Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis

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.

Novel Techniques and Technologies for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Large Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Background/Objectives: In an era of growing evidence for transaortic valve implantation (TAVI), our research topic was the evaluation of how surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVRs) are performing in terms of short- and long-term outcomes in different risk categories. Methods: This was a single centre, prospective, and observational cohort study of consecutive patients with aortic valve stenosis, undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement using a biological or mechanical prosthesis, Freestyle™ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) graft, homograft, or Ross procedure. The participant data were collected by review of an internal database. The primary endpoints were all-cause operative mortality (in hospital and at 30 days) and late mortality at the follow-up date. The secondary composite endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications. Results: 1501 patients underwent SAVR; the mean age was 67 years (SD: 12.6). The in-hospital mortality was 1% (n = 16). At a median follow-up of 60 months, the survival rate was 98.7%. The main predictors for mortality were operative urgency and cardiogenic shock. The overall incidence of PPM was 2.3% (n = 34). Patients who underwent Ross procedure were younger (mean age: 20 years (SD: 1.7)), had a lower incidence of postoperative complications, and were all alive at follow-up. Conclusions: SAVR shows an excellent survival rate and a low rate of postoperative complications despite an increasing surgical risk. Recent advancements in technology, like sutureless/rapid deployment prostheses and minimally invasive techniques, are shown to have favourable effects on outcomes.

Reliability of EuroSCORE II on Prediction of Thirty-Day Mortality and Long-Term Results in Patients Treated with Sutureless Valves

Background: EuroSCORE II (ES2) is a reliable tool for preoperative cardiac surgery mortality risk prediction; however, a patient's age, a surgical procedure's weight and the new devices available may cause its accuracy to drift. We sought to investigate ES2 performance related to the surgical risk and late mortality estimation in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless valves. Methods: Between 2012 and 2021, a total of 1126 patients with isolated aortic stenosis who underwent surgical AVR by means of sutureless valves were retrospectively collected from six European centers. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the EuroSCORE II risk classes (ES2 < 4%, ES2 4-8% and ES2 > 8%). The accuracy of ES2 in estimating mortality risk was assessed using the standardized mortality ratio (O/E ratio), ROC curves (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) test for goodness-of-fit. Results: The overall observed mortality was 3.0% (predicted mortality ES2: 5.39%) with an observed/expected (O/E) ratio of 0.64 (confidential interval (CI): 0.49-0.89). In our population, ES2 showed a moderate discriminating power (AUC 0.65, 95%CI 0.56-0.72, p < 0.001; HL p = 0.798). Good accuracy was found in patients with ES2 < 4% (O/E ratio 0.54, 95%CI 0.23-1.20, AUC 0.75, p < 0.001, HL p = 0.999) and for patients with an age < 75 years (O/E ratio 0.98, 95%CI 0.45-1.96, AUC 0.76, p = 0.004, HL p = 0.762). Moderate discrimination was observed for ES2 in the estimation of long-term risk of mortality (AUC 0.64, 95%CI: 0.60-0.68, p < 0.001). Conclusions: EuroSCORE II showed good accuracy in patients with an age < 75 years and patients with ES2 < 4%, while overestimating risk in the other subgroups. A recalibration of the model should be taken into account based on the complexity of actual patients and impact of new technologies.

Continuous or interrupted pledgeted suture technique in stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a comparison of in-hospital outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is ambiguity in the literature regarding the continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR). At our center, there has been a gradual shift towards CST over the interrupted pledgeted technique (IPT). This study aims at comparing outcomes for both techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center study of patients undergoing AVR between January 2011 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Continuous suture technique and interrupted pledget-reinforced sutures. The pre-operative and In-hospital clinical characteristics and echocardiographic hemodynamics (i.e. transvalvular gradients and paravalvular leakage) were compared between CST and IPT.

RESULTS

We compared 791 patients with CST to 568 patients with IPT (median age: 73 and 74 years, respectively, p = 0.02). In CST there were 35% concomitant procedure vs. 31% in IPT (p = 0.16). Early mortality was 3.2% in CST versus 4.8% in IPT (p = 0.15), and a second cross-clamp due to a paravalvular-leak in 0.5% vs. 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.22). The CST was not associated with new-onset conduction-blocks mandating pacemaker implants(OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.14; P = 0.85). The postoperative gradients on echocardiography were lower in CST compared to IPT, especially in smaller annuli (peak gradients: 15.7mmHg vs. 20.5mmHg, in valve size < 23 mm, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The continuous suture technique was associated with lower postoperative gradients and shorter cross-clamp time compared to interrupted pledgeted technique. Differences in paravalvular leaks were non-significant, although slightly less in the continuous suture technique. There were no further differences in valve-related complications. Hence, continues suture technique is safe, with better hemodynamics compared to the interrupted pledgeted technique. This may be of clinical importance, especially in smaller size annular size.

Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) is an alternative to conventional AVR (cAVR) for aortic stenosis. Benefits include a reduction in operative times, facilitation of minimal access surgery and superior haemodynamics compared to conventional valves. However, further evidence is required to inform guidelines, preferably in the form of propensity-matched studies that include mid-term follow-up data.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study comparing the Perceval and conventional Perimount Magna Ease valve for short- and mid-term clinical parameters and size-matched mid-term echocardiographic parameters (n = 102 in both groups) from 2014 to 2020. Data were extracted from a nationally managed dataset.

RESULTS

There were no demographic differences between the matched groups. The Perceval group had shorter cross-clamp time (Perceval 62 [49-81] minutes; Perimount 79 [63-102] minutes, P < 0.001), shorter bypass time (Perceval 89 [74-114] minutes; Perimount 104 [84-137] minutes, P < 0.001), and more frequent minimally-invasive approaches (Perceval 28%; Perimount 5%, P < 0.001). Size-matched haemodynamics showed initially higher gradients in the Perceval group, but haemodynamics equalised at 12 + months. The Perceval group had a more favourable % change in the left ventricular posterior wall dimension at 2 + years (Perceval - 4.8 ± 18; Perimount 17 ± 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval facilitated shorter operations, which may benefit intermediate-high-risk, elderly patients with comorbidities requiring concomitant procedures. It also facilitated minimally invasive surgery. Size-matched haemodynamic performance was similar at mid-term follow-up, with the Perceval possibly better facilitating regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.

Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) has become an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment due to its advantages in reducing surgery time and improving outcomes. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of SUAVR vs. CAVR treatment for patients with moderate to severe AS in Thailand.

METHODS

A two-part constructed model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from both societal and healthcare perspectives. Data on short-term mortality, complications, cost, and utility data were obtained from the Thai population. Long-term clinical data were derived from clinical studies. Costs and QALYs were discounted annually at 3% and presented as 2022 values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine additional cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SUAVR treatment incurred higher costs compared with CAVR treatment from both societal (THB 1,733,355 [USD 147,897] vs THB 1,220,643 [USD 104,150]) and healthcare provider perspectives (THB 1,594,174 [USD 136,022] vs THB 1,065,460 [USD 90,910]). In addition, SUAVR treatment resulted in lower health outcomes, with 6.20 life-years (LYs) and 4.95 QALYs, while CAVR treatment achieved 6.29 LYs and 5.08 QALYs. SUAVR treatment was considered as a dominated treatment strategy using both perspectives. Sensitivity analyses indicated the significant impact of changes in utilities and long-term mortality on the model.

CONCLUSION

SUAVR treatment is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with CAVR treatment for patients with moderate-severe AS in Thailand, as it leads to higher costs and inferior health outcomes. Other important issues related to specific patients such as those with minimally invasive surgery, those undergoing AVR with concomitant procedures, and those with calcified and small aortic root should be taken into account.

Sutureless Biological Aortic Valve Replacement (Su-AVR) in Redo operations: a retrospective real-world experience report of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (su-AVR) and conventional bioprosthetic sutured AVR (cAVR) in high-risk patients undergoing redo surgery.

METHODS

A total of 79 patients who underwent redo AVR between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. Of these, 27 patients underwent su-AVR and 52 underwent cAVR. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were analysed using multivariate regression and Kaplan Meier survival test.

RESULTS

The groups were similar in terms of age, gender, left ventricular function, and number of previous sternotomies. In cases of isolated AVR, su-AVR had significantly lower cross clamp times than cAVR (71 vs. 86 min, p = 0.03). Postoperatively, 4 cAVR patients required pacemaker compared to zero patients in the su-AVR group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, intrahospital stay (median 9 days, IQR 7-20), or in-hospital mortality (1 su-AVR; 2 cAVR). The long-term survival rate was similar between the su-AVR (90%) and cAVR (92%) groups (log rank p = 0.8). The transvalvular gradients at follow-up were not affected by the type of valve used, regardless of the valve size (coef 2.68, 95%CI -3.14-8.50, p = 0.36).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that su-AVR is a feasible and safe alternative to cAVR in high-risk patients undergoing redo surgery. The use of su-AVR offers comparable outcomes to cAVR, with reduced cross clamp times and a lower incidence of postoperative pacemaker requirement in isolated AVR cases. The results of this study contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of su-AVR in high-risk patients, highlighting its feasibility and safety in redo surgeries.

