Clinical trends in surgical, minimally invasive and transcatheter aortic valve replacement†

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Obese Patients: A Propensity-Matched Study

INTRODUCTION

Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach via upper sternotomy in this setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 203 obese patients who underwent isolated, elective aortic valve replacement between January 2014 and January 2023 - 106 with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) and 97 with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed obtaining two balanced groups of 91 patients each.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality rate was comparable between groups (1.1% MIAVR vs. 0% CAVR, P=0.99). MIAVR patients had faster extubation than CAVR patients (6 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 2 hours, P<0.01). Continuous positive airway pressure therapy was less common in the MIAVR than in the CAVR group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, P=0.03). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Intensive care unit stay (1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 days, P<0.01), but not hospital stay (6.7 ± 2.1 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9 days, P=0.09), was shorter for MIAVR than for CAVR patients. Follow-up survival was comparable (logrank P-value = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

MIAVR via upper sternotomy has been shown to be a safe and effective option for obese patients. Respiratory outcome was promising with shorter mechanical ventilation time and reduced need for post-extubation support. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was reduced. These advantages might be important for the obese patient to whom minimally invasive surgery should not be denied.

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.

Regional Anesthesia With Paravertebral Blockade Is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Minithoracotomy Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Severe postoperative pain has been shown to affect many patients following minimally invasive cardiac surgeries (MICS). Multimodal pain management with regional anesthesia, particularly by delivery of local anesthetics using a paravertebral catheter (PVC), has been shown to reduce pain in operations involving thoracotomy incisions. However, few studies have reported high-quality safety and efficacy outcomes of PVCs following MICS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MICS at Vancouver General Hospital between 2016 and 2019 (N = 123) were reviewed for perioperative opioid-narcotic use. Primary outcomes were postoperative opioid use and hospital length of stay (LOS). Statistical analyses were performed using univariate and multivariable regression models to determine independent risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients received routine systemic analgesia (control), 53 patients received a paravertebral catheter (PVC), and 16 patients received another mode of regional analgesia (non-PVC). The mean hospital LOS was significantly different in patients in the PVC group at 5.8 ± 2.0 days versus 8.3 ± 7.1 days in the control and 6.6 ± 2.3 days in the non-PVC group (P = 0.033). The percentage of patients who did not require postoperative oxycodone was significantly higher in the PVC group (48.1%), compared with the control (24.5%) and non-PVC (37.5%; P = 0.043) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of regional anesthesia using PVCs was associated with reduced need for opioids and a shorter LOS. The reduction in postoperative opioids may reduce the risk of potential opioid dependency in this population. Future studies should involve randomized controlled trials with systematic evaluation of pain scores to verify current study results.

Referral of Patients for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement before and after Introduction of the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-Changing Patterns of Preoperative Characteristics and Volume and Postoperative Outcome

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was first presented in 2002 as a case report. Randomized controlled trials showed that TAVI could serve as an alternative for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. While the indications for TAVI have expanded into low-risk groups, favorable results of SAVR in elderly showed an increase in application of surgical treatment in this age category. This review aims to explore the effect of the introduction of TAVI in the referral for SAVR with respect to volume, patient profile, early outcome, and use of mechanical heart valves. Results show that the volume of SAVR has increased in several cardiac centers. In a small minority of series, age and risk score of the referred patients also increased. In most of the series, early mortality rate reduced. These findings, however are not universal. Different management policies could be responsible for this observation. Moreover, some patients in whom aortic valve replacement in whatever form is indicated still do not receive adequate treatment. This can be due to several reasons. Heart teams consisting of interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons should become a universal approach in order to minimize the number of untreated patients.

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.

Inspiratory Muscle and Functional Performance of Patients Entering Cardiac Rehabilitation after Cardiac Valve Replacement

Limited research has examined inspiratory muscle performance (IMP) and functional performance (FP) of patients after valve replacement surgery (VRS). The purpose of this study was to examine IMP as well as several measures of FP in patients post-VRS. The study results of 27 patients revealed that patients undergoing transcatheter VRS were significantly (p = 0.01) older than patients undergoing minimally invasive or median sternotomy VRS with the median sternotomy VRS group performing significantly (p < 0.05) better than the transcatheter VRS group in the 6-min walk test, 5x sit-to-stand test, and sustained maximal inspiratory pressure. The 6-min walk test and IMP measures in all groups were significantly (p < 0.001) lower than predicted values. Significant (p < 0.05) relationships were found between IMP and FP with greater IMP being associated with greater FP. Pre-operative and early post-operative rehabilitation may improve IMP and FP post-VRS.

