Outcome of a Modified Perceval Implantation Technique

Single-Center Real-World Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Isolated and Combined Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Due to their favourable hemodynamic performance and the ability to enable minimally invasive access procedures, sutureless aortic valve prostheses have found their place in the armamentarium of cardiothoracic surgeons. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients who underwent an SU-AVR with a Perceval valve between December 2019 and February 2023.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 69.3 ± 8.1 years, and patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a mean logistic EuroSCORE-II of 5.2 ± 8.1%. An isolated SU-AVR was performed in 85 (42.5%) patients, concomitant CABG was performed in 75 (37.5%) and 40 patients (20%) underwent a multivalve procedure involving SU-AVR. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp (CC) times were 82.1 ± 35.1 and 55.5 ± 27.8 min, respectively. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 4.5%, 6.5%, 7.5% and 8.2%, respectively. The postoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradient was 6.3 ± 1.6 mmHg and stayed stable over the follow-up time. We reported no cases of paravalvular leakage, and the incidence of stroke was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

With their favourable hemodynamic performance and shorter CC and CPB times, sutureless aortic valve prostheses facilitate minimally invasive access surgery, being a safe and durable promising approach for the surgical AVR.

Conventional Biological versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Prostheses in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have proven to provide a significant decrease in procedural, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, leading to a significant reduction in mortality risk in elderly high-risk cohorts. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience on the sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and the concomitant mitral valve replacement (SMVR), comparing the combined conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with SMVR.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Between March 2018 and July 2022, 114 consecutive patients underwent a combined aortic and mitral valve replacement at our institution. We stratified the patients according to the operative procedures into two groups and matched them 1:2: Group 1 underwent a combined conventional SAVR and SMVR (n = 46), and Group 2 included combined SU-AVR with Perceval prosthesis and SMVR (n = 23).

RESULTS

No significant differences in the preoperative characteristics were present. SU-AVR combined with SMVR demonstrated excellent haemodynamic performance, comparable to that of SAVR plus SMVR, with median postoperative gradients over the aortic valve of 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 1 and 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 2 (p = 0.67). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative major adverse events such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction and kidney failure between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the permanent pacemaker implantation rate, paravalvular leakage or valve dislocation. We also could not detect any significant difference in postoperative mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SU-AVR has proven to be a reliable alternative to conventional valve prostheses in patients with multivalve disease undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, offering shorter procedural time and outstanding hemodynamic performance compared to the conventional surgical method.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in pure aortic regurgitation: expanding the indications

Background

In the era of transcatheter methods, patients presenting with a pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are not considered eligible for transcatheter treatment and therefore require another less invasive surgical option. We sought to review our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in patients presenting with symptomatic pure AR, which until now is a contraindication for implementation of sutureless valve prostheses in Europe.

Methods

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 80 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. We analyzed the outcomes and postoperative complications of 12 patients presenting with a pure severe AR undergoing SU-AVR using Perceval (Corcym).

Results

The mean age of the patients was 67 ± 9.1 years old. All patients presented with symptomatic pure AR. Patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the mean EuroSCORE-II of 3.6 ± 2.6%. Six patients (50%) underwent a concomitant CABG procedure. The mean operating- and cross clamp time was 127.25 ± 45.9 and 40.33 ± 17.3 min respectively. All isolated SU-AVR were performed via J-sternotomy or right anterolateral thoracotomy. There were no cases of device dislocation. No patients presented with a paravalvular leakage. We observed excellent mean postoperative pressure gradient at follow-up 5.7 ± 1.5 mmHg.

Conclusions

Our experience with SU-AVR shows the feasibility of sutureless technologies in the aortic valve surgery due to pure AR. Besides the great technical success and excellent hemodynamics, SU-AVR in severe AR offers a great opportunity of reducing the invasivity of the surgical procedure and potentially reducing hospital cost without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay.

The use of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve prosthesis in patients with bicuspid aortic valve: A focused review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to describe the postoperative outcomes and complications of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) treated with sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis.

BACKGROUND

The use of sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses is generally avoided in patients with BAV due to anatomical concerns and the elevated risk of para-prosthetic leaks. Multiple studies have reported the use of these prostheses into patients with BAV with varying degrees of success. The focus of this review is to consolidate the current available evidence on this topic.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy in multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials) for relevant articles. All abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirteen articles, including case reports and case series were ultimately included for analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1052 total citations, 44 underwent full text review and 13 (4 case reports, 6 retrospective analyses, and 3 prospective analyses) were included in the scoping review. Across all 13 studies, a total of 314 patients with BAV were used for data analysis. In sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses, the mean postoperative aortic valvular gradients were less than 15 mmHg in all studies with mean postoperative aortic valvular areas all greater than 1.3 cm.² There were 186 total complications for an overall complication rate of 59%. Individual complications included new onset atrial fibrillation (n = 65), required pacemaker insertion (n = 24), intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation (n = 20), new onset atrioventricular block (n = 18), and new onset paravalvular leakage (n = 10).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sutureless and rapid deployment prostheses in patients with BAV showed comparable intraoperative and implantation success rates to patients without BAV. Postoperative complications from using these prostheses in patients with BAV included new onset atrial fibrillation, intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation, new onset atrioventricular block, and required pacemaker insertion. Various techniques have been described to minimize these complications in patients with BAV receiving sutureless or rapid deployment prostheses.

