Clinical performance of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: Five-year results of the 3f Enable long-term follow-up study

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.

Fifty years of the pericardial valve: Long-term results in the aortic position

It is now 50 years since the development of the first pericardial valve in 1971. In this time significant progress has been made in refining valve design aimed at improving the longevity of the prostheses. This article reviews the current literature regarding the longevity of pericardial heart valves in the aortic position. Side by side comparisons of freedom from structural valve degeneration are made for the valves most commonly used in clinical practice today, including stented, stentless, and sutureless valves. Strategies to reduce structural valve degeneration are also discussed including methods of tissue fixation and anti-calcification, ways to minimise mechanical stress on the valve, and the role of patient prosthesis mismatch.

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.

Bioprosthetic or mechanical heart valves: prosthesis choice for borderline patients?-Results from 9,616 cases recorded in Polish national cardiac surgery registry

BACKGROUND

In middle-aged patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), the selection of prosthesis type is a complex process. Current guidelines do not unequivocally indicate the type of prosthesis (bioprosthetic or mechanical) recommended for patients between 60-70 years of age. The aim of the study was to present the trends in AVR prosthesis selection in borderline patients over a 10-year period, based on real-life registry data.

METHODS

The study population comprised of 9,616 consecutive patients aged between 60-70 years, who underwent isolated AVR between 2006 and 2016 in all cardiac surgery departments in Poland. Data were extracted from the Polish National Registry of Cardiac Surgery.

RESULTS

Among 27,797 consecutive AVR procedures, patients aged 60-70 years represented 34.6% of the population operated on. From 2006 to 2016, bioprosthetic valves (BVs) were implanted in 53.9% cases, (and) mechanical valves (MVs) in 42.1%. The proportion of different valve types changed in time: from 77.5% of MVs vs. 22.5% of BVs in 2006 to 23.2% of MVs vs. 76.8% of BVs in 2016 (P<0.001). The most commonly implanted BV was the Hancock II (used in 36.4% of BV implantations), the most commonly used MV was the Saint Jude Mechanical prosthesis (implanted in 36.4% of MV implantation cases). A multivariable model identified smaller annulus [OR (95% CI) 0.89 (0.86-0.92), P<0.001], atrial fibrillation [OR (95% CI) 1.32 (1.05-1.67), P=0.017], male sex [OR (95% CI) 1.47 (1.24-1.74), P<0.001] and year of implantation [OR (95% CI) 0.75 (0.71-0.79), P<0.001] as predictors of MV implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged 60-70 years represent more than one-third of all AVR patients. Between 2006 and 2016, the proportion of implanted prostheses has changed dramatically. In 2016 BVs were implanted in nearly 75% of AVR cases, three times more often than in 2006.

Rapid Deployment Versus Conventional Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement using conventional biological valves (CBVs) is the standard of care for treatment of old patients with aortic valve disease. Recently, rapid deployment valves (RDVs) have been introduced.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to report the nationwide German experience concerning RDVs for treatment of aortic valve stenosis and provide a head-to-head comparison with CBVs.

METHODS

A total of 22,062 patients who underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement using CBV or RDV between 2011 and 2015 were enrolled into the German Aortic Valve Registry. Baseline, procedural, and in-hospital outcome parameters were analyzed for CBVs and RDVs using 1:1 propensity score matching. Furthermore, 3 RDVs were compared with each other.

RESULTS

A total of 20,937 patients received a CBV, whereas 1,125 patients were treated with an RDV. Patients treated with an RDV presented with significantly reduced procedure (160 min [25th to 75th percentile: 135 to 195 min] vs. 150 min [25th to 75th percentile: 127 to 179 min]; p < 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass (83 min [25th to 75th percentile: 68 to 104 min] vs. 70 min [25th to 75th percentile: 56 to 87 min]; p < 0.001), and aortic cross clamp times (60 min [25th to 75th percentile: 48 to 75 min] vs. 44 min [25th to 75th percentile: 35 to 57 min]; p < 0.001), but showed significantly elevated rates of pacemaker implantation (3.7% vs. 8.8%; p < 0.001) and disabling stroke (0.9% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001), whereas in-hospital mortality was similar (1.7% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.22). These findings persisted after 1:1 propensity score matching. Comparison of the 3 RDVs revealed statistically nonsignificant different pacemaker rates and significantly different post-operative transvalvular gradients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, all-comers database, the incidence of pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke was higher with RDVs, whereas no beneficial effect on in-hospital mortality was seen. The 3 RDVs presented different complication profiles with regard to pacemaker implantation and transvalvular gradients. (German Aortic Valve Registry [GARY]; NCT01165827).

