First experiences with automated annular suturing device in totally endoscopic aortic and mitral valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

To overcome some of the challenges of endoscopic minimally invasive valve surgery, an automated annular suturing device has been used in aortic and mitral valve replacement surgeries. The current study investigates early clinical outcomes of patients who received aortic or mitral valve replacement with the help of the RAM® device as first experiences in minimally invasive valve surgery.

METHODS

Between September 2020 and June 2023, 66 consecutive patients (mean age 61.8 ± 11 years) underwent endoscopic minimally invasive aortic or mitral valve replacement through right anterior mini-thoracotomy at 2 cardiac surgery referral centres in Germany. The RAM® device was used in all Patients. 3.5 and 5.0 sizes were used in 16.7% and 83.3% of patients, respectively. Aortic, mitral and double valve surgery was performed in 81.8%, 15.2% and 1.5% of patients, respectively. Clinical data were prospectively entered into our institutional database.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamping time were 97.9 ± 20.9 and 66 ± 15.7 min, respectively. Intensive care unit and hospital stays were 1 [1-2] and 9 [7-13] days, respectively. No paravalvular leak and no other intraoperative complications occurred. 30-day and in-hospital mortality were zero. Conversion to sternotomy occurred in 1 (1.5%) patient due to bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The usage of the RAM® device is a safe, feasible and effective approach to the endoscopic implantation of aortic or mitral valves and yield excellent early outcomes. Larger size studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAM® device.

Right anterior mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation in octogenarians: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the early outcomes of octogenarians undergoing minimally invasive right anterior mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement (RAT-AVR) with those undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic valve disease.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, data were collected from octogenarians before and after RAT-AVR and TAVI between January 2021 and July 2022. Short-term outcomes, including the length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, all-cause mortality, and other major postoperative complications, were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, stroke, acute kidney dysfunction requiring renal replacement therapy, length of intensive care unit stay, or length of hospital stay. However, the TAVI group had a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker insertion (10% vs. 0%, p=0.54) and paravalvular leaks (75% vs. 0%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the present study on octogenarians, both TAVI and RAT-AVR showed comparable short-term results. Although both procedures were considered safe and effective in the selected group, RAT-AVR had a lower incidence of complete atrioventricular block and paravalvular regurgitation.

Minimally Invasive Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has arisen as a viable alternative to surgery. Similarly, minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement (mini-SAVR), such as ministernotomy and minithoracotomy, have also gained interest. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to further investigate the efficacy of TAVR versus mini-SAVR.

METHODS

Medical databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing TAVR with a mini-SAVR modality, defined as minimally invasive aortic surgery, ministernotomy, minithoracotomy, or rapid-deployment or sutureless SAVR. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using the generic inverse variance method. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, midterm mortality, 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), paravalvular leak (PVL), new permanent pacemaker (PPM), new-onset atrial fibrillation, and postintervention mean and peak valve pressure gradients and were pooled as risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 5,071 patients (2,505 mini-SAVR vs 2,566 TAVR) from 12 studies were pooled. Compared with TAVR, mini-SAVR showed significantly lower rates of both 30-day (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.96, P = 0.03) and midterm mortality at 4 years of follow-up (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.87, P < 0.001). Furthermore, mini-SAVR was protective against 30-day PVL (RR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.13, P < 0.001) and new PPM (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.57, P < 0.001). Conversely, TAVR was protective against 30-day AKI (RR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.32, P = 0.002) and postinterventional mean gradients (MD = 1.65, 95% CI: 0.25 to 3.05, P = 0.02). No difference was observed for 30-day stroke (RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.24, P = 0.38), new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 0.93 to 3.44, P = 0.08), or postinterventional peak gradients (MD = 3.24, 95% CI: -1.10 to 7.59, P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TAVR, mini-SAVR was protective against 30-day and midterm mortality, 30-day PVL, and new permanent pacemaker, while TAVR patients had lower 30-day AKI. Future randomized trials comparing the efficacy of mini-SAVR approaches with TAVR are needed.

µAVR: Endoscopic Microinvasive Aortic Valve Surgery With Automated Suturing Technology for Enhanced Patient Outcomes

Modern heart surgery should strive toward the most durable therapeutic results and enhanced patient recoveries. Novel customized technology is available to advance the evolution of less invasive heart valve replacement surgery and ultimately facilitate "microinvasive" techniques utilizing very small bone-sparing incisions and endoscopy. In this article, we present our approach to aortic valve replacement, including the use of automated suturing devices to improve the surgical ergonomics and reliability of these procedures. This patient-centered approach can be safely performed by surgeons interested in offering the benefits of truly minimally invasive cardiac surgery to improve patient outcomes. We believe that each patient should be offered personalized surgery to provide the optimized procedure and aortic valve replacement to suit their individual needs and preferences.

Quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review

Objective

Minimally invasive procedures have been developed to reduce surgical trauma after cardiac surgery. Clinical recovery is the main focus of most research. Still, patient-centred outcomes, such as the quality of life, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the surgery on the patient's life. This systematic review aims to deliver a detailed summary of all available research investigating the quality of recovery, assessed with quality of life instruments, in adults undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Methods

All randomised trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies assessing the quality of recovery in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery compared to conventional cardiac surgery within the last 20 years were included, and a summary was prepared.

Results

The randomised trial observed an overall improved quality of life after both minimally invasive and conventional surgery. The quality of life improvement in the minimally invasive group showed a faster course and evolved to a higher level than the conventional surgery group. These findings align with the results of prospective cohort studies. In the cross-sectional studies, no significant difference in the quality of life was seen except for one that observed a significantly higher quality of life in the minimally invasive group.

Conclusions

This systematic review indicates that patients may benefit from minimally invasive and conventional cardiac surgery, but patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery may recover sooner and to a greater extent. However, no firm conclusion could be drawn due to the limited available studies. Therefore, randomised controlled trials are needed.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

The hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable aortic bioprostheses in the elderly: a comparison between rapid deployment and transcatheter implantation

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid deployment valve (RDV) is a relatively recent treatment option. Aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable (BE)-RDVs and BE-transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in a high surgical risk and frail-elderly population.

METHODS

BE-THVs and BE-RDVs were respectively implanted in 138 and 47 patients, all older than 75 years and with a Canadian Study of Health and Aging category of 5 or above. Echocardiographic assessment was performed at discharge and at six months.

RESULTS

At discharge, transprosthetic pressure gradients and indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) were similar in both cohorts. At six-month follow-up, BE-RDV showed lower peak (14.69 vs 20.86 mmHg; p <0.001) and mean (7.82 vs 11.83 mmHg; p <0.001) gradients, as well as larger iEOA (1.05 vs 0.84 cm²/m²; p <0.001). Similar findings were also shown considering only small sized valves. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage was more prevalent in BE-THVs at discharge (14.49 vs 0.00%; p=0.032) and, considering exclusively small prostheses, at six months too (57.69 vs 15.00%; p=0.014). Nevertheless, BE-THVs determined amelioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (53.79 vs 60.14%; p <0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (35.81 vs 33.15 mmHg; p=0.042) and tricuspid regurgitation severity (40.58 vs 19.57%; p=0.031) from discharge to mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-RDVs showed better hemodynamic performance, especially when implanted in small annulus. Despite their worse baseline conditions, transcatheter patients still exhibited a greater improvement of their echocardiographic profile at mid-term follow-up.

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.

Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

Objective: To highlight the main target points covered by clinical studies on the Perceval sutureless valve for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and raise a point of discussion for further expansion of its use when compared with stented bioprostheses (SB) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods: We reviewed clinical trials and retrospective studies published up to date and compared the outcomes in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) stroke, paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding and long-term outcomes.

Results: Clinical studies showed that 30-day mortality ranged from 0–4% for Perceval and 2.9–7% for TAVR. The incidence of PVL (Perceval 1.9–19.4 vs. TAVR 9–53.5%), PPI (Perceval 2–11.2 vs. TAVR 4.9–25.5%), stroke (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–2.8%), MI (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–3.5%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0–6.4% for Perceval and 0–5.9% for SB. The incidence of PVR (Perceval 1–19.4 vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7 vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), stroke (Perceval 0–3.7 vs. SB 1.8–7.3%) and MI (Perceval 0–7.8 vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable among the groups. In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, mortality rate was (0–4%) and PVL incidence was (0–2.3%). However, there was a high incidence of PPI (0–20%), and stroke (0–8%). Long-term survival ranged between 96.7–98.6%.

Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its implantation speed, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, the reduced aortic cross-clamp time and the shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

Anatomical circumstances and aortic cross-clamp time in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Prolonged operative times, potentially leading to increased morbidity, are a possible drawback of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of anatomical circumstances in the chest on aortic cross-clamp time.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 68 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve via right-anterior thoracotomy or with ministernotomy. Anatomical variables were measured during preoperative computer tomography scans.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp time was shorter in those having ministernotomy than in the right-anterior thoracotomy group (41.1 vs 52.3 min; P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.09). A multivariable linear-regression model (P = 0.018) showed the aortic dextroposition variable to be a significant predictor of the aortic cross-clamp method and CPB times (P = 0.005 and P = 0.003) independent of other anatomical variables in the right thoracotomy group (10 mm deviation from optimal position prolonged the times for 240 and 600 s). For the whole cohort, a correlation between aortic valve dimensions and operative times was found (P = 0.046, P = 0.009). A linear-regression model (P = 0.046) predicted 90 s longer aortic cross-clamp time and 231 s longer CPB time for every 1 mm smaller aortic valve diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

The anatomical variables are associated with the operative times in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless valves. Considering this association, preplanning the procedure is recommended.