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.

Surgical versus Interventional Treatment of Concomitant Aortic Valve Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently diagnosed in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Treatment options include surgical and interventional approaches. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting with simultaneous aortic valve replacement (CABG + AVR) or staged percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (PCI + TAVI).

METHODS

From all patients treated since 2017, we retrospectively identified 237 patients undergoing TAVI within 6 months after PCI and 241 patients undergoing combined CABG + AVR surgery. Propensity score matching was performed, resulting in 101 matched pairs.

RESULTS

Patients in the CABG + AVR group were younger compared with patients in the PCI + TAVI group (71.9 ± 4.9 vs 81.4 ± 3.6 years; p < 0.001). The overall mortality at 30 days before matching was higher after CABG + AVR than after PCI + TAVI (7.8 vs 2.1%; p = 0.012). The paired cohort was balanced for both groups regarding demographic variables and the risk profile (age: 77.2 ± 3.7 vs78.5 ± 2.7 years; p = 0.141) and EuroSCORE II (6.2 vs 7.6%; p = 0.297). At 30 days, mortality was 4.9% in the CABG + AVR group and 1.0% in the PCI + TAVI group (p = 0.099). Rethoracotomy was necessary in 7.9% in the CABG + AVR, while conversion to open heart surgery was necessary in 2% in the PCI + TAVI group. The need for new pacemaker was lower after CABG + AVR than after PCI + TAVI (4.1 vs 6.9%; p = 0.010). No paravalvular leak (PVL) was noted in the CABG + AVR group, while the incidence of moderate-to-severe PVL after PCI + TAVI was 4.9% (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

A staged interventional approach comprises a short-term survival advantage compared with combined surgery for management of CAD and aortic stenosis. However, PCI + TAVI show a significantly higher risk of atrioventricular block and PVL. Further long-term trials are warranted.

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.

Pacemaker after Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Prostheses: A Progress Report from the SURD-IR

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the need for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SuRD-AVR) in the context of a progress report from a large multicenter international registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 4,166 patients who underwent SuRD-AVR between 2008 and 2019. The primary outcome was the need for PPI before discharge. The study population was analyzed separately according to the implanted prostheses (Su cohort and RD cohort). Each cohort was divided into two groups based on the operation date: an early group ("EG" = 2008-2016) and a late group ("LG" = 2017-2019).

RESULTS

The rate of PPI decreased significantly in the Su cohort over time (EG = 10.8% vs LG = 6.3%, p < 0.001). In the Su cohort, a decrease in age, risk profile, and incidence of bicuspid aortic valve, increased use of anterior right thoracotomy, reduction of cardiopulmonary bypass time and of associated procedures, and more frequent use of smaller prostheses were observed over time. In the RD cohort, the rate of PPI was stable over time (EG = 8.8% vs LG = 9.3%, p = 0.8). In this cohort, a younger age, lower risk profile, and higher incidence of concomitant septal myectomy were observed over time.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed a significant decrease in the PPI rate in patients who underwent Su-AVR over time. Patient selection as well as surgical improvements and a more accurate sizing could be correlated with this phenomenon. The RD cohort revealed no significant differences either in patient's characteristics or in PPI rate between the two time periods.

Conventional vs. Sutureless Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis: Is Faster Better?

