Thrombocytopaenia after aortic valve replacement with stented, stentless and sutureless bioprostheses

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.

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.

AIM

We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ² and t-test.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.

Quantitative and Qualitative Platelet Derangements in Cardiac Surgery and Extracorporeal Life Support

Thrombocytopenia and impaired platelet function are known as intrinsic drawbacks of cardiac surgery and extracorporeal life supports (ECLS). A number of different factors influence platelet count and function including the inflammatory response to a cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) or to ECLS, hemodilution, hypothermia, mechanical damage and preoperative treatment with platelet-inhibiting agents. Moreover, although underestimated, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is still a hiccup in the perioperative management of cardiac surgical and, above all, ECLS patients. Moreover, recent investigations have highlighted how platelet disorders also affect patients undergoing biological prosthesis implantation. Though many hypotheses have been suggested, the mechanism underlying thrombocytopenia and platelet disorders is still to be cleared. This narrative review aims to offer clinicians a summary of their major causes in the cardiac surgery setting.

An overlooked fact: thrombocytopenia following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

Introduction

Thrombocytopenia observed after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement has remained a puzzle to solve.

Aim

To analyze thrombocytopenia occurring after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement by comparison to mechanical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting procedures.

Material and methods

The study was conducted retrospectively on a total of 297 patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, mechanical prosthetic aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting at the cardiovascular surgery department of our clinical center between January 2013 and September 2017. Preoperative and postoperative first 14-day thrombocyte levels of the patients were analyzed.

Results

The postoperative blood thrombocyte level decrease was found to be more significant in patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement than in patients who underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting (p < 0.01). There was also a statistically significant difference in the time to reach the lowest postoperative platelet levels according to type of surgery (p = 0.001; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

When compared to the patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and mechanical prosthetic aortic valve replacement, postoperative thrombocytopenia was found to be more severe in patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, with a dramatic decrease in thrombocyte count being observed on the postoperative second day. It was found that the thrombocytopenia recovers without causing any problem. We think that the shear forces may play a role in this recovery through washout of chemicals responsible for thrombocytopenia from the glutaraldehyde treated bioprostheses.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

INCLUSION CRITERIA

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

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Thrombocytopenia in Moderate- to High-Risk Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

This study aimed to compare preliminary data on the outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) with those of aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of SU-AVR in moderate- to high-risk patients from 2013 to 2016. Matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score with sex and age. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were operative outcomes and complications.

Results

A total of 277 patients were studied. Ten patients (50% males; median age, 81.5 years) underwent SU-AVR. Postoperative echocardiography showed impressive outcomes in the SU-AVR group. The 30-day mortality was 10% in both groups. In our study, the patients in the SU-AVR group developed postoperative thrombocytopenia. Platelet counts decreased from 225×10³/μL preoperatively to 94.5, 54.5, and 50.1×10³/μL on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, respectively, showing significant differences compared with the AVR group (p=0.04, p=0.16, and p=0.20, respectively). The median amount of platelet transfusion was higher in the AVR group (12.5 vs. 0 units, p=0.052).

Conclusion

There was no difference in the 30-day mortality of moderate- to high-risk patients depending on whether they underwent SU-AVR or AVR. Although SU-AVR is associated with favorable cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, it may be associated with postoperative thrombocytopenia.

Thrombocytopenia associated with TAVI-The summary of possible causes

Thrombocytopenia (TP) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedure is a common phenomenon but the underlying mechanisms are neither well known nor described. Postinterventional severe TP is related to worse early and late outcome. Moreover, the statement of enhanced platelet and coagulation activation might justify even stronger antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy following TAVI procedure. Thus, the examination of the pathomechanisms responsible for TP post TAVI seems to be crucial. Several hypotheses have been raised. TP can be caused by insufficient production or impaired platelet renewal. On the other hand, increased platelet activation, consumption and destruction might also be responsible for TP. These findings, mostly related to the procedure alone, need further investigation. Here, we summarize the potential multifactorial causes of post TAVI thrombocytopenia.