Are Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves a Serious Alternative to TA-TAVI? A Matched-Pairs Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement with expanding indication extending to low-risk patients. Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valves were developed to decrease procedural risks in conventional treatment. This paired-match analysis aims to compare patients undergoing surgical transcatheter aortic valve implantation to sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective database analysis between 2010 and 2016 revealed 214 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures through surgical access (predominantly transapical) and 62 sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve procedures including 26 patients in need of concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery. After matching, 52 pairs of patients were included and analyzed.

RESULTS

In-hospital death (5.8% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.308) was comparable between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (mean age 77 ± 4.3 years) and sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation groups (mean age 75 ± 4.0 years), including 32 females in each group. The logistic EuroSCORE was similar (19 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 10; p = 0.257). Postoperative renal failure (p = 0.087) and cerebrovascular accidents (p = 0.315) were without significant difference. The incidence of complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker treatment was relatively low for both groups (1.9% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.169) for TAVI and sutureless and rapid-deployment valves respectively. Intraoperative use of blood transfusion was higher in the sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation group (0.72 U vs. 1.46 U, p = 0.014). Estimated survival calculated no significant difference between both groups after 6 months (transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 74 ± 8% vs. sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation: 92 ± 5%; log rank p = 0.097).

CONCLUSION

Since sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve implantation is as safe and effective as transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, combining the advantage of standard diseased-valve removal with shorter procedural times, sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement may be considered as an alternative for patients with elevated operative risk considered to be in the "gray zone" between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conventional surgery, especially if concomitant myocardial revascularization is required.

Minimally-invasive versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review with meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies

Background

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37–1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16–0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01–0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% vs. 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25–4.16, P=0.007).

Conclusions

In patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.

Minimally invasive surgery versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently been approved for use in patients who are at intermediate and low surgical risk. Moreover, recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miAVR). The present meta-analysis compared the outcomes of TAVR and miAVR in the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We conducted an electronic search across six databases from 2002 (TAVR inception) to December 2019. Data from relevant studies regarding the clinical and length of hospitalisation outcomes were extracted and analysed using R software. We identified a total of 11 cohort studies, of which seven were matched/propensity matched. Our analysis demonstrated higher rates of midterm mortality (≥1 year) with TAVR (risk ratio (RR): 1.93, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.22), but no significant differences with respect to 1 month mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.81), stroke (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.87) and bleeding (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.56 to 3.75) rates. Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to experience paravalvular leakage (RR: 14.89, 95% CI: 6.89 to 32.16), yet less likely to suffer acute kidney injury (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.69) compared with miAVR. The duration of hospitalisation was significantly longer in the miAVR group (mean difference: 1.92 (0.61 to 3.24)). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment revealed ≤moderate quality of evidence in all outcomes. TAVR was associated with lower acute kidney injury rate and shorter length of hospitalisation, yet higher risks of midterm mortality and paravalvular leakage. Given the increasing adoption of both techniques, there is an urgent need for head-to-head randomised trials with adequate follow-up periods.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless bioprosthesis through right minithoracotomy with completely central cannulation-Early results in 203 patients

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) might improve clinical outcomes, particularly in high-risk and elderly patients. Sutureless/rapid deployment bioprosthesis can offer advantage of decreasing the cross-clamp time (XCT) and easing the procedure. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and perioperative outcomes of mini-AVR using sutureless bioprothesis via the right minithoracotomy approach with our modified technique of central cannulation.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 203 patients consecutively undergoing isolated AVR between March 2016 and June 2018 with the right minithoracotomy approach and our modified technique of central cannulation. Aortic valve diseases were stenosis (89.9%), regurgitation (1.6%), and mixed valve disease (8.5%). Patients with concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary endpoints were 30-day and 4-month mortality.

RESULTS

Mean age was 76 ± 6.2 years, 63 (31%) patients were 80 years or older. Cardiopulmonary bypass and XCT were 60.5 (39-153) and 35 (24-76) min, respectively. Thirty-day and 4-month mortality were 1% (two patients). We have observed minor paravalvular leak (PVL) which occurred in seven patients (3.4%), and no moderate/severe PVL was found perioperatively. One patient developed moderate/severe PVL during the 4-month follow-up. There was no structural valve degeneration. Two (1%) patients needed conversion to full sternotomy, and two (1%) patients to ministernotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-AVR via the right minithoracotomy approach with central cannulation is an effective and safe procedure and demonstrates excellent early clinical outcomes. This approach can be particularly valuable in higher risk and elderly patients.

What is the safety and efficacy of the use of automated fastener in heart valve surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Cor-Knot automated fastener has been used as an adjunct in heart valve surgery to eliminate the need for manual tying during valve implantation. Although reduced operative time and facilitation for minimally invasive surgery are clear benefits, whether their use translates to improved patient outcome remains debatable. This study aims to review the safety and efficacy of automated fasteners in heart valve surgeries.