Purpose: The benefits of sutureless compared to conventional aortic valve prosthesis replacement remain controversial. Supposed advantages of sutureless aortic valve replacement include shortened cross-clamp and implantation time, as well as improved overall safety and good post-operative performance. We aimed to compare the early outcomes and performance of sutureless aortic valve replacement (su-AVR) with the sutureless Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) vs. the conventional AVR with a conventional counterpart, in this case, the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. Methods: We compared two types of aortic valve prostheses, the sutureless (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and the conventional valve Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP), implanted between August 2014 and May 2019 in our Department of Cardiac Surgery at RWTH Aachen University Hospital. Data were collected from 141 patients who received the Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and 138 who received the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. After matching the two groups considering STS mortality risk and pre-operative LDH levels, 201 patients were included in our final study cohort. Seventy-one patients (17 from the Perceval group and 54 from the Dokimos group) were excluded due to the lack of complete data, particularly standardized echocardiographic data (n = 71). Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and pacemaker implantation. Secondary endpoints were echocardiographic parameters, major adverse cardiovascular events, and prosthesis failure (grade II aortic regurgitation, paravalvular leak with reintervention). Results: Bypass and cross-clamp time proved to be shorter in the Perceval group, while hospital stays were longer. The faster implantation had no effect on the 30-day mortality primary endpoint. Transvalvular gradients were significantly higher in the Perceval group, in addition to a smaller effective orifice area. The LDH values were remarkably higher post-operatively in the Perceval group. Conclusions: Regarding the clinical outcomes, Perceval was equivalent and not superior to the Dokimus bioprosthesis. The suitability of a Perceval prosthesis implantation must be determined on a case-by-case basis and reserved for elderly patients with increased comorbidity.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment vs. Transcatheter Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients: Mid-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Recent trials showed that TAVI is neither inferior nor superior to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves (SuRD-AVR) when compared to TAVI in low surgical risk patients with isolated aortic stenosis.

METHODS

Data from five European Centers were retrospectively collected. We included 1306 consecutive patients at low surgical risk (EUROSCORE II < 4) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of SuRD-AVR (n = 636) or TAVI (n = 670) from 2014 to 2019. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score was performed, and two balanced groups of 346 patients each were obtained. The primary endpoints of the study were: 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. The secondary endpoint was 5-year survival freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was similar between the two groups (SuRD-AVR:1.7%, TAVI:2.0%, p = 0.779), while the TAVI group showed a significantly lower 5-year overall survival and survival freedom from MACCEs (5-year matched overall survival: SuRD-AVR: 78.5%, TAVI: 62.9%, p = 0.039; 5-year matched freedom from MACCEs: SuRD-AVR: 64.6%, TAVI: 48.7%, p = 0.004). The incidence of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and paravalvular leak grade ≥ 2 (PVL) were higher in the TAVI group. Multivariate Cox Regression analysis identified PPI as an independent predictor for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI patients had a significantly lower five-year survival and survival freedom from MACCEs with a higher rate of PPI and PVL ≥ 2 when compared to SuRD-AVR.

An Analysis of Early Results after Valve Replacement in Isolated Aortic Valve Stenosis by Using Sutureless vs. Stented Bioprostheses: A Single-Center Middle-Income Country Experience

Background and Objectives: There is a lack of data about the survival of patients after the implantation of sutureless relative to stented bioprostheses in middle-income settings. The objective of this study was to compare the survival of people with isolated severe aortic stenosis after the implantation of sutureless and stented bioprostheses in a tertiary referral center in Serbia. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all people treated for isolated severe aortic stenosis with sutureless and stented bioprostheses from 1 January 2018 to 1 July 2021 at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases "Dedinje". Demographic, clinical, perioperative and postoperative data were extracted from the medical records. The follow-up lasted for a median of 2 years. Results: The study sample comprised a total of 238 people with a stented (conventional) bioprosthesis and 101 people with a sutureless bioprosthesis (Perceval). Over the follow-up, 13.9% of people who received the conventional and 10.9% of people who received the Perceval valve died (p = 0.400). No difference in the overall survival was observed (p = 0.797). The multivariate Cox proportional hazard model suggested that being older, having a higher preoperative EuroScore II, having a stroke over the follow-up period and having valve-related complications were independently associated with all-cause mortality over a median of 2 years after the bioprosthesis implantation. Conclusions: This research conducted in a middle-income country supports previous findings in high-income countries regarding the survival of people with sutureless and stented valves. Survival after bioprosthesis implantation should be monitored long-term to ensure optimum postoperative outcomes.

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.

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.

1-year outcomes of patients implanted with the Perceval sutureless valve: the Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

Sutureless offers an alternative to standard valves in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We sought to confirm the efficacy and safety of the Perceval sutureless valve in Japanese patients. Prospective observational study of 204 patients who underwent SAVR with Perceval at 19 sites in Japan between March and December 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and postoperative complications; the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Efficacy outcomes were changed in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, pressure gradients, effective orifice area (EOA), EOA indexed to body surface area (EOAi) and severity of aortic regurgitation. Mean age was 77.7 years, 62.7% were female. Procedural success rate was 99.0%. The median cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 68.0 and 108 min. Perceval size S and M were implanted in 95 (46.6%) and in 76 (37.3%) of patients, respectively. The 30-day and late mortality rate were 0.5% and 4.4%, while the new permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 4.4%. Mean pressure gradient was 13.0 mmHg at discharge, reaching 11.0 mmHg at 1 year; while the mean EOA was 1.5 cm² at discharge remaining stable up to 1 year. No moderate or severe leakages were present at discharge or at 1 year. NYHA class improved by ≥ 1 level in 55.1% of the patients at discharge and in 69.4% of the patients at 1 year. 1-year outcomes of SAVR with the Perceval sutureless valve in Japanese patients were favorable. This valve offers a promising alternative to conventional biological AVR in this Japanese population.