Measurement of health-related quality of life post aortic valve replacement via minimally invasive incisions

Background

Minimally invasive aortic surgery is growing in popularity among surgeons. Although many clinical reports have proven both the safety and efficacy from a surgical point of view, there are few data regarding its impact on patients’ quality of life and whether there is a difference between ministernotomy and minithoracotomy from the patient perspective.

Methods

This prospective, questionnaire-based, nonrandomized study included 189 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive incision between May 2014 and December 2020 and completed at least 1 year of follow-up. The study uses the RAND SF 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 to assess and compare health-related quality of life between ministernotomy and minithoracotomy.

Results

There was a statistically significant improvement in the minithoracotomy group with regard to physical functioning, role limitation due to a physical problem, and social functioning (79.69 ± 20.72, 75.28 ± 26.52, 87.91 ± 16.98) compared to the ministernotomy group (70.31 ± 22.88, 58.59 ± 31.17, 66.15 ± 27.32) with p values (0.0036, 0.0001, < 0.0001), respectively.

Conclusions

Both minimally invasive aortic valve incisions positively impacted patient quality of life. The minithoracotomy incision showed significant improvements in physical capacity and successful patient re-engagement in daily physical and social activities. This, in turn, positively improved their general health status compared to the 1-year preoperative status.

Trial registration: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) at the Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, under the number code (FWA 000017585, FAMSU R 91 /2021).

Trends in Medicare Payments for Beneficiaries With Aortic Stenosis

Background

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common form of valvular heart disease with an increasing prevalence. Management of AS has changed dramatically with the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR). The shift in management of AS, combined with an aging population, may increase the cost of patients with AS in the US health care system.

Methods and Results

We performed a retrospective cohort study, using inpatient, carrier, and outpatient data from a 20% Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries' sample from 2008 to 2019 and included beneficiaries, aged ≥65 years. We identified beneficiaries with a diagnosis of AS and stratified the sample into 3 age groups: 66 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years. We evaluated the crude and adjusted changes in annual Medicare payments (total and component) per beneficiary. We identified 1 887 340 (1.6%) Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with AS. The average annual spending for Medicare beneficiaries with AS was $19 241 in 2010 and increased annually by $301 to $23 174 in 2019 ( P <0.0001). Annual Medicare payments on patients with AS increased from $2 894 995 131 in 2010 to $4 619 077 182 in 2019, a difference of >1.7 billion dollars. Inpatient spending increased 1.1% per year, with the highest increase in patients aged ≥85 years (1.9%). The percentage of beneficiaries undergoing surgical AVR decreased from 3.7% to 1.6%, and annual spending on surgical AVR decreased an average of 7.2% per year. The percentage of beneficiaries undergoing transcatheter AVR increased from 0% in 2010 to 3.8% in 2019, and annual spending for transcatheter AVR increased by 458.7% per year.

Conclusions

Although average annual Medicare spending per beneficiary modestly increased over the study period, the increase in the prevalence of AS and the proportion of beneficiaries undergoing (transcatheter) interventions for AS led to a substantial increase in overall Medicare spending among patients with AS.

Percutaneous Venous Cannulation for Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: The Safest and Effective Technique Described Step-by-Step

The current cardiac surgical landscape, with the expansion of minimally invasive operations, ECMO, and some interventional therapies, requires a thorough knowledge of peripheral cannulation techniques. In particular, venous cannulation may appear trivial and complication-free, but this does not reflect the reality. A venous cannulation which is not perfectly performed can lead to serious life-threatening complications in several steps. The technique we describe step by step is the current gold standard in terms of safety and efficacy: from the use of ultrasound for ultrasound-guided puncture to safe advancement of super stiff guidewires by means of a sentinel catheter, and concluding with smooth insertion of the venous cannula over the stiff guidewire up to the SVC. Moreover, a list of bailout maneuvers to solve complications is presented along with a report of institutional clinical experience since the adoption of this technique.

Minimally invasive approach: is this the future of aortic surgery?

