Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valves in elderly patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: A multi-institutional study

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval Bioprosthesis Superior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Promising Option for the Gray-Zone of Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures-A State-of-the-Art Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Future Directions

Background: The management of patients with aortic valve pathologies can sometimes fall into a "gray zone", where the optimal treatment approach is not straightforward. The comparative benefits of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) using the Perceval bioprosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the "gray zone" of aortic valve replacement procedures remain a topic of debate. To further explore this issue, we conducted a study with pairwise, single-arm, and Kaplan-Meier-based meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis versus TAVI, as well as to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and durability of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis over mid-term and long-term follow-up periods. Methods: The PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. The final search was carried out in May 2024. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates between the two groups. SUAVR showed a lower incidence of new-onset myocardial infarction but was associated with higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation and major bleeding. TAVI had higher rates of left bundle branch block and major vascular complications. Conclusions: Our findings show that SUAVR has a lower incidence of complications and a favorable mid-term overall survival compared to TAVI. SUAVR has more advantages compared to TAVI and can be considered a valuable and promising option for the "grey zone" of aortic valve pathologies.

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.

Single-center real-world data and technical considerations from 100 consecutive patients treated with the Perceval aortic bioprosthesis

Objectives

Although the Perceval sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis presents a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve prostheses, the extent of its applicability with respect to technical considerations for a real-world patient collective is still under debate.

Methods

One hundred patients received the Perceval prosthesis [males: 59; age: 72.5 (7.3-79) years] between December 2015 and February 2023 [EuroSCORE II: 2.8 (1.7-5.4)] for an aortic valve replacement (AVR), with additional concomitant procedures, for underlying severe aortic valve stenosis [n = 93 (93)], endocarditis [n = 5 (5)], and redo AVR [n = 7 (7)] including a prior surgical AVR [n = 4 (4)] and a failed transcatheter aortic valve implantation [n = 3 (3)]. Surgery was conducted primarily by median sternotomy [n = 71 (71)] and, alternatively, by the upper hemisternotomy approach [n = 29 (29)].

Results

Over a median follow-up time of 36.5 (16.5-53) months, eight patients (8%) underwent postoperative pacemaker implantation, with five (5%) due to high-grade atrioventricular block, while nine patients experienced a stroke (9%). The median values of maximum and mean gradients across all valve sizes were 22 (18-27.5) mmHg and 10 (13-18) mmHg, respectively. Two patients (2%) had moderate and one (1%) had severe paravalvular leakage, with the latter presenting the only case of underlying valve migration and induced redo AVR with valve explantation 2 days following initial surgery. Thirty-day mortality (and overall mortality) was 5% and 26%, respectively.

Conclusion

The implantation of the Perceval bioprosthesis is feasible for a variety of indications, with excellent hemodynamic results and low complication rates in a real-world high-risk patient collective.

Heart failure hospitalization following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk aortic stenosis

AIMS

In low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) may be an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population is incompletely characterized. This study aims to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of HFH in patients undergoing SU-SAVR versus TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients referred for AVR between 2013 and 2020 at two centres were consecutively included. The decision for SU-SAVR or TAVI was determined by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Cox regression and competing risk analysis were conducted to assess adverse events. Of 594 patients (mean age 77.5 ± 6.4, 59.8% male), 424 underwent SU-SAVR, while 170 underwent TAVI. Following a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 23.1 months, HFH occurred in 112 (27.8%) SU-SAVR patients and in 8 (4.8%) TAVI patients (P < 0.001). The SU-SAVR cohort exhibited higher all-cause mortality (138 [32.5%] patients compared with 30 [17.6%] in the TAVI cohort [P < 0.001]). These differences remained significant after sensitivity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline variables. SU-SAVR with HFH was associated with increased all-cause mortality (61.6% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Independent associates of HFH in SU-SAVR patients included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower glomerular filtration rate and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. SU-SAVR patients with HFH had a 12-month LVEF of 59.4 ± 12.7.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk AS, SU-SAVR is associated with a higher risk of HFH and all-cause mortality compared to TAVI. In patients with severe AS candidate to SU-SAVR or TAVI, TAVI may be the preferred intervention.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a single-centre cost analysis