Ten years' experience with the sutureless aortic valve replacement: incidence and predictors for survival and valve durability at follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement with a sutureless prosthesis [sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR)] is an option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, data regarding long-term outcomes and prosthesis durability are still lacking.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who successfully underwent Su-AVR with the Perceval valve in our centre between 2010 and 2020 were included in the analysis and followed prospectively with echocardiography. Risk factor analysis was performed to assess variables associated with worse survival and bioprosthetic valve failure.

RESULTS

Study population consisted of 547 patients: the mean age was 76.4 (5.2) years, 51% were female and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 13% (11). The median survival was 7.76 years [95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.9-8.6]. Risk factor analysis identified age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.11; P < 0.001), EuroSCORE II (HR 1.08, 1.02-1.13; P < 0.001), baseline dialysis (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.4-4.4; P = 0.038) and postoperative acute kidney injury ≥2 (HR 8.97, 95% CI 4.58-17.6; P < 0.001) as factors significantly correlated with worse survival. The reported HRs for age are per 1 year and for EuroSCORE II is 1 percentage point. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was observed in 23 patients, of whom 19 underwent reintervention (median freedom from SVD 10.3 years). In multivariable Cox analysis, age (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.95; P < 0.001) was found to be a significant predictor of SVD. Overall, 1.8% was referred for prosthetic valve endocarditis (confirmed or suspected) during follow-up. One patient showed moderate non-SVD and none developed prosthetic valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The sutureless valve represents a reliable bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with a 10-year life expectancy. Younger age at the time of implant is the only factor associated with the risk of long-term SVD.

In-Hospital Mortality and Risk Prediction in Minimally Invasive Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective. Available evidence suggests that a minimally invasive approach with the use of sutureless bioprostheses has a favorable impact on the outcome of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods. From 2010 to 2019, 2732 patients underwent conventional AVR through median sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis (n = 2048) or minimally invasive AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis (n = 684). Results. Using the propensity score, 206 patients in each group were matched, and the matched groups were well balanced regarding preoperative risk factors. Both unmatched and matched patients of the sutureless + minimally invasive group showed significantly shorter cross-clamp times and longer ICU stay. In-hospital mortality was the only outcome measure that was confirmed in both analyses, and was higher in the stented + conventional group (2.54% and 2.43% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) compared with the sutureless + minimally invasive group (0.88% and 0.97% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) (p = 0.0047 and p < 0.0001, respectively). No differences in postoperative pacemaker implantation were recorded in matched patients of both groups (n = 2 [1%] in the stented + conventional group vs. n = 4 [2%] in the sutureless + minimally invasive group; p = 0.41). The discrimination power of EuroSCORE II was not confirmed in the sutureless + minimally invasive group, yielding an area under the ROC curve of 0.568. Conclusions. Minimally invasive sutureless AVR has a favorable impact on the immediate outcome and is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with conventional AVR, resulting in the absence of the discrimination power of EuroSCORE II for predicting AVR outcomes.

Advances in technology and techniques for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant peripheral arterial disease

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent disease affecting 3.7% of the adult population aged 65 or above. In the past, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only definitive therapy available for the treatment of severe AS. Owing to the invasive nature of open-heart surgery, patients with advanced age and frailty could not benefit from SAVR. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the past decade has offered an alternative treatment option for patients with severe AS, particularly those who are deemed to have high surgical risks. Nevertheless, a large proportion of patients also have concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PAD), which increases the risk of peri-procedural vascular complication, and precludes the possibility of transfemoral TAVR owing to inadequate luminal size for delivery system deployment. In this review, the prevalence and outcome of TAVR patients with PAD will be discussed. Furthermore, novel technologies and techniques that enable TAVR to be safely performed using transfemoral or alternative access in patients with severe PAD will be reviewed.