Changing trends in aortic valve procedures over the past ten years-from mechanical prosthesis via stented bioprosthesis to TAVI procedures-analysis of 50,846 aortic valve cases based on a Polish National Cardiac Surgery Database

Background

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most common surgeries performed in cardiac surgery operating rooms. We present actual, real life trends from the last 10 years for AVR interventions based on a multicentre National Registry of Cardiac Surgery Database.

Methods

The study population consisted of all 50,846 consecutive adult patients who underwent AVR between January 2006 and August 2016 in all cardiac surgery units in Poland. The main outcome measures were changes in the number of valves, characteristics of valves, operative details, and in-hospital mortality. Analysis consisted of all aortic valve (AV) procedures, including isolated AV surgery, combination procedures and patients who had a prior valve operation.

Results

In last 10 years, the number of procedures increased by 46%. Isolated surgical AVR was performed in 61.2%, AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 23.9%, AVR + mitral valve replacement (MVR) in 7%, and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2.3% of patients. The mean patient age increased significantly from 61.4 years in 2006 to 66.1 years in 2016. Aortic stenosis was diagnosed in 73.4%, severe aortic insufficiency in 15.8% of cases. The most common valve pathology was calcification. Congenital valve dysfunction was diagnosed in 3.7% of cases. There was a 33.7% increase of bioprosthesis, and the most common implanted bioprosthesis was the Hancock II. The most common implanted mechanical prosthesis was the St. Jude Medical Mechanical Valve. In-hospital mortality decreased significantly over the 10-year period in all AV procedures from 10.9% in 2006 to 8.3% in 2016. Mean in-hospital mortality was: 4.0% in isolated surgical AVR, 5.4% in TAVI, 6.8% in AVR + CABG, 9.8% in AVR + MVR, 17.2% in AVR + MVR + CABG.

Conclusions

In the last ten years, the number of AV procedure has doubled. Mortality was significantly lower with all types of AV procedure despite very rapid aging of AVR patients. TAVI procedure rapidly grew in popularity. There is significant increase in the use of bioprosthesis.

Clinical outcome and hemodynamic performance of St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis: short-term follow-up and risk factors analysis

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively analysed the short-term outcome of the third-generation St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis.

METHODS

Between December 2014 and December 2017, 177 patients (mean age 75.1±6.8 years, 95 males, 82 females) underwent aortic valve replacement with a St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis and were followed up to 27±9 months. Preoperatively 92 patients (52.0%) were in NYHA class III-IV, EuroSCORE II was 3.2%±2.1%.

RESULTS

Trifecta sizes implanted were 19 mm (n=46) (26%), 21 mm (n=69) (39%), 23 mm (n=46) (26%), 25 mm (n=16) (9%). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 60 patients (34.0%). Operative mortality was 3.4% (1.7% for isolated aortic valve replacement versus 6.7% for combined aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting) (P=0.084). The only independent predictor of mortality was the need for the mechanical ventilation greater than 24 hours (P=0.037); recently occurring myocardial infarction was risk factor for mortality at the univariate analysis only (P=0.013). Three-year survival was 84%±6%, freedom from cardiac death 98%±1%, freedom from prosthetic endocarditis 97%±1%. No thromboembolisms or structural valve degeneration were observed. Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was absent in 126 patients (71.2%), mild-to-moderate in 32 (18.1%), moderate in 19 (10.7%), severe in no any patient. Follow-up echocardiography showed an average mean and peak trans-aortic valve gradients reduction more than 70% in comparison with preoperative value (P<0.0001), and a significant regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (P<0.0001). Moderate PPM did not negatively affect survival. Concomitant severe coronary artery disease was found as an independent predictor of reduced survival (72%±12% versus 86%±6%) (P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Trifecta aortic prosthesis seems to provide very favourable clinical outcome and hemodynamic performance. At three years, survival was negatively affected by severe coronary artery disease detected at the time of operation. During short-term follow-up, no early structural valve degeneration was been observed. Due to low incidence of PPM and low peak and mean trans-prosthetic aortic valve gradients, third generation Trifecta aortic prosthesis should be considered as one of the best options in the setting of the aortic valve replacement surgery. However, a long-term follow-up is mandatory to confirm the early promising data.

Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients

Background

Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR).

Methods

Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes.

Results

The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Long-term outcomes of a rapid deployment aortic valve: data up to 5 years

OBJECTIVES

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been developed to facilitate minimally invasive approaches for cardiac surgery and shorten procedural times. TRITON is a prospectively designed study to assess safety and efficacy of rapid deployment AVR with Edwards INTUITY valve system. This report presents the 5-year outcomes of the TRITON trial.

METHODS

A total of 295 patients with aortic valve stenosis were enrolled in the TRITON trial and 287 patients received the study valve. Procedural, early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) outcomes were collected. Valve haemodynamic performance was evaluated at specified time points by an independent Echocardiography Core Laboratory and clinical events adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee.

RESULTS

Mean age was 75.3 ± 6.7 years. A total of 158 patients underwent isolated AVR and 129 patients underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The 5-year survival rates were 85.7 ± 3.4% and 75.2 ± 4.9% for isolated AVR and concomitant AVR, respectively. Overall, freedom from valve-related death at 5 years was 98.2 ± 0.8%. At 5 years, the valve effective orifice area was 1.6 ± 0.3 cm 2 , mean gradient was 10.5 ± 5.4 mmHg and peak gradient was 18.9 ± 9.3 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year outcomes of the TRITON trial demonstrate acceptable long-term safety and excellent haemodynamic performance of rapid deployment AVR with the Edwards INTUITY valve system.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT01445171.

Early Clinical Results of Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve in 139 Patients: Freeman Experience

Objective

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the safety and performance of the Perceval sutureless valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. We report the 30-day clinical outcomes of 139 patients.

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2016, 139 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement. Their operation notes, National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database and perioperative transoesophageal echocardiography findings were studied retrospectively.

Results

Ninety-two patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (group A) with Perceval valve and 47 patients had combined procedures of aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting (group B). The patients received a size S (n=23), M (n=39), L (n=42) or XL (n=35) prosthesis. Perceval valve was successfully implanted in 135 (97.1%) patients. Mean cross-clamping time and bypass time were 40 and 63 minutes for isolated cases, while 68 and 107 minutes for combined cases. Three (2.1%) patients died within 30 days. Four patients suffered stroke and 5 patients went into acute renal failure. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay was 2 and 8.5, respectively. Four valves were explanted due to significant paravalvular leak after surgery. Five patients had permanent pacemaker as a result of complete heart block and mean postoperative drainage was 295 mL for isolated case and 457 mL for combined cases. The mean gradient across Perceval valve was 12.5 mmHg while its effective orifice area was 1.5 cm².

Conclusion

Early postoperative results showed that Perceval valve is safe. Further follow up is needed to evaluate the long-term outcome with this bioprosthesis.

A technique of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is increasingly being adopted worldwide, in which a right mini-thoracotomy (RT) approach plays an important role. Here we reported a novel technique of AVR via RT using sutureless prosthesis, without rib division or groin incision. Surgical access was performed through an anterior right thoracotomy with 5-cm skin incision placed in the third intercostal space. Percutaneous femoral-femoral cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) was applied under fluoroscopy guidance to avoid groin incision. A 5-mm stab incision was made in the right chest wall for aortic cross-clamping. A sutureless bioprosthetic valve was utilized in the limited operative field, which reduced the cross-clamp and CPB time. The patient was discharged on post-operative day 2, without obvious cross-valvar gradient, and with no pain or other complication. This report offers a more minimally invasive approach to AVR with proven durable valves, which can benefit high-risk patients.

Rapid deployment or sutureless versus conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the early and follow-up outcomes of aortic valve replacement using rapid deployment or sutureless (RD) valves (RDAVR group) with aortic valve replacement using conventional bioprostheses (CAVR group).