Median sternotomy incision has shown to be a safe and efficacious approach in patients who require thoracic aortic interventions and still represents the gold-standard access. Nevertheless, over the last decade, less invasive techniques have gained wider clinical application in cardiac surgery becoming the first-choice approach to treat heart valve diseases, in experienced centers. The popularization of less invasive techniques coupled with an increased patient demand for less invasive therapies has motivated aortic surgeons to apply minimally invasive approaches to more challenging procedures, such as aortic root replacement and arch repair. However, technical demands and the paucity of available clinical data have still limited the widespread adoption of minimally invasive thoracic aortic interventions. This review aimed to assess and comment on the surgical techniques and the current evidence on mini thoracic aortic surgery.

Post-pericardiotomy syndrome: insights into neglected postoperative issues

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES

Pericardial effusion is a common complication after cardiac surgery, both isolated and in post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS), a condition in which pleuropericardial damage triggers both a local and a systemic inflammatory/immune response. The goal of this review was to present a complete picture of PPS and pericardial complications after cardiac surgery, highlighting available evidence and gaps in knowledge.

METHODS

A literature review was performed that included relevant prospective and retrospective studies on the subject.

RESULTS

PPS occurs frequently and is associated with elevated morbidity and significantly increased hospital stays and costs. Nevertheless, PPS is often underestimated in clinical practice, and knowledge of its pathogenesis and epidemiology is limited. Several anti-inflammatory drugs have been investigated for treatment but with conflicting evidence. Colchicine demonstrated encouraging results for prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Wider adoption of standardized diagnostic criteria to correctly define PPS and start early treatment is needed. Larger studies are necessary to better identify high-risk patients who might benefit from preventive strategies.

The JenaValve pericardial transcatheter aortic valve replacement system to treat aortic valve disease

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a valuable alternative technique to surgery and the spectrum of therapy continues to evolve. The JenaValve Pericaridal transcatheter aortic valve replacement System allows prosthesis fixation in a native, noncalcified aortic annulus with a unique paper clip-like anchorage mechanism. The low rate of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation emphasizes the further widespread use of the JenaValve - despite the limited data available. In May 2021, a CE mark for the transfemoral implantation in both aortic regurgitation and aortic stenosis was granted. However, no data have been published so far. The ongoing ALIGN trials are expected to provide the pending long-term data.

Minimally invasive versus standard extracorporeal circulation system in minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: a propensity score-matched study

OBJECTIVES

The impact of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) systems on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. This study compared in-hospital and 1 year outcomes of MI-AVR interventions using MiECC systems versus conventional extracorporeal circulation (c-ECC).

METHODS

Data from 288 consecutive patients undergoing primary isolated MI-AVR using MiECC (n = 102) or c-ECC (n = 186) were prospectively collected. Treatment selection bias was addressed by the use of propensity score matching (MiECC vs c-ECC). After propensity score matching, 2 groups of 93 patients each were created.

RESULTS

Compared with c-ECC, MiECC was associated with a higher rate of autologous priming (82.4% vs 0%; P < 0.001) and a greater nadir haemoglobin (9.3 vs 8.7 g/dl; P = 0.021) level and haematocrit (27.9% vs 26.4%; P = 0.023). Patients who had MiECC were more likely to receive ultra-fast-track management (60.8% vs 26.9%; P < 0.001) and less likely to receive blood transfusions (32.7% vs 44%; P = 0.04). The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.1% in the MiECC group and 0% in the c-ECC group (P = 0.5). Those in the MiECC group had reduced rates of bleeding requiring revision (0% vs 5.3%; P = 0.031) and postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) (30.1% vs 44.1%; P = 0.034). The 1-year survival rate was 96.8% and 97.5% for MiECC and c-ECC patients, respectively (P = 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

MiECC systems were a safe and effective tool in patients who had MI-AVR. Compared with c-ECC, MiECC promotes ultra-fast-track management and provides better clinical outcomes as regards bleeding, blood transfusions and postoperative AF. Thus, by reducing surgical injury and promoting faster recovery, MiECC may further validate MI-AVR interventions.

Influence of cardiopulmonary bypass set-up and management on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) requires changes in cannulation strategy and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) management when compared to the conventional approach (CAVR). We aimed at evaluating if these differences could influence perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Overall, 339 consecutive patients underwent MIAVR or CAVR between 2014 and 2020 and were analyzed retrospectively. To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed, obtaining two groups of 97 patients each.