Avoiding oversizing in sutureless valves leads to lower transvalvular gradients and less permanent pacemaker implants postoperatively

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of changing the sizing strategy in aortic valve replacement using the Perceval sutureless prosthesis on haemodynamic outcomes and postoperative pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients implanted with the Perceval valve between 2007 and 2019 was performed by comparing patients implanted before the modification of sizing strategy (OLD group) and after (NEW group). The outcome parameters evaluated were the implanted prosthesis size, haemodynamical profile and postoperative pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

The entire patient cohort (784 patients) consisted of 52% female patients, with a mean age of 78.53 [standard deviation (SD): 5.8] years and a mean EuroSCORE II of 6.3 (range 0.7-76). In 55.5% of cases, surgery was combined. The NEW cohort had more male patients (54.6% vs 43.4%) (P = 0.002). Mean implanted valve size, corrected for body surface area, was significantly lower in the NEW cohort (13.1, SD: 1.4 vs 13.5, SD: 1.4 mm/m2, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 3.4%. Peak and mean transvalvular gradients at discharge were significantly lower in the NEW versus OLD groups: 24.4 mmHg (SD: 9.2) versus 28.4 mmHg (SD: 10.3) (P < 0.001) and 13.6 mmHg (SD: 5.3) versus 15.5 mmHg (SD: 6.0) (P < 0.001). The mean effective opening area and the indexed effective opening area, respectively, increased from 1.5 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.85 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.27) in the OLD group to 1.7 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.93 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.30) in the NEW group (P < 0.001). No difference was found in paravalvular leakage ≥1/4. Centrovalvular leakage ≥1/4 significantly decreased from 18% to 7.9% (P < 0.001). With the new sizing, the new postoperative pacemaker implantation rate decreased significantly from 11% to 6.1% (P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Correct sizing of sutureless aortic valves is crucial to obtain the best possible haemodynamics and avoid complications.

Recent improvement in operative techniques lead to lower pacemaker rate after Perceval implant

Central picture.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Versus Sutured Aortic Valve Replacement: a Propensity Matched Comparison from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless (Perceval, Livanova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) aortic valve replacement (group 1) versus sutured aortic valve replacement (group 2).

METHODS

Patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement between 2014 and 2020 were analysed using data from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Patients in group 1 and group 2 were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 7708 patients were included in the study. After matching, 2 groups of 2643 each were created. Patients in group 1 were more likely to undergo minimally invasive approaches and were associated with shorter operative times when compared with group 2. Overall in-hospital mortality was similar between groups. While an increased risk of stroke was observed in group 1 in the first study period (2014-2016) (relative risk 3.76, p < 0.001), no difference was found in more recent year period (relative risk 1.66, p = 0.08)(p for heterogeneity 0.003). Group 1 was associated with reduced rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, atrial fibrillation and mild aortic regurgitation. New pacemaker implant was three-fold higher in group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed significant differences in procedural and clinical outcomes between the study groups. These results suggest that sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program. The knowledge of the respective post-aortic valve replacement benefits for different valve technologies may result in patient-tailored valve selection with improved clinical outcomes.

Left Atrial Appendage Amputation for Atrial Fibrillation during Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Occluding the left atrial appendage (LAA) during cardiac surgery reduces the risk of ischemic stroke; nonetheless, it is currently only softly recommended with "may be considered" by the current guidelines. We aimed to assess thromboembolic risk after LAA amputation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and aortic stenosis undergoing biological aortic valve replacement (AVR) as primary cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Two cohorts were generated retrospectively: patients with AF undergoing AVR alone or combined with revascularization either with LAA amputation or without. Data were collected from the hospital-specific data system. Follow-up was completed by telephone interview or in person. Thirty-day and follow-up results were compared in patients with vs. without LAA amputation.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-seven patients were investigated retrospectively, and seventy-four pairs were matched with regard to baseline characteristics. Patients with LAA amputation exhibited a lower incidence of cumulative and late ischemic stroke (6.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.028 and 3.2% vs. 20%, p = 0.008, respectively; hazard ratio 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.11; 0.84; p = 0.021) during follow-up of 48 months vs. patients without intervention during follow-up of 45 months, p = 0.494. No significant differences were observed in postoperative stroke, 2 (2.7%) vs. 3 (4.1%), p = 1.000, re-exploration for bleeding 3 (4.1%) vs. 6 (8.1), p = 0.494 or late pericardial effusion 2 (2.7%) vs. 3 (4.1%), p = 1.000, in-hospital 2 (2.7%) vs. 4 (5.4%), p = 0.681 and all-cause mortality 15 (23.8%) vs. 9 (15%), p = 0.315 in patients with vs. without LAA amputation, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of leading aortic stenosis and AF in patients undergoing isolated or combined biological AVR represents a subpopulation with excessive thromboembolic risk. Concomitant LAA amputation during cardiac surgery reduces the risk of ischemic stroke without posing an additional periprocedural risk for the patient. Therefore, the minimal invasive approach at the expense of omitting LAA amputation should be discouraged to maximize the clinical benefits of AVR in this setting.