METHODS

A literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and the secondary outcomes included the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and early mortality and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles (RDAVR group = 1297 patients; CAVR group = 1488 patients) were selected. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly shorter in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (mean difference, -26.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -31.86 to -20.82 and mean difference, -25.33; 95% CI, -30.79 to -19.87, respectively). The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of any paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion were significantly higher in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.53-3.51 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49-2.90, respectively). The pooled analysis showed that the risk of a paravalvular leak grade ≥2 in the RDAVR group did not significantly differ between the RDAVR and CAVR groups (RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.71-5.93). The risk of PPM insertion remained significant when only studies reporting adjusted outcomes were pooled. The risks of other postoperative complications, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up were not significantly different between the RDAVR and CAVR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDAVR is associated with significantly shorter ACC and CPB times than CAVR, although this difference did not translate into improved postoperative outcomes, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Care might be needed when implanting RD valves because they are associated with a higher incidence of PPM insertion, regardless of the RD valve type.

Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: Outcomes in 70 High-Risk Patients Undergoing Concomitant Cardiac Procedures

In elderly, high-risk surgical patients, sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) can often be an alternative to conventional AVR; shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times are the chief advantages. We compared the outcomes of sutureless AVR with those of conventional AVR in 70 elderly patients who underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. We retrospectively analyzed the cases of 42 men and 28 women (mean age, 70.4 ± 10.3 yr; range, 34-93 yr) who underwent cardiac operations plus AVR with either a sutureless valve (group 1, n=38) or a conventional bioprosthetic or mechanical valve (group 2, n=32). Baseline patient characteristics were similar except for worse New York Heart Association functional status and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in group 1. In group 1, the operative, cross-clamp, and cardiopulmonary bypass times were shorter (all P=0.001), postoperative drainage amounts were lower (P=0.009), hospital stays were shorter (P=0.004), and less red blood cell transfusion was needed (P=0.037). Echocardiograms before patients' discharge from the hospital showed lower peak and mean aortic gradients in group 1 (mean transvalvular gradient, 8.4 ± 2.8 vs 12.2 ± 5.2 mmHg; P=0.012). We found that elderly, high-risk patients who underwent multiple cardiac surgical procedures and sutureless AVR had better hemodynamic outcomes and shorter ischemic times than did patients who underwent conventional AVR.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in high risk patient groups

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) aims to preserve the sternal integrity and improve postoperative outcomes. In low risk patients, this technique can be achieved with comparable mortality to the conventional approach and there is evidence of possible reduction in intensive care and hospital length of stay, transfusion requirement, renal dysfunction, improved respiratory function and increased patient satisfaction. In this review, we aim to asses if these benefits can be transferred to the high risk patient groups. We therefore, discuss the available evidence for the following high risk groups: elderly patients, re-operative surgery, poor lung function, pulmonary hypertension, obesity, concomitant procedures and high risk score cohorts.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Aortic Valve Surgery: Minimally Invasive Options

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

Benefits of a right anterolateral minithoracotomy rather than a median sternotomy in isolated tricuspid redo procedures

BACKGROUND

To compare results of tricuspid valve (TV) reoperation between incision via a right anterolateral minithoracotomy (RAMT) and median sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 49 patients who underwent isolated TV surgery as a reoperation at our institution between 2006 and 2015. Previous cardiac operations included mitral, aortic, and TV surgeries, atrial septal defect repair, and pericardiectomy. The mean age of the patients was 51.9±12.8 years, 14 (28%) were male and 35 (72%) were female. Follow-up was 95% (38/40) complete, with a mean duration of 41.3±19.5 months.

RESULTS

Perioperative demographic and laboratory tests did not show any significant differences between the RAMT and MS groups. The drainage volume, total red cell unit, total serum volume and platelet were significantly different 1150±803.5/2,270±1,920, 4.8±4.1/8.7±8.9, 478.2±488.9/950.0±857.6, 0.04±0.21/0.38±0.64 (P<0.05), while other perioperative data were similar. There were no significant differences in early postoperative death and complications between the RAMT and MS groups. A multivariate linear regression analysis predicted that serum creatinine (Scr), age, and MS group were independent risk factors for bleeding. The Cox regression demonstrated that the MS group had a longer drainage duration (P<0.05) and had a relative hazardous risk (HR) of 2.691 (1.328, 5.450 CI) compared with the RAMT group.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAMT approach is an alternative, safe, and feasible procedure for isolated TV reoperation. It has the advantages of less drainage and reduced requirement for blood products.

