patients (25.8% moderate and 9.7% severe). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% (n = 4 of 217) and overall survival at 1 year and 5 years was 91% and 79%, respectively. The presence of any prosthesis-patient mismatch degree did not have a significant influence on overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.19; P = .638). At the last follow-up, mean New York Heart Association functional class was 1.5 ± 0.7 vs 2.8 ± 0.6 at baseline (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment valves has shown improved results concerning hemodynamic performance, with decreased rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch. We observed excellent early-term and midterm survival and a significant improvement in functional class in this subgroup of patients with a small annulus.

Conduction disturbances following surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid-deployment bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

The implantation of rapid-deployment aortic valves may interfere with the conduction system of the heart. This study evaluates the occurrence and predictive factors of conduction anomalies in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a rapid-deployment balloon-expandable bioprosthesis in a single-center, real-world experience.

METHODS

Between May 2010 and April 2019, 700 consecutive patients were included in a prospective, ongoing database with a longitudinal follow-up preoperatively, at discharge, and at 3 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years postoperatively. Thirty-seven patients (5.3%) had a permanent pacemaker at baseline and were excluded from further analysis, leaving 663 patients for analysis. Assessment of conduction anomalies was performed by electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring and repeated 12-lead ECG during the hospital stay and at postoperative follow-ups.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, 126 patients (19.0%) presented with different conduction disturbances. New permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) occurred in 61 patients during the first 14 days (cumulative incidence, 9.4%). The indication for PPI was complete atrioventricular block in 47 cases (77%). Preoperative conduction anomalies, such as right bundle branch block, as well as operative characteristics (concomitant procedures) were found to be independent predictors for new PPI. One-year survival was 98% in patients with new early PPI and 96% in those without new early PPI (P = .60).

CONCLUSIONS

The PPI rate was in the range of previous reports for rapid-deployment prostheses. PPI did not have a significant influence on short- to intermediate-term survival. Case selection with exclusion of patients presenting with baseline conduction disturbances may decrease the rate of new PPIs after SAVR with rapid-deployment balloon-expandable bioprostheses.