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.

Hemodynamic Performance of Sutureless vs. Conventional Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: The 1-Year Core-Lab Results of the Randomized PERSIST-AVR Trial

Objective

Sutureless aortic valves are an effective option for aortic valve replacement (AVR) showing non-inferiority to standard stented aortic valves for major cardiovascular and cerebral events at 1-year. We report the 1-year hemodynamic performance of the sutureless prostheses compared with standard aortic valves, assessed by a dedicated echocardiographic core lab.

Methods

Perceval Sutureless Implant vs. Standard Aortic Valve Replacement (PERSIST-AVR) is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients undergoing AVR, as an isolated or combined procedure, were randomized to receive a sutureless [sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR)] (n = 407) or a stented sutured [surgical AVR (SAVR)] (n = 412) bioprostheses. Site-reported echocardiographic examinations were collected at 1 year. In addition, a subgroup of the trial population (Su-AVR n = 71, SAVR = 82) had a complete echocardiographic examination independently assessed by a Core Lab (MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington D.C., USA) for the evaluation of the hemodynamic performance.

Results

The site-reported hemodynamic data of stented valves and sutureless valves are stable and comparable during follow-up, showing stable reduction of mean and peak pressure gradients through one-year follow-up (mean: 12.1 ± 6.2 vs. 11.5 ± 4.6 mmHg; peak: 21.3 ± 11.4 vs. 22.0 ± 8.9 mmHg). These results at 1-year are confirmed in the subgroup by the core-lab assessed echocardiogram with an average mean and peak gradient of 12.8 ± 5.7 and 21.5 ± 9.1 mmHg for Su-AVR, and 13.4 ± 7.7 and 23.0 ± 13.0 mmHg for SAVR. The valve effective orifice area was 1.3 ± 0.4 and 1.4 ± 0.4 cm2 at 1-year for Su-AVR and SAVR. These improvements are observed across all valve sizes. At 1-year evaluation, 91.3% (n = 42) of patients in Su-AVR and 82.3% in SAVR (n = 51) groups were free from paravalvular leak (PVL). The rate of mild PVL was 4.3% (n = 2) in Su-AVR and 12.9% (n = 8) in the SAVR group. A similar trend is observed for central leak occurrence in both core-lab assessed echo groups.

Conclusion

At 1-year of follow-up of a PERSIST-AVR patient sub-group, the study showed comparable hemodynamic performance in the sutureless and the stented-valve groups, confirmed by independent echo core lab. Perceval sutureless prosthesis provides optimal sealing at the annulus with equivalent PVL and central regurgitation extent rates compared to sutured valves. Sutureless valves are therefore a reliable and essential technology within the modern therapeutic possibilities to treat aortic valve disease.

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.

Sutureless valves-are we there yet? Evidence from the PERSIST-AVR trial

Sutur eless valves have emerged as another option for implantation of a biological valve. Several benefits of sutureless valves have been reported in the literature. However, concerns have been raised over increased incidence of para-valvular leak and need for permanent pacemaker implantation. Most of the evidence has been obtained from observational and retrospective single institutional series. The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement (PERSIST-AVR) trial is the first multicentric randomized control trial to compare sutureless valves with standard bio-prosthesis. Evidence from this trial has been critically analyzed in this review.

Updates on the Latest Surgical Approach of the Aortic Stenosis

Over the last twenty years, we marked significant progresses in the field of tissue engineering and the development of new aortic valve structural and delivery systems. These continuous iterations on the field, have completely changed the surgical indications and approaches for AVR. Nowadays, therapeutic decisions are endorsed by international guidelines; however, new technical advances need a new integrated approach. The clinical scenarios issued from the interaction between the Guidelines and the newest approaches and technologies are regularly on debate by the Heart Team. We will present some of our most encountered situations and the pattern of our therapeutic decisions. To easily navigate through Guidelines and clinical scenarios, we reported in this review a simplified and easy to use Clinical decision-making algorithm that may be a valuable tool in our daily practice.

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.

