Early Outcomes with Rapid-deployment vs Stented Biological Valves: A Propensity-match Analysis

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Early Outcomes of Intuity Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement Compared With Conventional Biological Valves in Japanese Patients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to elucidate the short-term surgical outcomes and hemodynamics of the Intuity valve compared to the standard bioprosthesis in Japanese patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among the 307 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) between February 2019 and March 2021, the Intuity valve was implanted in 95 patients (Intuity group) and a conventional stented bioprosthesis was implanted in 193 patients (conventional group). After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the Intuity (n=2, 3%) and conventional groups (n=0, P=0.490). Operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamping times were significantly shorter in the Intuity group. Although the effective orifice area index, trans-prosthetic mean pressure gradient, and peak velocity were similar between the 2 groups at 1 week postoperatively, the Intuity group showed a better mean pressure gradient and peak velocity at 1 year postoperatively. Complete atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation developed in 2 patients (3%) in the Intuity group and none in the conventional group (P=0.476). Mild or greater paravalvular leakage was present in 8 patients (13%) in the Intuity group and 2 patients (3%) in the conventional group (P=0.095).

CONCLUSIONS

AVR using the Intuity valve in Japanese patients is satisfactory, with a better valve performance and a low incidence of complete atrioventricular block at 1 year postoperatively.

Early pacemaker insertion after aortic valve replacement with an Edwards Intuity sutureless valve

BACKGROUND

Postoperative conduction disorders are serious adverse events in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and may prolong the duration of hospitalization and require pacemaker insertion.

AIM

Our aim was to evaluate the rate of pacemaker insertion after implantation of an Edwards Intuity sutureless aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) compared with a standard surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This retrospective single-centre study included patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with an Intuity sutureless aortic valve or a standard bioprosthetic valve between 4 June 2014 and 27 June 2016. The main outcome criterion was the rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion. Secondary outcome criteria included the rate of new conduction disorders, the rate of atrial arrhythmia or paroxysmal conduction disorders, mortality and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients received an Intuity sutureless aortic valve (median age 76 years, interquartile range 71-80 years), and 176 were implanted with a standard biological aortic valve (median age 73 years, interquartile range 68-79 years; P=0.007). The rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion, after adjustment, was 22.44% in the Intuity group and 5.66% in the standard aortic valve group (P=0.030). The main indications for postoperative pacemaker insertion were complete atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block with prolongation of the H-V interval. The rate of new postoperative left bundle branch block conduction disorders was significantly higher in patients implanted with an Intuity valve (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 23.05; P=0.012).

CONCLUSION

Higher rates of pacemaker insertion and new conduction disorders were observed in patients implanted with an Intuity sutureless bioprosthesis compared with those who received a standard surgical aortic valve.

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.

Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement

Objectives

Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.

Methods

A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity‐matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).

Results

Random‐effects meta‐analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−1.35, −1.20], p < .001) and cross‐clamp times (SMD: −1.05, 95% CI: [−1.12, −0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: −0.385, 95% CI: [−0.679, −0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow‐up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05).

Conclusions

Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.

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.

Short-term outcome of the intuity rapid deployment prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Limited access aortic valve replacement is an alternative approach for the treatment of calcified aortic valve disease. To facilitate limited access aortic valve replacement, rapid deployment valve prostheses have been developed aiming to reduce surgical impact. This systematic review gives an overview of current literature regarding the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite rapid deployment biological valve prosthesis.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase and MEDLINE were searched to identify relevant studies. All studies reporting on patients who underwent isolated or combined surgical aortic valve replacement with the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite valve prosthesis were considered eligible. Primary end points were technical success rate, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular accident, paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker implantation. Secondary end points included procedural data such as aortic cross-clamping time, cardiopulmonary bypass time and procedural approach.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and comprised 4.184 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 2.7% (1.9-3.7%), cerebrovascular accident 2.6% (1.4-4.7%), permanent pacemaker implantation 7.9% (6.6-9.5%) and severe postoperative paravalvular leak requiring a reintervention 3.3% (1.7-6.1%). Technical success rate varied between 93.9% and 100%. Conventional median sternotomy was most commonly performed, ranging from 21.7% to 89.6%. Upper hemi-sternotomy was performed more often than anterior right thoracotomy, ranging from 10.4% to 63.3% and 2.2% to 26.1%. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient ranged between 9.0 and 10.3 mmHg at 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that the technical success rate of the INTUITY or INTUITY Elite rapid deployment valve system is high, also in limited access aortic valve replacement. Mortality and cerebrovascular accident rates are low, but the need for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation and reintervention rate for paravalvular leakage is increased.

Conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement: what is the real impact of sutureless and rapid deployment valves?

Background

Although sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been associated with an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to conventional AVR (c-AVR), the predictors of new conduction abnormalities remain to be clarified. This study aimed to identify risk factors for conduction disorders in patients undergoing AVR surgery.

Methods

Data from 243 patients receiving minimally invasive AVR were prospectively collected. SURD-AVR was performed in 103 (42.4%) patients and c-AVR in 140 (57.6%). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of new-onset conduction disorders, defined as first degree atrioventricular (AV) block, advanced AV block requiring PPM implantation, left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB).

Results

The unadjusted comparison revealed that SURD-AVR was associated with a higher rate of advanced AV block requiring PPM when compared with c-AVR (10.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.01). After adjusting for other measured covariates (OR: 1.6, P=0.58) and for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 5.1, P=0.1), no significant relationship between type of AVR and PPM implantation emerged. On multivariable analysis, preoperative first-degree AV block (OR: 6.9, P=0.04) and RBBB (OR: 6.9, P=0.03) were independent risk factors for PPM. Subgroup analysis of patients with normal preoperative conduction revealed similar incidence of PPM between SURD-AVR and c-AVR (1.3% vs. 1.9%, P=0.6). When compared with c-AVR, SURD-AVR was associated with a greater incidence of postoperative new onset LBBB (18.1% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001). This finding was confirmed after adjusting for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 6.3, P=0.009).

Conclusions

Our study revealed that the risk of PPM implantation in patients receiving surgical AVR is heavily influenced by the presence of pre-existing conduction disturbances rather than the type of valve prosthesis. Conversely, SURD-AVR emerged as an independent predictor for LBBB and was associated with an increased risk of PPM in patients presenting with RBBB.

Safety and Haemodynamic Outcomes of Currently Available Suture-less Aortic Valves in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Suture-less aortic valves aim to achieve better outcomes and to aid and facilitate the minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedure by tackling the issue of cross-clamp time, which is an independent predictor of postoperative outcomes, especially in patients with serious comorbidities. By reducing the number of sutures, the time for suture placement is reduced. Our meta-analysis tried to assess the safety and haemodynamic performance of the suture-less aortic valve prostheses to ascertain their benefits as a viable alternative to current established measures.

METHOD

From their inceptions to February 2017, six electronic databases were searched. Relevant studies using commercially accessible suture-free valves to replace the aortic valve have been recognised. Based on the predefined endpoints, data were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

For incorporation in qualitative and quantitative analyses, 24 studies were recognised, with a total number of 5,073 patients undergoing suture-less aortic valve replacement. Mortality incidence at the 30-day and 12-month follow-ups were 2.5% and 2.7%, respectively, while the incidences of thromboembolic events (1.6%) and paravalvular leak (0.5%) were acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Current available evidence indicates that sutureless aortic valve replacement is a safe operation showing low mortality and complication rates, with satisfactory haemodynamic performance.

Stonehenge technique is associated with faster aortic clamp time in group of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right infra-axillary thoracotomy

BACKGROUND

Trans-right axillary aortic valve replacement (TAX-AVR) remains uncommon. We developed a special method to pull the heart closer to the right chest wall to make the surgery as easy and safe as aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy. Because the retraction sutures lifting the ascending aorta and aortic root are arranged circularly around the wound, we named this technique "Stonehenge technique".

METHODS

We examined 47 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement through a small right infra-axillary thoracotomy as the initial surgical therapy. These patients were divided into two groups: the conventional TAX-AVR group that underwent AVR via the conventional small right axillary incision approach (n = 20) and the TAX-AVR with SH group that underwent AVR with the Stonehenge technique (n = 27).

RESULTS

The aortic cross-clamp and the extracorporeal circulation time were significantly shorter in the TAX-AVR with SH group than in the conventional TAX-AVR group (conventional TAX-AVR group: 125.5 ± 47.9; TAX-AVR with SH group: 96.0 ± 14.0, p = 0.004, and conventional TAX-AVR group: 163.8 ± 55.9; TAX-AVR with SH group: 140.0 ± 16.8, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of this technique depend on the site of the retraction sutures in the opened pericardium, direction of pull, amount of force applied, and precautions taken. If performed correctly, the ascending aorta and the root can be pulled from the wound to within the surgeon's fingers' reach, thereby reducing aortic cross-clamp and extracorporeal circulation times in group of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right infra-axillary thoracotomy.