METHOD

Specific searches were conducted via online medical databases (Pubmed, Embase, Ovid) between 1950 and June 2019. Longitudinal studies were included that provided operative parameters.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 3773 articles, but only eight met the inclusion criteria and were used for analysis: four studies related to aortic valve replacement (AVR), four related to mitral valve (MV) intervention (total n = 810). The meta-analysis revealed the significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp time in the Cor-knot group compared to manual tying, both in AVR and MV surgeries (P < .05). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the Cor-knot group when analyzing studies in MV surgery (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 110.0; 95% confidence interval: 12.3-207.7; P = .027) The use of Cor-Knot did not increase the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and 30-day mortality. The majority of studies reported no change in the length of intensive unit care and total hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that the majority of existing literatures indicated the safety and intraoperative efficacy with automated fastener application. Nevertheless, there is currently no evidence to support automated fastened sutures can translate its intraoperative advantages to improved patient outcome.

Recent advances in aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve replacement has stood the test of time but is no longer an operation that is exclusively approached through a median sternotomy using only sutured prostheses. Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed through a number of minimally invasive approaches employing conventional mechanical or bioprostheses as well as sutureless valves. In either case, the direct surgical access allows inspection of the valve, complete excision of the diseased leaflets, and debridement of the annulus in a controlled and thorough manner under visual control. It can be employed to treat aortic valve pathologies of all natures and aetiologies. When compared with transcatheter valves in patients with a high or intermediate preoperative predictive risk, conventional surgery has not been shown to be inferior to transcatheter valve implants. As our understanding of sutureless valves and their applicability to minimally invasive surgery advances, the invasiveness and trauma of surgery can be reduced and outcomes can improve. This warrants further comparative trials comparing sutureless and transcatheter valves.

Current results and remaining challenges of trans-catheter aortic valve replacement expansion in intermediate and low risk patients

TAVR has become the standard treatment in patients at increased surgical risk (STS or EuroSCORE II ≥4% or logistic EuroSCORE I ≥ 10% or other risk factors not included in these scores such as frailty, porcelain aorta, sequelae of chest radiation) and it is increasingly being performed in patients at intermediate to low (STS or EuroSCORE II <4% or logistic EuroSCORE I < 10%) surgical risk. Although non-inferiority has been demonstrated in intermediate and low-risk patients, several challenges need to be addressed before expansion to younger patients. Current trends, trials results, and remaining challenges are summarized and discussed in this review.

Hyperspectral near-infrared spectroscopy assessment of the brain during hypoperfusion

Two-thirds of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, who survive to hospital admission, die in the hospital from neurological injuries related to cerebral hypoperfusion. Therefore, noninvasive real-time monitoring of the cerebral oxygen metabolism in cardiac arrest patients is extremely important. Hyperspectral near-infrared spectroscopy (hNIRS) is a noninvasive technique that measures concentrations of the key chromophores in the brain, such as oxygenated hemoglobin, deoxygenated hemoglobin, and cytochrome C oxidase (CCO), an intracellular marker of oxygen consumption. We tested hNIRS on 10 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve insertion, where rapid ventricular pacing (RVP) is required to temporarily induce sudden hypotension and hypoperfusion that mimic cardiac arrest. Using multidistance hNIRS, we found that tissue oxygen saturation changes in the cerebral tissue were lower than those in the scalp during RVP. CCO redox changes were detected in cerebral tissue but not in the scalp during RVP. We have demonstrated that hNIRS is feasible and can detect sudden changes in cerebral oxygenation and metabolism in patients during profound hypotension.

Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients

Background

Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR).

Methods

Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes.

Results

The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR.

Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Elderly Patients (75 Years or Older)

Background

This study evaluated the early and long-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients in the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Methods

Between 2001 and 2018, 94 patients aged ≥75 years underwent isolated AVR with stented bioprosthetic valves for aortic valve stenosis (AS). The main etiologies of AS were degenerative (n=63) and bicuspid (n=21). The median follow-up duration was 40.7 months (range, 0.6-174 months).

Results

Operative mortality occurred in 2 patients (2.1%) and paravalvular leak occurred in 1 patient. No patients required permanent pacemaker insertion after surgery. Late death occurred in 11 patients. The overall survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 87.2% and 65.1%, respectively. The rates of freedom from valve-related events at 5 and 10 years were 94.5% and 88.6%, respectively. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (p=0.013) and chronic kidney disease (p=0.030) were significant factors affecting long-term survival. The minimal p-value approach demonstrated that an STS score of 3.5% was the most suitable cut-off value for predicting long-term survival.