Midterm Outcomes Following Sutureless and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless-surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been proposed as a surgical alternative for treating aortic stenosis, which facilitates a minimally invasive approach. While some studies have compared the early outcomes of SU-SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), most data were obtained in high-risk patients and/or limited to in-hospital outcomes. This study aimed to compare in-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes following SU-SAVR and TAVR in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 806 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II <4%) patients underwent TAVR or SU-SAVR between 2011 and 2020 in 2 centers. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed and identified 171 pairs with similar characteristics that were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2) were collected.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups, with a median EuroSCORE II of 1.9% (1.3%-2.5%) in both SU-SAVR and TAVR groups (P=0.85). There were no statistically significant differences regarding in-hospital mortality (SU-SAVR: 4.1%, TAVR: 1.8%, P=0.199) and stroke (SU-SAVR: 2.3%, TAVR: 2.9%, P=0.736), but SU-SAVR recipients exhibited higher rates of bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation, higher residual transvalvular gradients (P<0.001), and a lower rate of pacemaker implantation (P=0.011). After a median follow-up of 2 (1-3) years, there were no differences between groups in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.52-1.82], P=0.936) and stroke (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32-2.15], P=0.708), but SU-SAVR was associated with a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 5.38 [95% CI, 1.88-15.38], P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes (except for conduction disturbances) and valve hemodynamics, compared with SU-SAVR. Although similar mortality and stroke rates were observed at 2-year follow-up, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher among SU-SAVR patients. These results may contribute to reinforce TAVR over SU-SAVR for the majority of such patients. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices

The superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been fully demonstrated in a real-world setting. This prospective study included 5706 AS patients who underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2012 and 2989 AS patients who underwent TAVR from 2017 to 2018 from the prospective multicenter observational studies OBSERVANT I and II. Early adverse events as well as all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and hospital readmission due to heart failure at 1-year were investigated. Among 1008 propensity score matched pairs, TAVR was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality (1.8 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.020), stroke (0.8 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (0.6 vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (5.9 vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (13.8 vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001) were more frequent after TAVR. At 1-year, TAVR was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (7.9 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.006), MACCE (12.0 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.011), readmission due to heart failure (10.8 vs. 15.9%, p < 0.001), and stroke (3.2 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033) compared to SAVR. TAVR reduced 1-year mortality in the subgroups of patients aged 80 years or older (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33–0.71), in females (HR 0.57, 0.38–0.85), and among patients with EuroSCORE II ≥ 4.0% (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.71). In a real-world setting, TAVR using new-generation devices was associated with lower rates of adverse events up to 1-year follow-up compared to SAVR.

Clinical outcomes after implantation of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis with concomitant mitral valve surgery: the SURE-AVR registry

Background

Early treatment of aortic valve stenosis is recommended in eligible symptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis who would otherwise have a poor prognosis. The sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis offers an alternative to standard aortic valve replacement with a sutured valve, but limited data are available in patients who have undergone multiple valve procedures involving the new, sutureless technology. We sought to investigate outcomes in high operative risk patients with previous or concomitant valve surgery who were implanted with a sutureless valve.

Methods

SURE-AVR is an ongoing, prospective, multinational registry of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. In-hospital and post-discharge outcomes up to 5 years were collected.

Results

The study population comprised 78 patients (mean ± SD: age 73.6 ± 7.6 years, logistic EuroSCORE 18.0 ± 17.5) enrolled at 13 sites who presented for concomitant or previous mitral valve repair (n = 45) or replacement (n = 33), with or without additional concomitant procedures, and were implanted with a sutureless valve. Mean ± SD overall aortic cross-clamp time was 109 ± 41 min and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 152 ± 49 min. Mean ± SD aortic pressure gradients decreased from 37.6 ± 17.7 mmHg preoperatively to 13.0 ± 5.7 mmHg at hospital discharge, and peak aortic pressure gradient from 61.5 ± 28.7 to 23.4 ± 10.6 mmHg. Early events included 1 death, 1 transient ischaemic attack, and 1 bleed (all 1.3%); a permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 6 patients (7.7%), and 2 reoperations (not valve related) (2.6%) took place. Over a median follow-up of 55.5 months (Q1 13.4, Q3 68.6), 12 patients died (6 cardiovascular and 6 non-cardiovascular, both 2.1% per patient-year). Five-year survival was 81.3%. Late paravalvular leak occurred in 2 patients (0.7% per patient-year) and permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 3 patients (0.1% per patient-year). There was no apparent rise in mean or peak aortic pressure gradient over the study.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the sutureless implant is a technically feasible procedure during mitral surgery and is associated with good clinical outcomes.