RESULTS

MIAVR group had longer CPB time [107 (95-120) vs 95 (86-105) min, p = .003] than CAVR group. Of note, average pump flow rate index [2.4 (2.2-2.5) vs 2.7 (2.4-2.8) l/min/m², p = .004] was lower in the MIAVR group. Mean arterial pressure was 73 = 9 mmHg vs 62 = 11 mmHg for the MIAVR and CAVR group, respectively (p < .001). Cell-salvaged blood was most commonly used in the MIAVR group (25.8% vs 11.3%, p = .02). Finally, CPB temperature was 32.8°C (32.1-34.8) for MIAVR group vs 34.9°C (33.2-36.1) for the CAVR group (p = .02). Postoperative complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, despite differences in CPB parameters in patients undergoing CAVR and MIAVR, the incidences of adverse outcomes were similar. However, compared to CAVR, MIAVR was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as less transfusion of blood products.

Contemporary trends in the management of aortic stenosis in the USA

AIMS

To assess the contemporary trends in aortic stenosis (AS) interventions in the USA before and after the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We utilized the National-Inpatient-Sample to assess temporal trends in the incidence, cost, and outcomes of AS interventions between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2016. During the study's period, AS interventions increased from 96 to 137 per 100 000 individuals > 60 years old, P < 0.001. In-hospital expenditure on AS interventions increased from $2.28 billion in 2003 to $4.33 in 2016 P < 0.001. Among patients who underwent aortic valve replacement, the proportion of TAVI increased from 11.9% in 2012 to 43.2% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Males and Hispanics had lower proportions of TAVI compared with females and White patients. Adjusted in-hospital mortality of isolated SAVR decreased from 5.4% in 2003 to 3.3% in 2016 (P < 0.001), whereas adjusted in-hospital mortality of TAVI decreased from 4.7% in 2012 to 2.2% in 2016, P < 0.001. The incidence of new dialysis, permanent pacemaker implantation, and blood transfusion decreased after both TAVI and SAVR between 2012 and 2016. However, the rate of post-operative stroke did not significantly decrease. Length of stay and cost of hospitalization decreased after both SAVR and TAVI, although the later remained higher with TAVI. Rates of non-home discharge decreased over time after TAVI but remained stable after isolated SAVR.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide survey documents the increasing incidence of AS interventions, the rising cost of modern AS care, and the paradigm shift in aortic valve replacement practice in the USA.

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.

Initial clinical experience with minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The ministernotomy approach is increasingly used in aortic valve surgery. However, the advantages are still a matter of discussion. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative outcome in patients undergoing elective aortic valve operation, either through mini-sternotomy or conventional sternotomy.

METHODS

We included 317 patients who were treated for their aortic valve, 63 patients underwent a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) and 254 patients underwent a full-sternotomy AVR. Patients with endocarditis, those who underwent previous cardiac surgery and those who required a concomitant procedure were excluded from the analysis. The method of matching weights according to propensity score was used to adjust for differences between the two treatment groups, and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The mediastinal drainage was significantly lower at 6, 24 hours and total after mini-AVR procedure than after full-sternotomy AVR (median: 373 vs. 499 mL, P<0.001). However, the number of patients receiving packed red blood cells transfusion was similar. Overall, the hospital mortality was lower in the full-sternotomy group, 0% vs. 3.2%, P=0.039. No difference was found in the median hospital length of stay, perioperative myocardial infarction, postoperative incidence of new pacemaker implantation, stroke, prolonged mechanical ventilation and mediastinitis. No patients in the mini-AVR group experienced paravalvular leakage. Midterm survival resulted in no difference between the treatment groups at 4-year (90.5% vs. 95.2%), P=0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the minimally invasive surgery for AVR may increasingly be applied, our initial experience calls for a careful approach of adapting this procedure.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment valves: a report from an international registry (Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry)†

OBJECTIVES

The impact of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical characteristics and in-hospital results of patients receiving SURD-AVR through less invasive approaches in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

Of the 1935 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2009 and 2018, a total of 1418 (73.3%) underwent MI interventions and were included in this analysis. SURD-AVR was performed using upper ministernotomy in 56.4% (n = 800) of cases and anterior right thoracotomy in 43.6% (n = 618). Perceval S was implanted in 1011 (71.3%) patients and Edwards Intuity or Intuity Elite in 407 (28.7%) patients.

RESULTS

Overall in-hospital mortality and stroke rates were 1.7% and 2%, respectively. A definitive pacemaker implantation was reported in 9% of cases and significantly decreased over the observational period, from 20.6% to 5.6% (P = 0.002). The Perceval valve was associated with shorter operative times and was more frequently implanted in patients receiving anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve was preferred in younger patients and revealed superior postoperative haemodynamic results.

CONCLUSIONS

SURD-AVR was largely performed through less invasive approaches and can be considered as a primary indication in MI surgery. In the SURD-IR cohort, MI SURD-AVR using both Perceval and Intuity valves appeared a safe and reproducible procedure associated with promising early results.

Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis Before and During the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Recent positive results of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) in clinical trials have sparked debate on whether TAVI should be first line for all patients with aortic stenosis. However, limited evidence exists on the clinical impact of TAVI on a national level. Using the national inpatient sample (NIS) of hospital discharges in the United States from 2001 to 2016, we evaluated the rate of AVR and associated in-hospital outcomes in pre-TAVI and TAVI era. Hierarchical mixed effect modeling was used to assess for trend and calculate risk adjusted estimates. Annual volume of AVR increased from 49,357 in 2001 to 100,050 in 2016 (103% increase). Compared with the pre-TAVI era, mean annual change in volume of AVR was higher in the TAVI era (+2.9% vs +9.4%, respectively, p <0.001). In contrast, rate of in-hospital mortality decreased from 5.4% in 2001 to 2.7% in 2016 (50% decrease). Compared with the pre-TAVI era, magnitude of mean annual change in mortality was higher in TAVI era (-4.0% vs -6.7%, respectively, p = 0.04). Unlike SAVR for which risk-adjusted rate for most outcomes seems to have plateaued, TAVI demonstrated significant improvement from 2012 to 2016 for mortality (4.6% to 1.8%), acute kidney injury (15.1% to 2.6%) and nonroutine home discharge (63.6% to 44.6%). However, no significant change in the rate of stroke (2.4% to 2.1%) and pacemaker implantation remained high (8.1% to 9.4%). Lastly, median length of stay was shorter for TAVI compared with isolated SAVR (3 vs 8 days, respectively). In conclusion, the adoption of TAVI has led to increase in volume of AVR for severe aortic stenosis in the United States with favorable short-term 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.

Current trends of sutureless and rapid deployment valves: an 11-year experience from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry

OBJECTIVES

Current evidence on sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) is limited and does not allow for the assessment of the clinical impact and the evolution of procedural and clinical outcomes of this new valve technology. The Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR) represents a unique opportunity to evaluate the current trends and outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions.

METHODS

Data from 3682 patients enrolled between 2007 and 2018 were analysed. Patients were divided according to the date of surgery into 6 equal groups and by the type of intervention: isolated SURD-AVR (n = 2472) and combined SURD-AVR (n = 1086).

RESULTS

Across the 11-year study period, significant changes occurred in patient characteristics including a decrease in age and in estimated surgical risk. Less invasive approaches for isolated SURD-AVR increased considerably from 49.4% to 85.5%. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 1.6% and 3.9% in isolated and combined procedures, respectively, with no change over time. The rate of perioperative stroke decreased significantly (from 4% to 0.5%), as did the rates of postoperative pacemaker implantation (from 12.8% to 5.9%) and aortic regurgitation (from 17.8% to 2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current trends and results of SURD-AVR interventions. The most notable changes over time were the increasing implantation of SURD valves in a younger population, with more frequent utilization of less invasive techniques. SURD-AVR demonstrated remarkable improvements in clinical outcomes with a significant reduction in the rates of stroke, pacemaker implantation and postoperative aortic regurgitation.

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.

Improved Patient Recovery With Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Study

Objective

Despite conflicting evidence available, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly used as an alternative to full sternotomy. We sought to compare early outcomes of aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (conventional aortic valve replacement [CAVR]) and upper ministernotomy (MIAVR).

Methods

We analyzed 297 patients having undergone primary, elective, isolated MIAVR or CAVR between January 2014 and June 2018. Following propensity score matching, 120 patients remained in each group.