Conclusion

Surgical AVR for elderly AS patients may be feasible in terms of early mortality and postoperative complications, particularly paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker insertion. The STS score and chronic kidney disease were associated with long-term outcomes after AVR in the elderly.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right anterolateral mini-thoracotomy for the treatment of octogenarians with aortic valve stenosis

Because of concerns about the high risk of perioperative complications, the feasibility of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) for elderly patients remains controversial. Here, we review our results of MIAVR in octogenarians with aortic valve stenosis (AS). Between October 2012 and December 2017, 110 patients with AS underwent MIAVR via a right anterolateral mini-thoracotomy; 41 patients were octogenarian (Group O). The perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared with those of the 69 patients who were less than 80 years of age (Group Y). A preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan was performed in all patients to guide the patient selection and aid the decision regarding cannulation sites. Among all cases of isolated aortic valve replacement, MIAVR accounted for 47% cases during this study period. The mean age of Group O was 83.6 ± 2.9 years, with a maximum age of 89. In Group O, there were no in-hospital deaths or morbidity, including stroke. The rate of blood transfusion was significantly higher in Group O than in Group Y (P = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in ventilation time, the length of intensive care unit stay, the length of hospital stay, or in the rates of cumulative survival and freedom from valve-related complications. With careful patient selection and a perfusion strategy based on preoperative CT scan, equivalent outcomes of MIAVR were even achieved in octogenarians.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacements: Current Trends and Future Directions

Since the 1960s when the first aortic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was performed, continuous growth in the field of valvular technology has occurred. Although SAVR remains a lifesaving procedure, minimally invasive transcatheter aortic valve replacement has revolutionized and expanded aortic valve replacement to patients who were not previously SAVR candidates, increasing their quality of life and survival. Since its introduction in the United States in 2011, the technology and practice have rapidly expanded. Hybrid techniques have been developed that combine surgical access to the vasculature with valvular deployment over transcatheter systems. This literature review aims to describe the differences between the current available valve technologies, review approaches to surgical technique, discuss anesthetic considerations, and look forward to future directions, trends, and challenges.

Sutureless aortic valves: who is the right patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) has emerged as an alternative to traditional AVR for patients with aortic stenosis who present a higher surgical risk, such as the elderly, or those with small or highly calcified aortic roots. With transcatheter aortic valve implantation - the other major AVR alternative - being used in increasingly lower-risk patients, the place of sutureless valves in the AVR landscape needs to be defined. In this review, we discuss recent data and expert opinion as it pertains to the subject of sutureless AVR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent studies have evaluated the performance of sutureless valves in a variety of clinical contexts, including minimally invasive operations and high-risk surgical procedures. The optimal surgical technique for sutureless AVR has been refined through the publication of several reports addressing technical considerations. Reduction in operative times represents the main advantage of sutureless valves over conventional surgical prostheses, and the possibility of complete annular decalcification - and hence a reduced incidence of paravalvular leak - is the primary advantage over TAVI.

SUMMARY

Sutureless valves have emerged as an attractive option for high-risk patients or for complex surgeries where a minimization of bypass time is critical. However, there is limited data regarding long-term outcomes, durability or reoperation.

The Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve: Review of Outcomes, Complications, and Future Direction

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented prosthesis has been the standard of care procedure for aortic stenosis. The Perceval (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) is a sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis currently implanted in more than 20,000 patients. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available after 9 years of clinical experience of the Perceval aortic valve. PubMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. A meta-analysis of summary statistics from individual studies was conducted. A total of 333 studies were identified and 84 studies were included. Thirty-day mortality and 5-year survival ranged from 0% to 4.9% and 71.3% to 85.5%, respectively. Compared with stented prosthesis, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) with Perceval (38.6 vs 63.3 and 61.4 vs 84.9, P < 0.00001, respectively). Compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with Perceval in paravalvular leakage (1.26% vs 14.31%) and early mortality (2.3% vs 6.9%). Favorable hemodynamics, acceptable valve durability, and ease of implantation in minimally invasive cases were reported as benefits. A trend toward increased rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and low postoperative platelet count were identified. Special use and off-label procedures described included bicuspid aortic valves, valve-in-valve for homograft and stentless prosthesis failure, concomitant valvular procedures, porcelain aorta, and endocarditis. The Perceval valve has shown safe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Outcomes support its continued usage and potential expansion.

Video assisted right mini-thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve replacement through minimally invasive access is increasing. These procedures have several advantages over conventional sternotomy including decreased intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and decreased ventilation time. The right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAM) approach is potentially attractive in that it completely spares the sternum leading to improved cosmesis, reduced blood loss, and improved patient satisfaction. However, this approach is underutilized due to anticipated technical challenges including difficulty with visualization and annular suture placement. We employ a camera and automated suturing technology for supra-annular valve implant. A RAM is performed via a 5 cm incision in the right second intercostal space with a camera port placed lateral to the incision. Peripheral venous cannulation is performed along with central arterial cannulation. Aortic cross clamp is placed through a 5 mm incision in the third interspace anterior to mid axillary line. Histidine tryptophan ketoglutarate (HTK) cardioplegia is administered. After aortic leaflet removal, annular and prosthetic sutures are placed with shafted instruments or with automated suturing technology. Aortic valve replacement can be performed safely through a RAM. The use of a camera and automated suturing technology facilitates this procedure, potentially enabling more surgeons to offer this less invasive approach to patients.