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

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

Sutureless Aortic Valves: Combining the Best or the Worst?

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

Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis valve implantation and bicuspid valve anatomy: an unsolved dilemma?

Interest is growing in the clinical use of sutureless (SU) valves. However, indications in some anatomical sub-settings, like bicuspid aortic valves (BAV), have been so far limited. We discuss herein our initial experience with the implantation of the 3f Enable SU bioprosthesis in patients with a BAV. Patients with a BAV were selected in our unit between March 2011 and September 2014 for a SU 3f Enable valve implantation. Twenty of the 198 patients who underwent a 3f Enable valve implantation in our unit had a BAV. Procedural success was 100 %, but reclamping was necessary in one (5 %) case. Median size of implanted bioprosthesis was 23 mm. After a mean follow-up of 13.8 ± 10.7 months, survival was 100 %. Two patients (10 %) showed an immediate grade 1 paravalvular leak (PVL) that progressed to grade 2 and 3+ (moderate/severe), respectively, during follow-up. Type of bicuspidy (Sievers classification) in these two patients was 0 and intraoperatively aortic annuli admitted the 25 mm calibrator. Among the 18 patients without PVL, no one had a type 0 large BAV. At 1 year, implantation of the 3f Enable SU bioprosthesis appears to be safe in patients with BAV type I and II, while in type 0 use of the SU valve seems to be safe only if the annular diameter is <25 mm. Larger studies are necessary to confirm our findings in order to clarify the indications for SU technology in the subset of bicuspid patients.

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

 Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.

METHODS

 Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

 In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).

CONCLUSION

 Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.

A comparison of minimally invasive and standard aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to compare aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy with aortic valve replacement through a median sternotomy.

METHODS

With propensity score matching, we selected 211 patients after aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and 211 patients after aortic valve replacement who underwent operation between January 2010 and December 2013. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed, and multivariable logistic regression analysis of risk factors of postoperative morbidity was performed.

RESULTS

For propensity score-matched patients, hospital mortality was 1.0% in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy group and 1.4% in the aortic valve replacement group (P = 1.000). Stroke occurred in 0.5% versus 1.4% (P = .615), myocardial infarction occurred in 1.4% versus 1.9% (P = 1.000), and new onset of atrial fibrillation occurred in 12.8% versus 24.2% (P = .003) of patients in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and aortic valve replacement groups, respectively. Postoperative drainage was 353.5 ± 248.6 mL versus 544.3 ± 324.5 mL (P < .001) and blood transfusion was required for 48.8% versus 67.3% (P < .001) of patients in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and aortic valve replacement groups, respectively. Mediastinitis occurred in 2.8% of patients after aortic valve replacement and in 0.0% of patients after aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery (P = .040). Intensive care unit stay (1.3 ± 1.2 days vs 2.6 ± 2.6 days) and hospital stay (5.7 ± 1.6 days vs 8.7 ± 4.4 days) were statistically significantly shorter in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy group. Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery resulted in reduced postoperative morbidity (odds ratio, 0.4; P < .001) and postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements (odds ratio, 0.4; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery resulted in a reduced infection rate, diminished postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements, reduced occurrence of new onset of atrial fibrillation, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.

Closed chest human aortic valve removal and replacement: Technical feasibility and one year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has so far required a minithoracotomy or a ministernotomy. We present here the first series of totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement (TEAVR).

METHODS

Between June 2013 and April 2015, 14 consecutive patients (12 males, mean age=76 ± 5.4 years) with a mean EuroSCORE II of 2.72 ± 0.03% underwent TEAVR. A five trocar setting was used in all patients: after ablation of the native valve, a Nitinol stented sutureless 3f Enable Medtronic valve, compressed into the main working trocar, was introduced into the thorax and then expanded in the aortic root.

RESULTS

Among the 14 patients, a thoracoscopic approach was successful in 13 (92.8%) and conversion into an open surgery using the right anterior minithoracotomy was necessary to close the aortotomy in one case. Mean cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary (CPB) times were 112 ± 18 and 161 ± 31 min, respectively. All patients left the surgical unit within 8 days after the operation without any paravalvular leakage. There was no paravalvular regurgitation, conductive block or any major adverse event at a mean follow-up of 10 ± 4 months (range 2-16).