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

Central picture.

Non-Inferiority of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in the TAVR Era: David versus Goliath

BACKGROUND

The rapid development of transcatheter treatment methods has made transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) a feasible alternative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recently, indications for TAVR have been expanded to intermediate- and low-risk patients, although there still remains a portion of ineligible patients. We sought to evaluate and compare our experience with sutureless SAVR and transapical TAVR in the "grey-area" of patients unsuitable for transfemoral access.

METHODS

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 248 consecutive patients underwent a sutureless SAVR (SU-SAVR) or TA-TAVR at our institution. We performed a pair-matched analysis and identified 56 patient pairs based on the EuroSCORE II. All transcatheter procedures were performed using SAPIEN XT/3™ prostheses, while all surgical procedures deployed the Perceval (LivaNova) aortic valve.

RESULTS

All patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the median EuroSCORE-II of 3.1% (IQR 1.9-5.3). Thirty-four patients from the surgical group (60.7%) underwent a concomitant myocardial revascularization. There was no significant difference in major adverse events, pacemaker implantation or postoperative mortality during follow-up. Both interventions demonstrated technical success with similar mean postoperative pressure gradients at follow-up and no cases of paravalvular leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement constitutes a feasible treatment alternative for patients with aortic valve disease who are ineligible for transfemoral access route and/or require concomitant coronary revascularization. With its excellent hemodynamic performance, similar survival compared to TA-TAVR, and high cost-efficiency without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay SU-AVR might be considered for patients in the "grey-area" between TAVR and SAVR.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in multivalve procedures

Background

Despite the rapid expansion of transcatheter approaches for aortic valve implantation, surgical aortic valve replacement remains the treatment of choice in patients presenting with multiple valvular heart disease. We sought to review our clinical experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in the setting of multivalve procedures, addressing the postoperative outcomes and technical challenges.

Methods

Between December 2019 and December 2020, 20 consecutive high-risk patients at our institution underwent SU-AVR and concomitant mitral valve procedure for various indications.

Results

The mean age of the patients at operation was 72.6±9.3 years. Fifty five percent of the patients (n=11) presented with moderate to severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, while 35% (n=7) suffered from severe aortic regurgitation. All patients had concomitant moderate to severe mitral valve disease, including regurgitation in 95% (n=19) and stenosis in 25% (n=5). Mean logistic EuroSCORE was 34.3%±24.7%. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 101 (88.0-123) minutes and 67.5 (51.7-85.2) minutes, respectively. Optimal sutureless aortic valve prosthesis device success was achieved in 20 patients (100%). One patient (5%) required permanent pacemaker implantation. Thirty-day mortality was 10% and no strokes were detected.

Conclusions

SU-AVR is a safe and feasible surgical alternative to conventional procedures in patients presenting with multiple valvular heart disease. It provides excellent hemodynamic performance with low risk of paravalvular leakage and low transvalvular gradients, whilst simplifying the surgical procedure. Precise sizing and positioning of the valve prostheses is crucial to ensure optimal postoperative outcome.

Step-by-Step Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement: the RAT Approach

In the growing era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, it is crucial to develop minimally invasive surgical techniques. These methods enable easier recovery from surgical trauma, especially in elderly and frail patients. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is frequently performed via upper hemisternotomy. We describe MIAVR via right anterior thoracotomy, which is associated with less trauma, rapid mobilization, lower blood transfusion rates, and lower risk of postoperative wound infections. As minimally invasive procedures tend to take longer operative times, we suggest using rapid-deployment valve prostheses to overcome this limitation. This description focuses on the technical aspects and preoperative assessment.

A pooled analysis of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement

 

OBJECTIVES

We performed a literature meta-analysis to estimate the rate of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Pertinent articles were identified from the PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases. Eligible studies reported the de novo incidence of postoperative pacemaker implantation after Perceval valve surgery. Among 394 articles retrieved, 26 studies including 9492 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The pooled event rate for postoperative pacemaker implantation was 7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6-9%]; however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies. In a sub-analysis, there was no difference between the rates of pacemaker implantation calculated from multicentre and registry studies (8 studies, 6845 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-10%) and single-centre studies (18 studies, 2647 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-9%; P = 0.75). Implantation rates were similar in high-volume studies (16 studies, 9121 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-8%) than in low-volume studies (10 studies, 371 patients; pooled rate: 7%, 95% CI 4-14%; P = 0.5). Postoperative pacemaker implantation rates tended to decrease over time.

CONCLUSIONS

With a pooled event rate of 7%, postoperative pacemaker implantation remains an important limitation of Perceval sutureless valve surgery, although we observed a degree of variability across included studies. The resultant findings provide a useful estimate for physicians and patients and can serve as a benchmark for future comparative studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020188397.