Minimally invasive access type related to outcomes of sutureless and rapid deployment valves

Aortic Valve Replacement: Is Minimally Invasive Really Better? A Contemporary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In recent years, minimally invasive cardiac surgery has increased in prevalence. There has been significant debate regarding the optimal approach to isolated aortic valve replacement between conventional midline sternotomy and minimally invasive approaches. We performed a systematic review of the contemporary literature comparing minimally invasive to full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for articles published from 2010-2021. A total of 1215 studies were screened and 45 studies (148,606 patients total) met the inclusion criteria. This study found rates of in-hospital mortality were higher with full sternotomy than ministernotomy ( P = 0.02). 30-day mortality was higher with full sternotomy compared to right anterior thoracotomy ( P = 0.006). Renal complications were more common with full sternotomy versus ministernotomy ( P < 0.00001) and right anterior thoracotomy ( P < 0.0001). Rates of wound infections were greater with full sternotomy than ministernotomy ( P = 0.02) and right anterior thoracotomy ( P < 0.00001). Intensive care unit length of stay ( P = 0.0001) and hospital length of stay ( P < 0.0001) were shorter with ministernotomy compared to full sternotomy. This review found that minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement result in reduced early mortality and select measures of postoperative morbidity; however, long-term mortality is not significantly different based on surgical approach. An analysis of mortality alone is not sufficient for the selection of the optimal approach to isolated aortic valve replacement. Surgeon experience, individual patient characteristics, and preference require thorough consideration, and additional studies investigating quality of life measures will be imperative in identifying the optimal approach to isolated aortic valve replacement.

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.

Less Is More? Combined Approaches to Improve Mortality and Morbidity after Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, one of the main goals of aortic valve surgery is to reduce the biological impact, mortality, and complications. It is well-known that long operative times in terms of the extracorporeal circulation, but above all, of the aortic cross-clamp time (ACC), represent a risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In order to shorten the aortic cross-clamp time, many technological improvements, such as sutureless prostheses, have been introduced, but their actual effectiveness has not been proven yet. The aim of this study was to assess the 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery, focusing on the ACC length.

METHODS

All 3139 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement between January 2013 and July 2022 at our institution were enrolled. The data were retrospectively collected and the baseline characteristics and intraoperative variables were recorded. In order to adjust the results according to the differences in the baseline characteristics, propensity score matching was performed and four groups of 351 patients were obtained based on the first, second, third, and fourth quartile of the ACC time.

RESULTS

The patient population included 132 redo surgeries (9.4%) and 61 cases of active endocarditis (4.3%), with an overall median EuroSCORE II of 1.8 (IQR 1.2-3.1). An increase across the groups was observed in terms of the acute kidney failure (p < 0.001) incidence, the number of blood transfusions (p = 0.022), prolonged hospital stays (p < 0.001), the and respiratory failure (p < 0.001) incidence. A p of < 0.1 was found for the 30-day mortality (p = 0.079). The predictors of an early 30-day mortality were standard full sternotomy (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.14-5.40, p = 0.022), EuroSCORE II (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.16, p < 0.001), and a trend for a longer ACC time (Q4 vs. Q1: OR 2.62, 95% CI 0.89-7.68, p = 0.080).

CONCLUSIONS

Shortening the operative times resulted in marked improvements of the patients' outcomes. The combined use of minimally invasive approaches and sutureless aortic valve prostheses allows for a lower 30-day events rate. New technologies should be assessed to obtain the best results with the least risk.

Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: The network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Outcome comparisons after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with minimally invasive approaches including mini-sternotomy (MS) and right mini-thoracotomy (RMT) and full sternotomy (FS) have been conflicting. Furthermore, the synthesis of mid-term mortality has not been performed.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2022 to identify propensity score matched (PSM) studies or randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared outcomes following SAVR among three incisional approaches: FS, MS, or RMT. The network analysis was performed to compare these approaches with random effects model. Mid-term mortality was defined as 1-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria enrolling 14,925 patients. RCT and PSM were performed in 13 and 29 studies, respectively. The operative mortality was significantly lower with MS compared to FS (risk ratio [RR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.90, p = .01, I²  = 25.8%) or RMT (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.97, p = .03, I²  = 25.8%). RMT had significantly higher risk of reoperation for bleeding compared to MS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.18-2.30, p = .003, I²  = 0%). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter with MS compared to FS (mean difference: -0.89 days, 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.2, p = .01, I²  = 95.5%) while it was equivocal between FS and RMT. The mid-term mortality was similar among the three approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

While mid-term mortality was comparable among approaches, MS may be a safe and potentially more effective approach than FS and RMT for SAVR in the short term.

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.

Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement: First 50 Cases

BACKGROUND

Existing management challenges in selecting transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) include bicuspid stenosis, low clinical risk, horizontal valve position, aortic insufficiency (AI), and need for concomitant procedures or mechanical valves. To address these gaps, we present our early experience with fully robotic-assisted aortic valve replacement (RAVR).

METHODS

Between January 2020 and February 2021, 50 consecutive RAVR operations were performed utilizing a 3-4 cm lateral mini-thoracotomy three-port technique with transthoracic aortic clamping, similar to our robotic mitral platform. Conventional SAVR prostheses were implanted with interrupted braided sutures in all cases.

RESULTS

Median age was 67.5 years, BMI was 29, calcified bicuspid disease was present in 28/50 (56%), and severe AI in 8/50 (16%). Ejection fraction was 54.8±8.4% (mean±SD), and STS PROM was 1.54±0.7%. Mechanical prostheses were used in 16/50 (32%), and 7 required concomitant procedures including Cox-Maze (3), left atrial appendage clipping (1), aortic root enlargement (2), mitral repair (1), and left atrial myxoma excision (1). Median times for cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, valvectomy, annular sutures, and aortotomy closure were 166, 117, 4, 20, and 31 minutes, respectively. All times plateaued after the initial five cases. Most patients (42/50, 84%) were extubated in the operating room, and the remainder (8/50, 16%) within 4 hours. There was no 30-day operative mortality or stroke. All had 30-day echocardiography demonstrating no valvular or perivalvular abnormalities.

CONCLUSIONS

RAVR appears to have procedural safety and short-term outcomes to rival alternatives. Incremental experience may facilitate the safe performance of concomitant procedures as deemed necessary.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have been introduced to facilitate the implant process, speed up the operating time and improve haemodynamic performance. The goal of this study was to assess the potential advantages of using sutureless prostheses during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in a large multicentre population.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2019, a total of 3402 patients in 11 hospitals underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with minimal access approaches using a bioprosthesis. A total of 475 patients received sutureless valves; 2927 received standard valves. The primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day deaths. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of major complications following procedures performed with sutureless or standard bioprostheses. Propensity matched comparisons was performed based on a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The annual number of sutureless valve implants increased over the years. The matching procedure paired 430 sutureless with 860 standard aortic valve replacements. A total of 0.7% and 2.1% patients with sutureless and standard prostheses, respectively, died within 30 days (P = 0.076). Cross-clamp times [48 (40-62) vs 63 min (48-74); P = 0.001] and need for blood transfusions (27.4% vs 33.5%; P = 0.022) were lower in patients with sutureless valves. No difference in permanent pacemaker insertions was observed in the overall population (3.3% vs 4.4% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.221) and in the matched groups (3.6% vs 4.7% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.364).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sutureless prostheses is advantageous and facilitates the adoption of a minimally invasive approach, reducing cardiac arrest time and the number of blood transfusions. No increased risk of permanent pacemaker insertion was observed.