Hemodynamic assessment of Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis by dobutamine stress echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis under high workload at mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with a Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were enrolled in this study. S size prosthesis was deployed in 10 patients (31.3%), M size in 9 (28.1%), L size in 8 (25%) and XL size in 5 (15.6%). Effective orifice area (EOA), EOA index (EOAi), and transvalvular gradients were assessed at rest and during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) a median of 19.5 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) significantly increased heart rate, stroke volume, ejection fraction, and transvalvular gradients (peak gradient, 24.0 ± 7.6 vs 38.7 ± 13.6 mm Hg, P < .001; mean gradient, 12.6 ± 4.2 vs 19.8 ± 8.3, P < .001). When compared to baseline, estimated valve areas significantly increased at follow-up (EOA, 1.48 ± 0.46 vs 2.06 ± 0.67, P < .001; EOAi, 0.84 ± 0.26 vs 1.17 ± 0.37, P < .001). Mean percentage increase in EOAi was 40.3% ± 28.0%. S size prostheses had the highest increase in EOA1, but the difference was not significant (S 46.0% ± 27.5% vs M 45.4% ± 34.5% vs L 32.7% ± 26.4% vs XL 32.1% ± 20.5%, P = .66). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (EOAi ≤ 0.65 cm² /m² ) was present at rest in 8 patients (25%), but only in one patient (3.1%) during DSE.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis demonstrated good hemodynamics at rest and under high workload. The significant increase in EOAi during DSE suggests the potential advantages of Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in case of small aortic annulus or when patient-prosthesis mismatch is anticipated.

Comparison of hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of transcatheter and sutureless aortic bioprostheses: how to make the right choice in intermediate risk patients

Current surgical treatment options for aortic valve stenosis (AS), as alternatives to that of conventional operation with a midline sternotomy, include sutureless valve replacement (SUAVR) and transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI). Patients with high surgical risk, or those who are judged to be inoperable, are typically good candidates for the TAVI procedure. The best treatment option in patients with an intermediate risk profile, however, the so called "grey zone", is still currently under debate. Sutureless aortic valve replacement has been recently presented as a valid alternative for patients with low- to intermediate-risk. Data available on prostheses' hemodynamic performance and patients' clinical outcomes play a crucial role in the process of device selection. Compared to TAVI, SUAVR provides lower rate of significant postoperative paravalvular leak (PVL), which has shown to be a predictor for mortality. On the contrary, transcatheter valves seem to perform better in terms of transvalvular mean and peak gradients. Therefore, SUAVR and TAVI are both reliable options in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, as an alternative to conventional surgery, and the choice of the best device should be tailored to patient's anatomical and surgical characteristics.

Review of minimal access versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miniAVR) have become alternatives to surgical aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy (SAVR) to treat severe aortic stenosis (AS). Despite increased interest and utilization, few studies have directly compared TAVR and miniAVR. A review of the current literature shows TAVR to be an indispensable tool for inoperable, high-risk, and perhaps intermediate-risk patients with severe AS. However, it is associated with a number of deleterious perioperative outcomes, such as valvular regurgitation and vascular complications. MiniAVR is associated with decreased intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, a lower incidence of blood transfusions, decreased ventilation time, and improved cosmetic results. MiniAVR maintains potential advantages over SAVR, including the implantation of a durable prosthesis and low rates of perioperative myocardial infarction and paravalvular leak. It is associated with longer aortic cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times; however, the use of sutureless valve implants can circumvent this. Studies comparing TAVR and miniAVR demonstrate decreased postoperative mortality, valvular regurgitation, and incidence of stroke in the miniAVR cohorts. Few studies currently exist comparing TAVR and miniAVR, as it is hard to compare the typically low-risk miniAVR versus high-risk TAVR patient populations. It is clear that both strategies will be cornerstones in the modern AVR era, but the situations in which to apply each strategy have not yet been clearly delineated. This highlights the need for surgeons to adopt these minimally invasive techniques. We believe there is a compelling role for miniAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients, but due to the paucity of data, neither TAVR nor miniAVR should be discounted before a randomized, risk-stratified trial is performed. More studies are needed to compare TAVR and miniAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients.

Aortic valve replacement in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% performed via a minimally invasive right thoracotomy

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the outcomes of patients with aortic valve pathology in the setting of a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR), with or without concomitant mitral valve (MV) surgery.

METHODS

All minimally invasive AVR in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, performed via a right thoracotomy for aortic stenosis or regurgitation between January 2009 and March 2013, were retrospectively evaluated. The operative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and 30-day mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 75 patients identified: 51 who underwent isolated AVR, and 24 who had combined AVR plus MV surgery for moderate to severe mitral regurgitation. In patients undergoing MV surgery, there were 22 (91.7%) MV repairs [ring annuloplasty =7 (37.5%), transaortic edge-to-edge repair =15 (62.5%)], and 2 (8.3%) replacements. No patient required conversion to sternotomy for inadequate surgical field exposure. The median total mechanical ventilation time and intensive care unit length of stay were 14 (IQR, 8-20) and 42 hours (IQR, 26-93 hours) in the isolated AVR group, and 16.5 hours (IQR, 12-61.5 hours) and 95.5 hours (IQR, 43.5-159 hours) in the AVR plus MV surgery group, respectively. The most common post-operative complication was new-onset atrial fibrillation, which occurred in 15 (29.4%) isolated AVR and 4 (16.7%) AVR plus MV surgery patients. The median hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality was 7 days (IQR, 5-12 days) and 1 (2%) in the isolated AVR group, and 10.5 days (IQR, 5-21 days) and 1 (4.3%) for AVR plus MV surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with aortic valve pathology in the setting of a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, minimally invasive AVR can be performed, with or without concomitant MV surgery, with a low morbidity and mortality.