Results

MIAVR required longer bypass (93 ± 26 vs 81 ± 24 minutes, P < 0.01) and operative times (214 ± 39 vs 182 ± 37 minutes, P < 0.01). However, aortic cross-clamp times were comparable (57 ± 17 vs 54 ± 14 minutes for MIAVR and CAVR, respectively, P = 0.14). MIAVR had less 24-hour blood loss (253 ± 204 vs 323 ± 296 mL, P = 0.03), less red blood cells transfusions [1.4 packs (1.1 o 1.9) vs 2.1 packs (1.8 to 2.7), P = 0.01], and shorter assisted ventilation time (7.1 ± 3.3 vs 9.7 ± 3.8 hours, P < 0.01) when compared to CAVR. These results led to significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays for MIAVR patients (2.5 ± 1.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01 and 6.9 ± 4.1 vs 8.2 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Thirty-day mortality and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among groups.

Conclusions

MIAVR through upper ministernotomy was shown to be as safe and reliable as CAVR. Patient recovery time was improved by shortening mechanical ventilation and reducing blood loss and transfusions. These results may be significant for high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.

Mini Bentall operation: technical considerations

Bentall operation via median sternotomy has been largely shown to be safe and long-term efficacious and currently represents the "gold standard" intervention in patients presenting with aortic valve and root disease. However, over the last years, minimally invasive techniques have gained wider clinical application in cardiac surgery. In particular, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy has shown excellent outcomes and becomes the first choice approach in numerous experienced centers. Based on these favorable results, ministernotomy approach has also been proposed for complex cardiac procedures such as aortic root replacement and arch surgery. Herein, we present our technique for minimally invasive Bentall operation using a ministernotomy approach.

Evolution of Minimally Invasive Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

The majority of minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacements (MIAVRs) are performed at high-volume cardiac surgery centers. However, outcomes at lower volume federal facilities are not yet reported in the literature and not captured in the national Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database. Our study objective was to describe the evolution of MIAVR at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC).

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed of 114 patients who underwent MIAVR for isolated aortic valvular disease between January 2011 and August 2018. Preoperative STS risk factors were determined and perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

By 2016, 100% of isolated surgical aortic valve replacements were performed as MIAVRs at our VAMC. Introduction of automatic knot-fastening devices, single-shot del Nido cardioplegia, and rapid deployment valves decreased aortic cross-clamp (AXC) times from a median of 96 (interquartile range [IQR]: 84 to 103) to 53 minutes (38 to 61, P < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis). Thirty-day mortality was 0.9%. Median length of hospital stay was 9 days (7 to 13). Postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 54% of patients, stroke occurred in 1.8% of patients, and 7.1% of patients required permanent pacemakers. Transition to rapid deployment valves decreased postoperative mean pressure gradient from median 14 mmHg (10 to 17) to 7 mmHg (4.7 to 10, P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney). At median 1.5-year follow-up echocardiogram, mean gradient was 10.8 mmHg with mild paravalvular leak rate of 1.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitating technologies decreased operative times during MIAVR adoption at our VAMC. For patients with isolated aortic valve pathology, MIAVR can be performed with low morbidity and mortality at lower volume federal institutions, with outcomes comparable to those reported from higher volume centers.

Improved operative and recovery times with mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement

Background

The small incisions of minimally invasive surgery have the proposed benefit of less surgical trauma, less pain, and faster recovery. This study was done to compare minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement, including right anterior mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy, to conventional sternotomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 503 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution from 2012 to 2015 using one of three techniques: 1) Mini-thoracotomy, 2) Mini-sternotomy, 3) Conventional sternotomy. Demographics, operative morbidity, mortality, and postoperative complications were compared.

Results

Of the 503 cases, 267 (53.1%) were mini-thoracotomy, 120 (23.8%) were mini-sternotomy, and 116 (23.1%) were conventional sternotomy. Mini-thoracotomy patients, compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, had significantly shorter bypass times [82 (IQ 67–113) minutes; vs. 117 (93.5–139.5); vs. 102.5 (85.5–132.5), respectively (p < 0.0001)], a lower incidence of prolonged ventilator support [3.75% vs. 9.17 and 12.9%, respectively (p = 0.0034)], and required significantly shorter ICU and postoperative stays, resulting in an overall shorter hospitalization [6 (IQ 5–9) days; vs. 7 (5–14.5); vs 9 (6–15.5), respectively (p < 0.05)]. Incidence of other postoperative complications were lower in the mini-thoracotomy group compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, without significance. Minimally invasive techniques trended towards better survival [mini-thoracotomy 1.5%, mini-sternotomy 1.67%, and conventional sternotomy 5.17% (p = 0.13)].

