What is the role of sutureless aortic valves in today’s armamentarium?

An alternative approach for complicated prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis

Background

Surgical treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) with destruction of the aortic root and aortomitral continuity is demanding even in experienced hands.

Case presentation

Herein, we describe a case of a 71-year-old female patient who presented with PVE that was further complicated by a fistulous abscess cavity. The patient underwent removal of the dehisced prosthetic valve, radical annular debridement, reconstruction of the aortomitral curtain with a pericardial patch as a patch exclusion technique and implantation of a sutureless valve.

Conclusion

Patch exclusion technique, followed by sutureless valve implantation, might represent a feasible and safe alternative for the surgical treatment of complicated PVE.

[Safety of biological valves for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive and contemporary overview of the long-term safety outcomes after aortic valve replacements (AVR) with conventional biological heart valve (stented or stentless).

METHODS

English databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrial.gov) and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and SinoMed) were searched systemically from January 1, 2000 to January 26, 2019. Eligible randomized controlled trials, non-randomized clinical trials, cohort studies (retrospective or prospective), and unselected case series were included. Strict screening of the obtained literature was conducted to extract relevant data by two reviewers. Other inclusion criteria were studied reporting on outcomes of AVR with biological valves (stented or stentless), with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve repair procedure, with mean follow-up length equal to or longer than 5 years. We excluded studies that reported only a specific patient group (e.g., patients with renal failure, or pregnancy), without the report of biological valve type, or with study population size less than 100. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 software.

RESULTS

In this study, 53 papers (in total 57 study groups) involving 47 803 patients were included. (1) The all-cause mortality was 6.33/100 patient-years (95%CI: 5.85-6.84). Subgroup analysis showed that the mortality rates of porcine and bovine valve prostheses were 5.69/100 patient-years (95%CI: 5.05-6.41) and 7.29/100 patient-years (95%CI: 6.53-8.13), respectively. The all-cause mortality rates for stented and stentless valve were 6.69/100 patient-years (95%CI: 6.12-7.30) and 5.21/100 patient-years (95%CI: 4.43-6.14), respectively. (2) The incidence rate of thromboembolism was 1.16/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.96-1.40), the incidence rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation was 1.08/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.75-1.54), the incidence rate of stroke was 0.74/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.51-1.06), the incidence rate of structural valve dysfunction (SVD) was 0.73/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.59-0.91), the incidence rate of major bleeding was 0.52/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.41-0.65), the incidence rate of endocarditis was 0.38/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.33-0.44), and the incidence rate of non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD) was 0.20/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.13-0.31). The total reoperation rate for biological aortic valve was 0.77/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.65-0.91), and the SVD related reoperation rate was 0.46/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.36-0.58).

CONCLUSION

The all-cause mortality for conventional biological AVR was 6.33/100 patient-years. Thromboembolism, PPM implantation, reoperation, stroke, and SVD were major long term complications.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: A clinical and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) by sutureless prostheses is changing surgeon options, although which patients benefit most, as well as their possible economic impact is still to be defined.

METHODS

Perceval-S prosthesis (LivaNova) is reserved, at the documented Institution, for patients at perceived high surgical risk. This retrospective analysis of outcome and resource consumption compared Perceval with other tissue valves. To clarify the comparison, only patients respecting 'instructions-for- use' of Perceval were reviewed.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

> 65 years, +/- coronary artery bypass grafting, patent foramen ovale closure or myectomy.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

bicuspid, combined valve or aortic sur- gery. Costs were calculated per patient on a daily basis including preoperative tests, operating costs (hourly basis), disposables, drugs, blood components and personnel.

RESULTS

The sutureless group (SU-AVR) had a higher risk profile than the sutured group (ST-AVR). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in SU-AVR (isolated AVR: cross-clamp 52.9 ± 12.6 vs. 69 ± 15.3 min, p < 0.001; CPB 79.4 ± 20.3 vs. 92.7 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was 0.9% in SU-AVR and nil in ST-AVR, p = 0.489; intubation 7 (IQR 5-10.7) and 7 h (IQR 5-9), p = 0.785; intensive care unit 1 (IQR 1-1) and 1 day (IQR 1-1), p = 0.258; ward stay 5.5 (IQR 4-7) and 5 days (IQR 4-6), p = 0.002; pacemaker 5.7% (6/106) and 0.9% (1/109), p = 0.063, respectively. Hospital costs (excluding the prosthesis) were $12,825 (IQR 11,733-15,334) for SU-AVR and $12,386 (IQR 11,217-14,230) in ST-AVR, p = 0.055.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher operative risks in SU-AVR, hospital mortality, morbidity and resource consumption did not differ. Operative times were shorter with the sutureless device and this improve- ment, along with more frequent ministernotomy, may have improved many postoperative aims.