The Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve: Evolution of Surgical Valve Technology

OBJECTIVE

The surgical treatment of aortic stenosis continues to evolve, and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) is an emerging technology. With the Perceval S (Corcym, London, UK) as the only true sutureless valve on the market, the objective of this review is to analyze the current literature on Perceval S. Focusing on valve design and deployment as well as applications of the technology for challenging pathology, clinical outcomes are assessed, including a comparison with transcatheter AVR (TAVR).

METHODS

PubMed and MEDLINE were searched by 3 authors for studies analyzing SUAVR from inception to May 19, 2023.

RESULTS

SUAVR facilitates minimally invasive surgery and offers an alternative strategy for patients with small aortic annuli. It also has a time-saving advantage for patients who require complex operations. SUAVR results in excellent long-term morbidity, mortality, durability, and hemodynamic function. In comparison with conventional surgical AVR (SAVR), SUAVR does have a greater risk of postoperative pacemaker implantation; however, increasing user experience and refinements in implantation technique have contributed to reductions in this outcome. SUAVR results in morbidity and mortality that is similar to rapid-deployment AVR. Midterm outcomes are superior to TAVR; however, further robust investigation into all of these comparisons is ultimately necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

SUAVR bridges the gap in technology between SAVR and TAVR. The application of this exciting technology will undoubtedly grow in the coming years, during which additional investigation is paramount to optimize preoperative planning, valve deployment, and reintervention strategies.

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.

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.

Robot-Assisted Aortic Valve Replacement - First Clinical Report in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted valve surgery represents the latest development in the field of minimally invasive approaches. Robotic assistance may provide greater visualization, enhanced dexterity, and greater precision than traditional mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement.Methods and Results: Aortic valve replacement operations using the da Vinci Xi Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) were performed on 2 patients, 1 with severe aortic insufficiency and the other with aortic stenosis. Both patients had an uneventful postoperative course and were discharged without any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted assisted aortic valve replacement appears feasible and safe in limited cases.

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.

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.

Sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: results from a multicentric registry

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical and hemodynamic in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

We examined 4695 patients who underwent isolated or combined SURD-AVR. The "sutureless" Perceval valve was used in 3133 patients and the "rapid deployment" Intuity in 1562. Potential confounding factors were addressed by the use of propensity score matching. After matching, 2 well-balanced cohorts of 823 pairs (isolated SURD-AVR) and 467 pairs (combined SURD-AVR) were created.

RESULTS

Patients who received Perceval and Intuity valves showed similar in-hospital mortality and rate of major postoperative complications. Perceval was associated shorter cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. In the isolated SURD-AVR group, patients receiving Perceval were more likely to undergo anterior right thoracotomy incision. Postoperative transvalvular gradients were significantly lower for the Intuity valve compared to those of the Perceval valve, either in isolated and combined SURD-AVR. The Intuity valve was associated with a lower rate of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm the safety and efficacy of SURD-AVR regardless of the valve type. The Perceval valve was associated with reduced operative times and increased anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve showed superior hemodynamic outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

Supracommissural replacement of the ascending aorta and the aortic valve via partial versus full sternotomy-a propensity-matched comparison in a high-volume centre

OBJECTIVES

Full sternotomy (FS) is the common surgical access for patients undergoing open aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta. Since minimally invasive approaches are being used with increasing frequency in cardiac surgery, the aim of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing AVR with supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta via FS versus partial upper sternotomy (PS).

METHODS

We included all patients who underwent elective AVR with concomitant supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta at our institution between 2000 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were emergency surgery, other major concomitant procedures and reoperations. After 2:1 propensity score matching, outcomes of patients with PS and FS were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 652 consecutive patients were included, 117 patients operated via PS and 234 patients operated via FS. Cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time of the PS and FS groups were 89 vs 92 min (P = 0.2) and 65 vs 70 min (P = 0.3), respectively. Postoperative morbidity was low and there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes between patient groups. In-hospital mortality was 1.7% in the PS vs 0.4% in the FS group (P = 0.3). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mid-term survival (P = 0.3). Reoperation rates for valve or aortic complications were very low with no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-volume centre with extensive experience in minimally invasive cardiac surgery, AVR with concomitant supracommissural replacement of the tubular ascending aorta via PS results in similar outcomes with regard to safety and longevity when compared to conventional FS.

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.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.

The sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry: lessons learned from more than 4,500 patients

The treatment options for patients with aortic valve disease have considerably expanded over the last decade. The remarkable advances in catheter-based technology, the popularizing of minimally invasive (MI) surgery, and the introduction of new valve technologies, such as sutureless and rapid-deployment (SURD) valves have led to a paradigm shift in the management of aortic valve pathologies. Yet, given their recent introduction, the current evidence on sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been limited thus far. The Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR) was established in 2015 by a consortium of 18 research centers to assess safety, efficacy, short- and long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions. The present keynote lecture aims to assess and comment on the real-world evidence for SURD-AVR surgery generated from the SURD-IR.

Long-term outcomes of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has become a prominent area of research as the medical community evaluate its place amongst other aortic valve interventions. The main advantages of SURD-AVR established to date are the reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, as well as facilitating minimally invasive surgery in high-risk surgical patients. This current systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, is the first focusing on long-term outcomes regarding safety, efficacy and durability of SURD-AVR from available current literature.

Methods

A literature search via six electronic databases was performed from their inception to November 2019. Inclusion criteria for this systematic review included survival and postoperative echocardiographic outcomes greater than five years in patients who underwent SURD-AVR with either Perceval or Intuity valves. Studies were identified and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Long-term survival outcomes were aggregated using digitized Kaplan-Meier curves where available.

Results

After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, four studies were identified for review. All four studies were observational and in total reported data for 1,998 patients. Almost half (42.4%) of patients underwent SURD-AVR via full sternotomy, with almost one third (30.1%) also undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures. Aggregate overall survival rates at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up were 94.9%, 91.2%, 89.0%, and 84.2%, respectively. Incidence of strokes (4.8%), severe paravalvular leaks (PVLs) (1.5%) and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (8.2%) at up to 5-year follow-up were acceptable. At 5-year follow-up hemodynamic outcomes were also acceptable for mean pressure gradient (MPG) (range, 8.8-13.6 mmHg), peak pressure gradient (PPG) (range, 18.9-21.1 mmHg) and effective orifice area (EOA) (range, 1.5-1.8 cm²).

Conclusions

Evaluation of the evidence reporting long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR suggests that it is a safe procedure for AVR with low rates of complications. Long-term outcomes presented in this review show that not only does SURD-AVR have acceptable survival rates, but also good hemodynamic performance at 5-year follow-up.