Cardiac surgery 2016 reviewed

For the year 2016, more than 20,000 published references can be found in Pubmed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". Publications last year have helped to more clearly delineate the fields where classic surgery and modern interventional techniques overlap. The field of coronary bypass surgery (partially compared to percutaneous coronary intervention) was enriched by five large prospective randomized trials. The value of CABG for complex coronary disease was reconfirmed and for less complex main stem lesions, PCI was found potentially equal. For aortic valve treatment, more evidence was presented for the superiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for patients with intermediate risk. However, the 2016 evidence argued against the liberal expansion to the low-risk field, where conventional aortic valve replacement still appears superior. For the mitral valve, many publications emphasized the significant impact of mitral valve reconstruction on survival in structural mitral regurgitation. In addition, there were many relevant and other interesting contributions from the purely operative arena in the fields of coronary revascularization, surgical treatment of valve disease, terminal heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices), and aortic surgery. While this article attempts to summarize the most pertinent publications it does not have the expectation of being complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. As in recent years, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.

Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of perioperative mortality after sutureless or rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

To determine which procedure, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis (SL-AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), achieves better perioperative survival for severe aortic stenosis (AS), we conducted direct-comparison meta-analyses (DC-MAs) and an adjusted indirect-comparison meta-analysis (IDC-MA).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2016. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. We performed a DC-MA-[A] of SL-AVR versus TAVI, a DC-MA-[B] of SL-AVR versus conventional AVR (C-AVR), and a DC-MA-[C] TAVI versus C-AVR. Then, we computed a IDC-MA-[A'] of TAVI versus SL-AVR from the results of the DC-MA-[B] and the DC-MA-[C].

RESULTS

We identified 6 RCTs and 30 PSM studies enrolling a total of 15,887 patients. The 3 DC-MAs demonstrated significantly lower perioperative (30-day or in-hospital) all-cause mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.80; p=0.005) and no significant differences between SL-AVR and C-AVR (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.94; p=0.81) and between TAVI and C-AVR (1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.27; p=0.45). The computed IDC-MA-[A'] indicated no significant difference in mortality between SL-AVR and TAVI (1.01; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.86). Combining the results of the DC-MA-[A] and IDC-MA [A'] showed significantly lower mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with severe AS, SL-AVR may achieve better perioperative survival than TAVI.

Sutureless Aortic Valves: Combining the Best or the Worst?

Aortic valve replacement is a life saving intervention. Significant progress has been made toward reducing surgical trauma through minimally invasive surgery and transcatheter techniques. Each of these approaches has its advantages and limitations. Sutureless aortic valves have been proposed to overcome these limitations and have been in use in Europe. It is however less than clear whether these valves will prove advantageous and whether they will have a role in the future. We review the published literature for sutureless aortic valves and their performance against standard and transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies

BACKGROUND

With improving technologies and an increasingly elderly populations, there have been an increasing number of therapeutic options available for patients requiring aortic valve replacement. Recent evidence suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is one suitable option for high risk inoperable patients, as well as high risk operable patients. Sutureless valve technology has also been developed concurrently, with facilitates surgical aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) by allow resection and replacement of the native aortic valve with minimal sutures and prosthesis anchoring required. For patients amenable for both TAVI and SUAVR, the evidence is unclear with regards to the benefits and risks of either approach. The objectives are to compare the perioperative outcomes and intermediate-term survival rates of TAVI and SUAVR in matched or propensity score matched studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to include all matched or propensity score matched studies comparing SUAVR versus TAVI for severe aortic stenosis. A meta-analysis with odds ratios (OR) and mean differences were performed to compare key outcomes including paravalvular regurgitation and short and intermediate term mortality.

RESULTS

Six studies met our inclusion criteria giving a total of 741 patients in both the SUAVR and TAVI arm of the study. Compared to TAVI, SUAVR had a lower incidence of paravalvular leak (OR =0.06; 95% CI: 0.03-0.12, P<0.01). There was no difference in perioperative mortality, however SUAVR patients had significantly better survival rates at 1 (OR =2.40; 95% CI: 1.40-4.11, P<0.01) and 2 years (OR =4.62; 95% CI: 2.62-8.12, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study supports the use of minimally invasive SUAVR as an alternative to TAVI in high risk patients requiring aortic replacement. The presented results require further validation in prospective, randomized controlled studies.

Cardiac surgery 2015 reviewed

For the year 2015, almost 19,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". The last year has been again characterized by lively discussions in the fields where classic cardiac surgery and modern interventional techniques overlap. Lacking evidence in the field of coronary revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery has been added. As in the years before, CABG remains the gold standard for the revascularization of complex stable triple-vessel disease. Plenty of new information has been presented comparing the conventional to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) demonstrating similar short- and mid-term outcomes at high and low risk, but even a survival advantage with transfemoral TAVI at intermediate risk. In addition, there were many relevant and interesting other contributions from the purely operative arena. This review article will summarize the most pertinent publications in the fields of coronary revascularization, surgical treatment of valve disease, heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices), and aortic surgery. While the article does not have the expectation of being complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.

A comparison of minimally invasive and standard aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to compare aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy with aortic valve replacement through a median sternotomy.

METHODS

With propensity score matching, we selected 211 patients after aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and 211 patients after aortic valve replacement who underwent operation between January 2010 and December 2013. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed, and multivariable logistic regression analysis of risk factors of postoperative morbidity was performed.

RESULTS

For propensity score-matched patients, hospital mortality was 1.0% in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy group and 1.4% in the aortic valve replacement group (P = 1.000). Stroke occurred in 0.5% versus 1.4% (P = .615), myocardial infarction occurred in 1.4% versus 1.9% (P = 1.000), and new onset of atrial fibrillation occurred in 12.8% versus 24.2% (P = .003) of patients in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and aortic valve replacement groups, respectively. Postoperative drainage was 353.5 ± 248.6 mL versus 544.3 ± 324.5 mL (P < .001) and blood transfusion was required for 48.8% versus 67.3% (P < .001) of patients in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and aortic valve replacement groups, respectively. Mediastinitis occurred in 2.8% of patients after aortic valve replacement and in 0.0% of patients after aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery (P = .040). Intensive care unit stay (1.3 ± 1.2 days vs 2.6 ± 2.6 days) and hospital stay (5.7 ± 1.6 days vs 8.7 ± 4.4 days) were statistically significantly shorter in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy group. Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery resulted in reduced postoperative morbidity (odds ratio, 0.4; P < .001) and postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements (odds ratio, 0.4; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery resulted in a reduced infection rate, diminished postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements, reduced occurrence of new onset of atrial fibrillation, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.

Exploring the learning curve for minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to assess the learning process and quality of care of right minithoracotomy aortic valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis at a single institution.

METHODS

We performed an analysis of the first 300 consecutive patients (aged 76 ± 6 years; logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation 9 ± 6) who underwent sutureless valve implantation via a right minithoracotomy by 6 surgeons at the G. Pasquinucci Heart Hospital between 2011 and 2015. The learning curve was analyzed by dividing the study population into tertiles of 100 patients each. Departmental and individual learning curves were calculated using sequential probability cumulative sum failure analysis. Quality indicators were 2 composite end points reflecting the technical success and 30-day complications.

RESULTS

The overall mortality was 0.7% (2 patients). No significant differences were noted in terms of mortality and complications between tertiles. The sutureless valve was implanted successfully in 99% of patients (298/300). Cumulative sum analysis failed to identify any significant learning effects for technical success. Nevertheless, surgeons A, B, and C had a small initial learning curve, and surgeons D, E, and F did not, reflecting a trend toward a positive effect of cumulative institutional experience on the individual learning curve. The 30-day complications analysis revealed a cluster of failures at the beginning of the experience. This cluster prompted an internal audit and modification of the patients' selection process. Consecutively, the procedure returned in control.

CONCLUSIONS

Right minithoracotomy sutureless valve implantation can be performed safely without learning curve effects. Cumulative sum analysis is a valuable tool to describe and monitor the learning process. The analysis can identify periods of less than expected performance and alert the team to react.

Non-sutureless minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: mini-sternotomy versus mini-thoracotomy: a series of 1130 patients

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement through conventional sternotomy still represents the gold-standard surgical approach for aortic valve disease. However, given the increasing number of patients with comorbidities, strategies that can improve operative results are always sought. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery, although related to a steep learning curve, might be associated with improved postoperative outcomes. The main aim of this study was to assess whether significant differences exist in terms of operative and early results between a mini-sternotomy and a right mini-thoracotomy approach for isolated aortic valve replacement without sutureless technologies.

METHODS

This is an observational retrospective multicentre study from nine Italian cardiac centres that analyses prospectively collected data of patients who underwent isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between January 2010 and December 2014. Two approaches are considered (mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy) and compared in terms of operative and early outcomes.

RESULTS

After interrogation of the centralized database, a total of 1130 patients were retrieved (854 mini-sternotomy and 276 mini-thoracotomy). Patients in the mini-sternotomy group had a higher risk profile. There was no difference in terms of early mortality; cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time did not differ significantly between the groups; and a significantly higher number of reoperations for bleeding was observed in the right mini-thoracotomy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy could be performed safely, with low mortality and postoperative morbidity. The mini-thoracotomy approach was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperation for bleeding. Uptake among cardiac centres was low. Sutureless technologies could potentially increase surgical volume by simplifying the mini-thoracotomy procedure.