CONCLUSIONS

TEAVR is feasible and safe in a selected subset of patients. Closed chest surgery has the potential to become the future approach of the isolated aortic valve replacement in low risk patients but further technical refinement and larger studies are necessary to reduce operative durations and enhance reproducibility.

Sutureless 3F Enable Valve Replacement for Pure Aortic Regurgitation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We present our experience in the use of the sutureless valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation.

METHODS

Out of 167 patients who underwent sutureless aortic valve implantation with a Medtronic 3f Enable prosthesis in our unit between March 2011 and February 2014, 12 (7.1%) received a sutureless valve for pure aortic regurgitation.

RESULTS

Mean age, logistic EuroSCORE, and left ventricular ejection fraction were 72 ± 5 years, 6.3 ± 2.9%, and 52.5 ± 15.3%, respectively. The sutureless valve could be successfully implanted in all cases; nine patients had a full sternotomy (associated coronary artery bypass graft in four cases and associated mitral surgery in five), one patient had a ministernotomy, and two had a thoracoscopic approach. Average cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 90 ± 30 and 127 ± 51 minutes, respectively. At the outpatient echocardiography, average mean gradient was 10.54 ± 4.99 mmHg and a grade I-II paravalvular leakage (PVL) was detected in the first patient of the cohort (ministernotomy approach). At a mean follow-up of 11.1 ± 5.5 months, average mean gradient was 9.75 ± 2.87 mmHg, no new PVL was detected, and the known PVL was stable. No pacemaker implantation was required.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the 3f Enable sutureless valve is technically possible with pure aortic regurgitation in selected patients. Multicenter investigations are necessary to assess the mid-term benefits of such a device in this subset of patients.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SU-AVR-IR): design and rationale from the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG)

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) is an innovative approach which shortens cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp durations and may facilitate minimally invasive approach. Evidence outlining its safety, efficacy, hemodynamic profile and potential complications is replete with small-volume observational studies and few comparative publications.

METHODS

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and high-volume SU-AVR replacement centers were contacted for recruitment into a global collaborative coalition dedicated to sutureless valve research. A Research Steering Committee was formulated to direct research and support the mission of providing registry evidence warranted for SU-AVR.

RESULTS

The International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG) was formed under the auspices of the Research Steering Committee, comprised of 36 expert valvular surgeons from 27 major centers across the globe. IVSSG Sutureless Projects currently proceeding include the Retrospective and Prospective Phases of the SU-AVR International Registry (SU-AVR-IR).

CONCLUSIONS

The global pooling of data by the IVSSG Sutureless Projects will provide required robust clinical evidence on the safety, efficacy and hemodynamic outcomes of SU-AVR.

Sutureless prostheses and less invasive aortic valve replacement: just an issue of clamping time?

BACKGROUND

Recently, sutureless aortic bioprostheses have been increasingly adopted to facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. We aimed at evaluating the impact of the transition from conventional bioprostheses to the routine use of the 3f Enable prosthesis (Medtronic ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN) for aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy.

METHODS

Between November 2009 and November 2012, 83 consecutive minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedures were performed in our institution by the same surgeon through an upper T-shaped ministernotomy. The earliest 42 patients (group A) received a conventional bioprosthesis, and the later 41 patients (group B) received the sutureless 3f Enable valve. Aortic clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times, early outcomes, and valve hemodynamics were compared.

RESULTS

There was no statistical intergroup difference in baseline characteristics. In-hospital mortality was 1% (a single nonvalve-related death). Average aortic clamping times in group A and group B were, respectively, 85 ± 17 and 47 ± 11 minutes (p < 0.0001); the cardiopulmonary bypass time was 108 ± 21 and 69 ± 15 minutes, respectively (p < 0.0001). There were three paravalvular leakages in group A (grade I) and four in group B (two grade I, and two grade II); three pacemaker implantations occurred in group B (p = 0.07); mean transvalvular gradient at discharge was 16.9 ± 9.1 mm Hg in group A and 11.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg in group B (p = 0.0007). During follow-up (average 25.5 ± 12.9 months), one structural valve deterioration was registered in group A, and was treated with a valve-in-valve procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

In our initial experience, the sutureless 3f Enable technology significantly reduced the clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times, as well as the mean transvalvular gradient in aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy.