Thrombocytopenia Following Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the safety and performance of the Perceval valve for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at 1 year after undergoing aortic stenosis (AS) treatment, and its effect on significant declines in the platelet count during the immediate postoperative period.Methods and Results: Data were collected retrospectively for the initial 121 patients (median age 77 years; 47.1% females) who underwent Perceval sutureless AVR between May 2019 and July 2022. Implantation was successful in all (100%), with median cross-clamp and CPB times of 59 and 100 min, respectively. Postoperative thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50×103/μL) was noted in 80 (66.1%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed advanced age (>80 years), preoperative low platelet count (<200×103/μL), and a sternotomy approach as significant risk factors for postoperative thrombocytopenia. One (0.8%) patient died within 30 days after the procedure. The 2-year site-reported event rate was 14% (n=17) for all-cause mortality, 0.8% (n=1) for cardiac mortality, 4.1% (n=5) for stroke, and 1.7% (n=2) for endocarditis and valve-related reoperation; there were no instances of paravalvular leakage or structural valve deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombocytopenia was common after Perceval sutureless AVR, although its impact was not significant. Although Perceval sutureless AVR was found to be a safe and effective option, preoperative assessment of potential bleeding should be performed and the Perceval valve should not be used for patients with a high bleeding risk.

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.

Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) is an alternative to conventional AVR (cAVR) for aortic stenosis. Benefits include a reduction in operative times, facilitation of minimal access surgery and superior haemodynamics compared to conventional valves. However, further evidence is required to inform guidelines, preferably in the form of propensity-matched studies that include mid-term follow-up data.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study comparing the Perceval and conventional Perimount Magna Ease valve for short- and mid-term clinical parameters and size-matched mid-term echocardiographic parameters (n = 102 in both groups) from 2014 to 2020. Data were extracted from a nationally managed dataset.

RESULTS

There were no demographic differences between the matched groups. The Perceval group had shorter cross-clamp time (Perceval 62 [49-81] minutes; Perimount 79 [63-102] minutes, P < 0.001), shorter bypass time (Perceval 89 [74-114] minutes; Perimount 104 [84-137] minutes, P < 0.001), and more frequent minimally-invasive approaches (Perceval 28%; Perimount 5%, P < 0.001). Size-matched haemodynamics showed initially higher gradients in the Perceval group, but haemodynamics equalised at 12 + months. The Perceval group had a more favourable % change in the left ventricular posterior wall dimension at 2 + years (Perceval - 4.8 ± 18; Perimount 17 ± 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval facilitated shorter operations, which may benefit intermediate-high-risk, elderly patients with comorbidities requiring concomitant procedures. It also facilitated minimally invasive surgery. Size-matched haemodynamic performance was similar at mid-term follow-up, with the Perceval possibly better facilitating regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.

Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) has become an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment due to its advantages in reducing surgery time and improving outcomes. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of SUAVR vs. CAVR treatment for patients with moderate to severe AS in Thailand.

METHODS

A two-part constructed model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from both societal and healthcare perspectives. Data on short-term mortality, complications, cost, and utility data were obtained from the Thai population. Long-term clinical data were derived from clinical studies. Costs and QALYs were discounted annually at 3% and presented as 2022 values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine additional cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SUAVR treatment incurred higher costs compared with CAVR treatment from both societal (THB 1,733,355 [USD 147,897] vs THB 1,220,643 [USD 104,150]) and healthcare provider perspectives (THB 1,594,174 [USD 136,022] vs THB 1,065,460 [USD 90,910]). In addition, SUAVR treatment resulted in lower health outcomes, with 6.20 life-years (LYs) and 4.95 QALYs, while CAVR treatment achieved 6.29 LYs and 5.08 QALYs. SUAVR treatment was considered as a dominated treatment strategy using both perspectives. Sensitivity analyses indicated the significant impact of changes in utilities and long-term mortality on the model.

CONCLUSION

SUAVR treatment is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with CAVR treatment for patients with moderate-severe AS in Thailand, as it leads to higher costs and inferior health outcomes. Other important issues related to specific patients such as those with minimally invasive surgery, those undergoing AVR with concomitant procedures, and those with calcified and small aortic root should be taken into account.

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.

The frail patient undergoing cardiac surgery: lessons learned and future perspectives

Frailty is a geriatric condition characterized by the reduction of the individual's homeostatic reserves. It determines an increased vulnerability to endogenous and exogenous stressors and can lead to poor outcomes. It is an emerging concept in perioperative medicine, since an increasing number of patients undergoing surgical interventions are older and the traditional models of care seem to be inadequate to satisfy these patients' emerging clinical needs. Nowadays, the progressive technical and clinical improvements allow to offer cardiac operations to an older, sicker and frail population. For these reasons, a multidisciplinary team involving cardiac surgeons, clinical cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and geriatricians, is often needed to assess, select and provide tailored care to these high-risk frail patients to optimize clinical outcomes. There is unanimous agreement that frailty assessment may capture the individual's biological decline and the heterogeneity in risk profile for poor health-related outcomes among people of the same age. However, since commonly used preoperative scores for cardiac surgery fail to capture frailty, a specific preoperative assessment with dedicated tools is warranted to correctly recognize, measure and quantify frailty in these patients. On the contrary, pre-operative and post-operative interventions can reduce the risk of complications and support patient recovery promoting surgical resilience. Minimally invasive cardiac procedures aim to reduce surgical trauma and may be associated with better clinical outcome in this specific sub-group of high-risk patients. Among postoperative adverse events, the occurrence of delirium represents a risk factor for several unfavorable outcomes including mortality and subsequent cognitive decline. Its presence should be carefully recognized, triggering an adequate, evidence based, treatment. There is evidence, from several cross-section and longitudinal studies, that frailty and delirium may frequently overlap, with frailty serving both as a predisposing factor and as an outcome of delirium and delirium being a marker of a latent condition of frailty. In conclusion, frail patients are at increased risk to experience poor outcome after cardiac surgery. A multidisciplinary approach aimed to recognize more vulnerable individuals, optimize pre-operative conditions, reduce surgical invasivity and improve post-operative recovery is required to obtain optimal long-term outcome.

Thrombocytopenia after Implantation of the Perceval, Intuity, and Sapien Aortic Valve Prostheses

BACKGROUND

An increased incidence of thrombocytopenia was reported after implantation of the LivaNova Perceval and the Edwards Sapien aortic valve bioprostheses. Aim of this study is to assess the perioperative platelet count and bleeding complications in three different types of aortic valve bioprostheses intended for high-risk patients, the sutureless LivaNova Perceval, the rapid deployment Edwards Intuity, and the transcatheter Edwards Sapien.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the perioperative data of patients receiving the Perceval, Intuity, and Sapien aortic valve bioprosthesis. The platelet count was collected preoperatively, at nadir postoperatively, and at discharge. The bioprostheses were compared for between-group differences in platelet count and postoperative bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 37 patients received the Perceval, 42 the Intuity, and 58 the Sapien bioprosthesis. There was no significant between-group difference in the preoperative platelet count [Perceval 203(178-246)G/l, Intuity 214(190-232)G/l, Sapien 201(178-275)G/l, p = 0.800]. There was a significant between-group difference in the postoperative platelet count, both at nadir value [Perceval 57(37-80)G/l, Intuity 91(73-109)G/l, Sapien 126(105-170)G/l, p < 0.0001] and at discharge [Perceval 150(83-257)G/l, Intuity 239(200-343)G/l, Sapien 232(179-284)G/l, p = 0.001]. There was no significant between-group difference regarding red blood cell transfusions (p = 0.242), platelet transfusions (p = 0.656), and rethoracotomy for bleeding (p = 0.847).

CONCLUSION

We found a significant platelet count reduction in all three bioprostheses which was more marked in the Perceval group. The platelet count reduction was transient and fully recovered in the Intuity and Sapien groups, whereas the Perceval group showed only a partial platelet count recovery. However, bleeding complications were not different between the three bioprostheses.

Sutureless Valve in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis: Modified Technique and Midterm Outcome

BACKGROUND

The sutureless valve has gained popularity for degenerative aortic valve stenosis but not congenital bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) due to anatomical challenges. We reviewed our modified implant techniques for patients with BAV.

METHODS

From June 2015 to June 2019, 66 patients with aortic valve stenosis were treated with the Perceval sutureless valve, 20 of whom had BAV. The demographics, type of BAV (the Sievers classification), and associated pathologies, surgical outcomes, and midterm hemodynamics were recorded.

RESULTS

The median age was 64 (range: 49-81) years and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.186 (range: 0.407-6.384). Annular plication was performed in 9 (75%) of 12 type 0 and 3 (37.5%) of 8 type I, with implanted valve sizes of M, L, and XL in 6, 10, 4 cases, respectively. Three patients, all type 0 in the initial learning periods, required intraoperative redeployment due to malposition of the valve. The final implant was successful in all without conversion to traditional prosthesis. The median extubation time was 4 hours and the durations of intensive care unit and hospital stay were 1 and 6 days. At a median follow-up of 46 (23-72) months, there was one late mortality due to hemorrhagic stroke sequel. The last echo revealed none had more than mild paravalvular leakage and the mean transvalvular pressure gradient remained stable at 9.70 (range: 6.94-15.0) mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

The sutureless valve can achieve satisfactory outcomes in BAV without paravalvular leakage and excellent hemodynamics. It may serve as the benchmark for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in this unique population.

The Sutureless Biological Bentall Procedure: A New Technique to Create a Modular Valve-Conduit Construct

The Perceval sutureless valve (Corcym, Saluggia, Italy) has been effectively adopted by surgeons for the treatment of degenerative aortic valve stenosis. Its simplified true sutureless implantation technique has proven useful for minimally invasive cases, but the use of Perceval as part of more complex root replacement has not previously been described. We present a novel technical modification to the manufactured biologic Bentall, called the sutureless biological Bentall. This technique allows for a true modular valve-conduit construction that will simplify future reintervention.

Managing the challenge of a small aortic annulus in patients with severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Small aortic annulus (SAA) poses a challenge in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement - both surgical and transcatheter - since it has been associated with worse clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to comprehensively summarize the available evidence regarding the management of aortic stenosis in patients with SAA and discuss the current controversies as well as future perspectives in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

It is paramount to agree in a common definition for diagnosing and properly treating SAA patients, and for that purpose, multidetector computer tomography is essential. The results of recent trials led to the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement among patients of all the surgical-risk spectrum, and the choice of treatment (transcatheter, surgical) should be based on patient comorbidities, anatomical characteristics, and patient preferences.

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.

1-year outcomes of patients implanted with the Perceval sutureless valve: the Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

Sutureless offers an alternative to standard valves in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We sought to confirm the efficacy and safety of the Perceval sutureless valve in Japanese patients. Prospective observational study of 204 patients who underwent SAVR with Perceval at 19 sites in Japan between March and December 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and postoperative complications; the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Efficacy outcomes were changed in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, pressure gradients, effective orifice area (EOA), EOA indexed to body surface area (EOAi) and severity of aortic regurgitation. Mean age was 77.7 years, 62.7% were female. Procedural success rate was 99.0%. The median cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 68.0 and 108 min. Perceval size S and M were implanted in 95 (46.6%) and in 76 (37.3%) of patients, respectively. The 30-day and late mortality rate were 0.5% and 4.4%, while the new permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 4.4%. Mean pressure gradient was 13.0 mmHg at discharge, reaching 11.0 mmHg at 1 year; while the mean EOA was 1.5 cm² at discharge remaining stable up to 1 year. No moderate or severe leakages were present at discharge or at 1 year. NYHA class improved by ≥ 1 level in 55.1% of the patients at discharge and in 69.4% of the patients at 1 year. 1-year outcomes of SAVR with the Perceval sutureless valve in Japanese patients were favorable. This valve offers a promising alternative to conventional biological AVR in this Japanese population.

Safety and efficacy of two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Pure aortic valve disease is common and has been treated with sternotomy aortic valve replacement for decades. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been widely used in atrioventricular valve lesions, but totally thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement has rarely been reported.

METHOD

The profiles of 9 patients who were diagnosed with severe aortic valve diseases and treated with two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement between February 2021 and February 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical data, including baseline characteristics, operative data, postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes, were reported.

RESULTS

All nine patients successfully underwent two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement, with a cardiopulmonary bypass time of 137.56 ± 27.99 min and an aortic cross-clamp time of 95.33 ± 17.96 min. Seven (77.78%) patients underwent mechanical valve replacement, and two (22.22%) patients underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement. Two (22.22%) patients underwent a concomitant aortic root enlargement procedure. There were no intraoperative or postoperative deaths. The incidence of procedural complications was 0%, while the results of ventilation time, intensive care unit stay length, blood transfusion, chest tube drainage, and kidney function were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

Two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement is a safe and effective surgical treatment option for carefully selected patients with pure aortic valve diseases.

Replacement of a Calcified Aortic Valve in a Porcine Aortic Root with the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

We report a 79-year-old patient who had aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a porcine aortic root. Due to degeneration of the porcine aortic valve, he required reoperation during which a heavily calcified porcine root and aortic annulus prevented insertion of any traditional bioprosthesis. AVR was achieved using a sutureless bioprosthesis, combined with mitral valve replacement. The present case confirms the feasibility and advantages of using sutureless valve implantation in complex and high-risk redo procedures.

Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement

Objectives

Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.

Methods

A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity‐matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).

Results

Random‐effects meta‐analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−1.35, −1.20], p < .001) and cross‐clamp times (SMD: −1.05, 95% CI: [−1.12, −0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: −0.385, 95% CI: [−0.679, −0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow‐up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05).

Conclusions

Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.

Sutureless valves-are we there yet? Evidence from the PERSIST-AVR trial

Sutur eless valves have emerged as another option for implantation of a biological valve. Several benefits of sutureless valves have been reported in the literature. However, concerns have been raised over increased incidence of para-valvular leak and need for permanent pacemaker implantation. Most of the evidence has been obtained from observational and retrospective single institutional series. The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement (PERSIST-AVR) trial is the first multicentric randomized control trial to compare sutureless valves with standard bio-prosthesis. Evidence from this trial has been critically analyzed in this review.

Converging rapid deployment prostheses with minimal access surgery: analysis of early outcomes

Background

Sutureless prostheses may have added benefit when combined with minimal access surgery, although this has not been fully assessed in the literature. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the Perceval valve comparing median sternotomy (MS) with mini-sternotomy (MIS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted for all isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), using the Perceval valve, for severe aortic stenosis cases in the period 2014 to 2019. Patients undergoing concomitant valve or revascularisation surgery were excluded.

Results

A total of 78 patients were included: MS group 41; MIS group 37. Operatively, bypass times were comparable between MS and MIS groups (mean 89.3 vs 83.4, p = 0.307), as were aortic cross clamp times (58.4 vs 55.9, p = 0.434). There were no operative deaths or new onset post-operative neurology. MIS was a predictor of reduced stay in the intensive care unit (coef − 3.25, 95% CI [− 4.93, − 0.59], p = 0.036) and hospital stay overall (p = 0.004). Blood transfusion units were comparable as were the incidence of heart block (n = 5 vs n = 3, p = 0.429) and new onset atrial fibrillation (n = 15 vs n = 9, p = 0.250). Follow-up echocardiography found a significant improvement in effective orifice area, left ventricular dimension and volume indices, and LVEF (p > 0.05) for all patients. Multivariate analysis found mini-sternotomy to be a predictor for reduced LV diastolic volume (coef − 0.35, 95% CI [− 1.02, − 0.05], p = 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of minimal access surgery and sutureless AVR may enhance patient recovery and provide early LV remodelling.

3-Dimensional computed tomographic assessment predicts conduction block and paravalvular leakage after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Complications like complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) and paravalvular leakage (PVL) following rapid deployment aortic valve (AV) replacement (RDAVR) remain unresolved. Selecting an optimal size of the valve might be important to minimize the incidence of these complications. We sought to determine the impact of prosthesis size relative to the anatomic profile of the AV on the occurrence of CAVB or PVL after RDAVR.

METHODS

Preoperative computed tomographic (CT) images were evaluated in patients receiving RDAVR (INTUITY ELITE) between February 2016 and December 2019. The occurrence of CAVB requiring permanent pacemaker implantation and PVL (≥ mild) was evaluated. The relative size of implants against the cross-sectional dimensions of recipients' AV annulus and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) were calculated.

RESULTS

Among 187 eligible patients, CAVB and PVL (≥ mild) occurred in 12 (6.4%) and 11 patients (5.9%), respectively. CAVB was associated with oversized RDAVR (RDAVR frame width minus average diameter of LVOT calculated from the cross-sectional area [ΔLVOTarea]: odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.30): this was with an area under the curve of 0.78 (P = 0.005). The projected probability of CAVB was <3% when the ΔLVOTarea was <1.3. In contrast, PVL was associated with under-sized RDAVR (RDAVR size divided by the longest diameter of AV annulus [index Annlong]: odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.79): This was with an area under curve of 0.94 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CT parameters of the AV annulus and LVOT are highly reliable in the prediction of CAVB or PVL after RDAVR. Our data might justify CT-based sizing of prosthesis for RDAVR.

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.

Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves.

METHOD AND RESULTS

From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18-29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16-29] mm Hg and 18 [14-24] mm Hg, p < 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in multivalve procedures

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Is It Feasible To Implant Sutureless Valves In Presence of Diseased Aortic Root And Aortic Aneurysm?

Sutureless bioprosthetic valves are typically used in patients with a normal sized aortic root and annulus due to concerns that the stent portion of the valve will not be properly anchored. We describe an initial series of sutureless valve implantation in the setting of a diseased aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysm showing that the use of the Perceval valve is feasible in these complex situations.

Perceval S valve empire: healing the Achilles' heel of sutureless aortic valves

Aortic valve replacement is the treatment of choice concerning aortic valve disease. Excellent short- and longterm clinical results are reported. Patients referred for aortic valve replacement are getting older and older, so bioprosthetic valves play a more central role worldwide. However, patient comorbidities are also increased more often rendering patients unsuitable for open conventional aortic valve replacement. As a result, transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become the treatment of choice in patients at very high surgical risk. However, the percutaneous technique is related to major disadvantages provided that the diseased native valve is left in place. Its durability is also uncertain. More recently, sutureless Perceval S valve bioprosthesis has gained ground in the field of aortic stenosis therapy filling the gap between conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter approach. Excellent haemodynamic and clinical results are reported. Its deployment is performed under direct view and ischemic and overall operative times are significantly decreased. Five-year follow-up results are also optimal. However, the "Achilles' heel" of sutureless technology is increased rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation requirement compared to conventional approach. The incidence of this complication varies in literature. Patient-related factors such as preoperative conduction disorders, older age and short membranous septum are predictors of postoperative pacemaker requirement. However, several technical modifications with regard to manufacturer recommendations can be adopted to mitigate this complication. Appropriate annular decalcification, higher guiding sutures placement, reduced balloon pressure and duration and avoiding of oversizing can contribute to prevent from this complication.

Sutureless Valve in Repeated Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from an International Prospective Registry

OBJECTIVE

To report early and midterm results registry of patients undergoing repeated aortic valve replacement (RAVR) with sutureless prostheses from an international prospective registry (SURE-AVR).

METHODS

Between March 2011 and June 2019, 69 patients underwent RAVR with self-expandable sutureless aortic bioprostheses at 22 international cardiac centers.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was 2.9% with a predicted logistic EuroSCORE II of 10.7%. Indications for RAVR were structural valve dysfunction (84.1%) and infective prosthetic endocarditis (15.9%) and were performed in patients with previously implanted bioprostheses (79.7%), mechanical valves (15.9%), and transcatheter valves (4.3%). Minimally invasive approach was performed in 15.9% of patients. Rate of stroke was 1.4% and rate of early valve-related reintervention was 1.4%. Overall survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 97% and 91%, respectively. No major paravalvular leak occurred. Rate of pacemaker implantation was 5.8% and 0.9% per patient-year early and at follow-up, respectively. The mean transvalvular gradient at 1-year and 5-year follow-up was 10.5 mm Hg and 11.5 mm Hg with a median effective orifice area of 1.8 cm²and 1.8 cm², respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RAVR with sutureless valves is a safe and effective approach and provides excellent clinical and hemodynamic results up to 5 years.

Bicuspid-Associated Aortic Root Aneurysm: Mid to Long-Term Outcomes of David V Versus the Bio-Bentall Procedure

David V valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and bio-Bentall (BB) are increasingly performed for aortic root aneurysms associated with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). However, durability remains a concern in both procedures. We compared the 10-year outcomes of VSRR vs BB for BAV-associated root aneurysms. A retrospective review identified 134 patients with a BAV-associated root aneurysm who underwent VSRR (n = 65) or BB (n = 69) from 2005 to 2019. Patients with aortic stenosis, endocarditis, previous aortic valve replacement, and emergent cases were excluded. Propensity-score matching was performed, resulting in 2 risk-adjusted groups (n = 40 per group). Median follow-up was 6.21 (1.43-8.28) years. The VSRR cohort was younger (46.0 years vs 56.0 years, P < 0.001) and had a lower incidence of at least moderate aortic insufficiency (AI) (78.5% vs 92.8%, P = 0.02). The incidence of Marfan syndrome, aortic root diameter, and ascending aortic diameter were similar. In-hospital mortality was 1.5% (n = 1) and 1.4% (n = 1) for VSRR and BB, respectively. There was no difference between VSRR and BB in 10-year survival (98.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.6-99.8%] vs 96.2% [95% CI: 85.5-99.0%], P = 0.567) and aortic valve reintervention at 10 years (16.1% [95% CI: 6.3-29.8%] vs 12.9% [95% CI: 3.7-28.0%], P = 0.309). The most common reason for valve reintervention in both groups was AI. Survival and valve reintervention at 10 years were similar in the matched cohort. David V VSRR yields similar mid to long-term outcomes to BB for select patients with a BAV-associated aortic root aneurysm in regards to survival and reintervention rates. Further studies comparing longer term outcomes between root replacement techniques and native valve durability are needed.

Implantation of a Sutureless Valve Into a Surgically Enlarged Aortic Root: A Bailout Option

Sutureless bioprostheses such as the Sorin Perceval Valve (SPV; Sorin Group, Srl, Saluggia, Italy) have been proposed for replacing stenotic native valves within small aortic roots of geriatric patients with significant comorbidity. Their use seems as safe as that of stented bioprostheses and enables significantly reduced length of surgery. Low transprosthetic pressure gradients have been measured. Because of the radial force of its self-expandable nitinol stent, aortic annulus interruption could be a relative contraindication to SPV use. Off-label implantation of the SPV into a surgically enlarged ascending aorta was first reported in this study, as a bailout option in the presence of a tiny aortic root.

Modified Implant Technique of Perceval Sutureless Valve in Congenital Type 0 Bicuspid Valve Stenosis

The Perceval sutureless valve has gained in popularity for treating degenerative aortic valve stenosis but not for congenital type 0 bicuspid aortic valve owing to anatomic challenges. We modified implant techniques following the four principles of ECHO-an acronym for elasticity, circularity, height, and orientation-to prevent paravalvular leakage and malposition.

Successful Aortic Valve Replacement With Perceval Bioprosthesis for Aortic Stenosis With Membranous Ventricular Septum Aneurysm

Membranous ventricular septum aneurysm (MVSA) is extremely rare, especially when coexisting with aortic stenosis (AS), and reports regarding the available treatment for MVSA with AS are limited. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be challenging because of anatomical reasons. In this case report, a patient with MVSA and severe AS was treated with AVR with the sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis. After implantation, no paravalvular leakage was detected in echocardiography, and no other postoperative complications were observed. Postoperative electrocardiography-gated computed tomography revealed no contrast enhancement for MVSA. The MVSA was closed by the Perceval bioprosthetic valve. Thus, patients with simultaneous MVSA and AS may be effectively treated with AVR using a Perceval bioprosthesis.

[Current problems of simultaneous surgery of the aortic valve and ischaemic heart disease]

Surgical policy in treatment of patients suffering from concomitant valvular pathology and ischaemic heart disease is an extremely important problem of contemporary cardiac surgery. With the advent of advanced techniques and due to the improvement of old ones, there have over the last decades appeared new approaches to treatment of this cohort of patients. Presented in the article is a review of current publications regarding the problem of surgical treatment of patients with a combination of pronounced valvular pathology requiring surgical correction and ischaemic heart disease necessitating the need for myocardial revascularization. This is followed by providing the data concerning contemporary strategies of treatment of patients with concomitant pathology, as well as the comparison of various approaches and the effect of the chosen technique on the outcome.

History, development and clinical perspectives of sutureless and rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement

Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most frequent valvular heart disease in industrialized countries. Conservative treatment may beneficially influence symptoms but is never successful. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only recognized treatment option to provide substantially prolonged survival until 2008. Operative mortality of isolated SAVR has been reported as low as 0.5% to 1% in experienced institutions, while long-term survival is close to that observed in a control healthy population of similar age. A multitude of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of SAVR with regard to improvement in quality of life and physical performance in the majority of symptomatic patients. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an equal treatment modality, first in patients with high surgical risk and more recently in patients with intermediate and low surgical risk. Paravalvular regurgitation and the higher rate of pacemaker implantation remain points of consideration. Additionally, the long-term durability of TAVI devices and occurrence of stroke late after TAVI require additional analyses. Sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve (R-SAVR) were designed to simplify and accelerate a conventional or less invasive surgical procedure while allowing complete excision of the calcified native valve. From 3 different implants tested more than 10 to 15 years ago, only two are available on the market today: the Perceval^® valve from Liva Nova and the Intuity^® sutureless prosthesis from Edwards Lifesciences. There has been extensive experience with these two devices in previous years and the results obtained are comparable to those observed following the use of conventional implants. The sutureless devices may be of particular interest for more complex and combined surgical procedures. This review summarizes the sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve technologies and presents a clinical outlook for the patient population managed with these devices.

Benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with a mini upper sternotomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is currently deemed the gold standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Currently, most AVRs are safely performed through a full median sternotomy approach. With an increasingly elderly and high-risk patient population, major advances in valve technology and surgical technique have been introduced to reduce perioperative risk and post-operative complications associated with the full sternotomy approach, in order to ensure surgical AVR remains the gold standard. For example, minimally invasive approaches (most commonly via mini sternotomy) have been developed to improve patient outcomes. The advent of rapid deployment valve technology has also been shown to improve morbidity and mortality by reducing cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, as well as facilitating the use of minimal access approaches. Rapid deployment valves were introduced into our department at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh in 2014. The aim of this study is to investigate if utilising the combination of rapid deployment valves and a mini sternotomy minimally invasive approach resulted in improved outcomes in various patient subgroups.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, we identified 714 patients who underwent isolated AVR in our centre. They were divided into two groups: 61 patients (8.5%) were identified who received rapid deployment AVR via J-shaped mini upper sternotomy (MIRDAVR group), whilst 653 patients (91.5%) were identified who received either a full sternotomy (using a conventional prosthesis or rapid deployment valve) or minimally invasive approach using a conventional valve (CONVAVR group). We retrospectively analysed data from our cardiac surgery database, including pre-operative demographics, intraoperative times and postoperative outcomes. Outcomes were also compared in two different subgroups: octogenarians and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

Pre-operative demographics showed that there were significantly more female and elderly patients in the MIRDAVR group. The MIRDAVR group had significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (63.7 min vs. 104 min, p = 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp times (47.3 min vs. 80.1 min, p = 0.0001) compared to the CONVAVR group. These results were particularly significant in the octogenarian population, who also had a reduced length of ICU stay (30.9 h vs. 65.6 h, p = 0.049). In high-risk patients (i.e. logistic EuroSCORE I > 10%), minimally invasive-rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is still beneficial and is also characterized by significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (69.1 min vs. 96.1 min, p = 0.03). However, post-operative correlations, such as length of ICU stay, become no more significant, likely due to serious co-morbidities in this patient group.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that minimally invasive rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is associated with significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. This correlation is much stronger in the octogenarian population, who were also found to have significantly reduced length of ICU stay. Our study raises the suggestion that this approach should be utilised more frequently in clinical practice, particularly in octogenarian patients.

Oversizing Increases Pacemaker Implantation Rate After Sutureless Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

Cardiac conduction system disturbances potentially leading to permanent pacemaker implantation are significant postoperative complications after aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of sutureless prosthetic valve oversizing on permanent pacemaker implantation rate.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 306 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve. Oversizing was determined by the implanted valve size indexed to body surface area. Data were analyzed with a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

This study confirmed excellent postoperative results for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with right anterior minithoracotomy approach and rapid deployment sutureless valves. Mortality rate was 1%. Eighteen (5.9%) patients received a new permanent pacemaker. Multivariable logistic regression model (P = 0.05) found oversizing as significant risk factor (P = 0.017) for permanent postoperative pacemaker implantation independent of patient age. There was a significant negative correlation between the indexed implanted valve size and the mean and peak postoperative transvalvular gradients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oversizing of sutureless prosthetic aortic valves is a risk factor for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation. Proper sizing of Perceval is important to avoid complications and ensure optimal valve performance.

3D printing of high-strength, porous, elastomeric structures to promote tissue integration of implants

Despite advances in biomaterials research, there is no ideal device for replacing weight-bearing soft tissues like menisci or intervertebral discs due to poor integration with tissues and mechanical property mismatch. Designing an implant with a soft and porous tissue-contacting structure using a material conducive to cell attachment and growth could potentially address these limitations. Polycarbonate urethane (PCU) is a soft and tough biocompatible material that can be 3D printed into porous structures with controlled pore sizes. Porous biomaterials of appropriate chemistries can support cell proliferation and tissue ingrowth, but their optimal design parameters remain unclear. To investigate this, porous PCU structures were 3D-printed in a crosshatch pattern with a range of in-plane pore sizes (0 to 800 μm) forming fully interconnected porous networks. Printed porous structures had ultimate tensile strengths ranging from 1.9 to 11.6 MPa, strains to failure ranging from 300 to 486%, Young's moduli ranging from 0.85 to 12.42 MPa, and porosity ranging from 13 to 71%. These porous networks can be loaded with hydrogels, such as collagen gels, to provide additional biological support for cells. Bare PCU structures and collagen-hydrogel-filled porous PCU support robust NIH/3T3 fibroblast cell line proliferation over 14 days for all pore sizes. Results highlight PCU's potential in the development of tissue-integrating medical implants.

Sutureless and rapid deployment implantation in bicuspid aortic valve: results from the sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry

Background

Benefits of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) bioprostheses in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are controversial. The aim of this study is to report the outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for BAV from the Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR).

Methods

Of the 4,636 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2007 and 2018, 191 (4.1%) BAV patients underwent AVR with SURD valve.

Results

Overall 30-day mortality was 1.6%. The Intuity valve was implanted in 53.9% of cases, whereas the Perceval was implanted in 46.1%. Rate of stroke for isolated AVR was 4.2%. No case of endocarditis, thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, valve dislocation or structural valve deterioration was reported in the early phase. Rate of pacemaker implantation and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR) were 7.9% and 3.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

BAV is not considered a contraindication for the implantation of SURD valves. However, detailed information of aortic root geometry as well as the knowledge of some technical considerations are mandatory for a good outcome.

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.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through anterior right thoracotomy: Clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance

BACKGROUND

The ease of implantation of the rapid deployment (RD) and sutureless valves has contributed to the adoption of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR).

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study evaluates the safety and haemodynamic performance of minimally invasive AVR through ART using the RD valves.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center review of a total of 50 consecutive patients who received RD-AVR through ART.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 69-80), and median Euroscore II was 5.1 (IQR: 2.4-7.5). ART RD-AVR was successfully performed in all cases with no conversion to sternotomy, paravalvular leaks or need for valve explantation. The mean size of the implanted valve was 23.2  ± 2.3 mm. In-hospital mortality was 2%. The mean and maximum pressure gradients across the aortic prosthesis were 10 mm Hg (IQR: 9-12) and 19 mm Hg (IQR: 16-23).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement can be safely performed through anterior right thoracotomy wit excellent haemodynamic performance and low postoperative complications rate.

Comparing traditional aortic valve surgery and transapical approach to transcatheter aortic valve implant

During the last 15 years, transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) has become a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, and high or intermediate operative risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implant could be approached through various access sites, among which the transapical has long been one of the most popular. Through the years, this procedure has shown results similar to the standard surgical approach, but not as good as the same procedure via the transfemoral approach. For this reason, along with continuous technological advances, the transfemoral approach is used, presently, in 90% of the patient, while the transapical route has been limited, progressively, to a minority of patients. Currently the Heart Team should decide, in every single patient, between conventional surgery and TAVI. In clinical practice, TAVI is favoured in high-risk patients, and in the elderly at intermediate surgical risk with favourable anatomical features. In patients in whom TAVI is preferable to surgery, but have ‘non-usable’ femoral approach, alternative routes, such as transaxillary or transapical, could be considered.