Conclusions

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement approaches are safe, effective alternatives to conventional sternotomy. The mini-thoracotomy approach showed decreased operative times, decreased lengths of stay, decreased incidence of prolonged ventilator time, and a trend towards lower mortality when compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy.

Ultra fast track surgery: a rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through a J-ministernotomy

Aortic valve surgery has been undergone continuous development over the last years, involving less invasive techniques and the use of new technologies to reduce the traumatic impact of the intervention and extend the operability toward increasingly high-risk patients. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) has gradually been recognized as a less traumatic technique compared to median sternotomy, becoming first choice approach in numerous experienced centers. Herein we present our multidisciplinary minimally invasive approach for AVR, involving: (I) reduced chest incision; (II) rapid deployment AVR; (III) minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system; and (IV) ultra fast track (UFT) anaesthetic management.

Treatment Strategies in Symptomatic Intermediate, Low-Risk, and Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Survival of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is very poor, with an average mortality reaching up to 2% per month. Approach to diagnosis and treatment of patients with AS was conservative; patients were referred to surgery only if the AS-induced symptoms become apparent and significantly limit the quality of patient' life. In the past 15 years, the novel treatment strategy in subgroups of symptomatic patients with AS have been the subject of extensive research, starting from introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) in inoperable symptomatic patients with severe AS and continuing further to patients with very high and high operative risk. In the past few years, the focus has further shifted toward the patients with lower operative risk, as well as to asymptomatic patients with severe AS. In the former group, the question relates to whether TAVI is beneficial when compared to SAVR in intermediate- to low-risk patients with symptomatic AS. In the latter group, the main issue is if and when the SAVR should be performed. This article analyzes current status and evidences regarding treatment strategies in symptomatic high, intermediate, low-risk, and asymptomatic patients with isolated severe AS.

The evolution of minimally invasive cardiac surgery: from minimal access to transcatheter approaches

The field of minimally invasive cardiac surgery has undergone rapid transformation over recent years. In this review, we provide a summary of the most current evidence supporting the use of minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve replacement techniques, as well as transcatheter approaches for aortic and mitral valve disease. As an adjunct, the use of robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery and hybrid coronary revascularization procedures is discussed. In order to obtain optimal patient outcomes, a collaborative, heart-team approach between cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists is necessary.

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.

Outcomes of surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians-surgery still the gold standard?

BACKGROUND

Contemporary options for aortic valve replacement (AVR) include transcatheter and surgical approaches (TAVR and SAVR). As evidence accrues for TAVR in high and intermediate risk patients, some clinicians advocate that all patients aged over 80 years should only receive TAVR. Our aim was to investigate the utility of SAVR and minimally invasive AVR (mAVR) among octogenarians in the current era of TAVR.

METHODS

From 2002 to 2015, 1,028 octogenarians underwent isolated AVR; 306 TAVR and 722 SAVR, of which 378 patients underwent mAVR. Logistic regression and Cox modeling were used to evaluate overall operative mortality and mid-term survival, respectively. Patients were stratified based on procedural approaches (mAVR or full sternotomy for SAVR, and transfemoral or alternate access for TAVR). Median follow-up was 35 [interquartile range (IQR) 14-65] months.

RESULTS

Compared to SAVR patients, TAVR patients were relatively older (86.2 versus 84.2 years) with co-morbidities such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes mellitus (DM), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), and prior myocardial infarction (MI), all P<0.05. The mean STS-PROM for the TAVR group was statistically higher, 6.81 versus 5.58 for the SAVR group (P<0.001). The median in-hospital LOS was statistically higher for the SAVR group (P<0.05). Cox proportional hazard modeling, adjusted for temporal differences in procedure and patient selection, identified age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV, preoperative creatinine, severe chronic lung disease, prior cardiac surgery as significant predictors of decreased survival (all P<0.05), while type of intervention (approach) was non-contributory. Adjusted operative mortality stratified by procedure approaches was similar between full sternotomy SAVR and mAVR, and between alternative access and transfemoral TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjusting for confounders, TAVR (regardless of approach), SAVR, and mAVR had comparable operative mortality and mid-term survival. Treatment decisions should be individualized with consensus from a multi-disciplinary heart team, taking into account patient co morbidities, frailty, and quality of life. We believe certain patient groups will still benefit from SAVR even in this elderly population.