AIMS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are both viable therapeutic interventions for aortic stenosis in elderly patients. Meta-analyses show similar all-cause mortality for both techniques albeit with a different pattern of adverse effects. This study means to compare costs and, to a lesser extent, clinical outcomes of both techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre analysis was performed for patients receiving SU-AVR or TAVI from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative clinical data were collected from patient files. Costs were assessed by a cost allocation tool. In an attempt to avoid confounding, propensity score matching was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 100) or SU-AVR (n = 268). After matching, there were 61 patients per treatment group. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SU-AVR group. Excluding device costs, total expenses for SU-AVR (median: €11,630) were significantly higher than TAVI (median: €9240). For both groups, these costs were mostly incurred on intensive care units, followed by nursing units. Non-medical staff was the largest contributor to expenses. Including device costs, SU-AVR (median: €14,683) was shown to be cost-saving compared to TAVI (median: €24,057).

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, we found SU-AVR to be cost-saving compared to TAVI, largely due to higher device costs associated with the latter. Excluding device costs, TAVI was associated with lower expenses and shorter length of stay. Non-medical staff was the largest source of costs, suggesting length of stay to be a major financial determinant.

Sutureless versus transcatheter valves in patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: A multi-institutional European study

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized controlled trials showed comparable short-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate and low-risk patients. However, independent studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation results versus surgical aortic valve replacement at 5 years showed worsening outcomes in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to analyze mid- to long-term outcomes of patients with isolated aortic stenosis and an intermediate-risk profile who underwent aortic valve replacement using a sutureless valve versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

This retrospective multi-institutional European study investigated 2,123 consecutive patients with isolated aortic stenosis at intermediate risk profile treated with sutureless aortic valve replacement (824 patients) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (1,299 patients) from 2013 to 2020. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2 balanced groups of 517 patients were obtained. Primary endpoints were as follows: 30 days, late all-cause, and cardiac-related mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events (all-cause death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, endocarditis, reoperation, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak grade ≥2).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 4.3 years (interquartile range 1.1-7.4 years). Primary endpoints were as follows-30-day mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 2.13% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.64% (P = .026), all-cause mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 36.7% ± 7.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41.8% ± 8.2% (P = .023), and cardiac-related mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 10.2% ± 2.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 19.2% ± 3.5%;(P = .00043) at follow-up. Secondary endpoints were as follows-major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events in the sutureless aortic valve replacement group: 47.2% ± 9.0% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 57.3% ± 7.5% (P < .001). In particular, the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 6.38% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 11.8% [P = .002]) and paravalvular leak ≥2 (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 0.97% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.84% [P = .001]) was significantly higher in transcatheter aortic valve implantation group. At Multivariable Cox regression analysis, paravalvular leak ≥2 (hazard ratio: 1.63%; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-2.53, P = .042) and permanent pacemaker implantation (hazard ratio: 1.49%; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-2.20, P = .039) were identified as predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSION

Sutureless aortic valve replacement showed a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiac-related death, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak than transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Moreover, permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak negatively affected survival in patients treated for isolated aortic stenosis.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm²) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

KEY QUESTION

What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

KEY FINDINGS

Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

KEY OUTCOMES

Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

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.

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

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

Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

Objective: To highlight the main target points covered by clinical studies on the Perceval sutureless valve for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and raise a point of discussion for further expansion of its use when compared with stented bioprostheses (SB) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods: We reviewed clinical trials and retrospective studies published up to date and compared the outcomes in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) stroke, paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding and long-term outcomes.

Results: Clinical studies showed that 30-day mortality ranged from 0–4% for Perceval and 2.9–7% for TAVR. The incidence of PVL (Perceval 1.9–19.4 vs. TAVR 9–53.5%), PPI (Perceval 2–11.2 vs. TAVR 4.9–25.5%), stroke (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–2.8%), MI (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–3.5%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0–6.4% for Perceval and 0–5.9% for SB. The incidence of PVR (Perceval 1–19.4 vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7 vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), stroke (Perceval 0–3.7 vs. SB 1.8–7.3%) and MI (Perceval 0–7.8 vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable among the groups. In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, mortality rate was (0–4%) and PVL incidence was (0–2.3%). However, there was a high incidence of PPI (0–20%), and stroke (0–8%). Long-term survival ranged between 96.7–98.6%.

Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its implantation speed, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, the reduced aortic cross-clamp time and the shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.