North American single-center experience with a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis

The Northern New England Rapid Deployment Valve Experience: Survival and Procedural Outcomes From 2015 to 2021

OBJECTIVE

The optimal approach and choice of initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) is evolving in the growing era of transcatheter AVR. Further survival and hemodynamic data are needed to compare the emerging role of rapid deployment (rdAVR) versus stented (sAVR) valve options for AVR.

METHODS

The Northern New England Cardiovascular Database was queried for patients undergoing either isolated AVR or AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with rdAVR or sAVR aortic valves between 2015 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, mechanical valves, dissection, emergency case status, and prior sternotomy. This resulted in a cohort including 1,616 sAVR and 538 rdAVR cases. After propensity weighting, procedural characteristics, hemodynamic variables, and survival outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

The breakdown of the overall cohort (2,154) included 1,164 isolated AVR (222 rdAVR, 942 sAVR) and 990 AVR + CABG (316 rdAVR, 674 sAVR). After inverse propensity weighting, cohorts were well matched, notable only for more patients <50 years in the sAVR group (4.0% vs 1.9%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.12). Cross-clamp (89 vs 64 min, SMD = -0.71) and cardiopulmonary bypass (121 vs 91 min, SMD = -0.68) times were considerably longer for sAVR versus rdAVR. Immediate postreplacement aortic gradient decreased with larger valve size but did not differ significantly between comparable sAVR and rdAVR valve sizes or overall (6.5 vs 6.7 mm Hg, SMD = 0.09). Implanted rdAVR tended to be larger with 51% either size L or XL versus 37.4% of sAVR ≥25 mm. Despite a temporal decrease in pacemaker rate within the rdAVR cohort, the overall pacemaker frequency was less in sAVR versus rdAVR (4.4% vs 7.4%, SMD = 0.12), and significantly higher rates were seen in size L (10.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.002) and XL (15% vs 5.6%, P < 0.004) rdAVR versus sAVR. No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (4.6% vs 4.6%, SMD = 0.01), 30-day survival (1.5% vs 2.6%, SMD = 0.08), or long-term survival out to 4 years were seen between sAVR and rdAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment valves offer a safe alternative to sAVR with significantly decreased cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Despite larger implantation sizes, we did not appreciate a comparative difference in immediate postoperative gradients, and although pacemaker rates are improving, they remain higher in rdAVR compared with sAVR. Longer-term hemodynamic and survival follow-up are needed.

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

INTRODUCTION

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

AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sutureless aortic valves: who is the right patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) has emerged as an alternative to traditional AVR for patients with aortic stenosis who present a higher surgical risk, such as the elderly, or those with small or highly calcified aortic roots. With transcatheter aortic valve implantation - the other major AVR alternative - being used in increasingly lower-risk patients, the place of sutureless valves in the AVR landscape needs to be defined. In this review, we discuss recent data and expert opinion as it pertains to the subject of sutureless AVR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent studies have evaluated the performance of sutureless valves in a variety of clinical contexts, including minimally invasive operations and high-risk surgical procedures. The optimal surgical technique for sutureless AVR has been refined through the publication of several reports addressing technical considerations. Reduction in operative times represents the main advantage of sutureless valves over conventional surgical prostheses, and the possibility of complete annular decalcification - and hence a reduced incidence of paravalvular leak - is the primary advantage over TAVI.

SUMMARY

Sutureless valves have emerged as an attractive option for high-risk patients or for complex surgeries where a minimization of bypass time is critical. However, there is limited data regarding long-term outcomes, durability or reoperation.

The Medical Devices Special Access Program in Canada: A Scoping Study

New health technologies enter Canadian healthcare organizations in various ways, and understanding them is essential to the development of a pan-Canadian Health Technology Management (HTM) Strategy, now a priority of governments across Canada. One way is through Health Canada's Medical Devices Special Access Program (MDSAP), which permits unlicensed devices to be obtained by healthcare professionals. However, the circumstances around and implications of the current use of this program are not clear. A scoping literature review was conducted to clarify these and identify important roles and issues related to the MDSAP. Limited information was found on the MDSAP. Nevertheless, three themes demonstrating the roles of the MDSAP in HTM emerged: arbiter in technology selection, a route to technology procurement and facilitator of health technology innovation. No information suggesting that MDSAP is used to circumvent licensing was found. Rather, it enables desired patient outcomes and product commercialization.