Comparison of apixaban versus aspirin for the prevention of latent bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis: study protocol for a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic strategy early after aortic valve replacement surgery with a biological valve remains controversial due to lack of high-quality evidence. Either oral anticoagulants or acetylsalicylic acid should be considered for the first 3 months. Hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening on cardiac computed tomography has been associated with latent bioprosthetic valve thrombosis and may be prevented with anticoagulation. We hypothesize that anticoagulation with apixaban is superior to single antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid in reducing hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening of bioprosthetic aortic valve prostheses.

METHODS

In this prospective, open-label, randomized trial, patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement surgery with rapid deployment bioprosthetic valves will be randomized. The treatment group will receive 5 mg of apixaban twice a day for the first 3 months and 100 mg of acetylsalicylic acid thereafter. The control group will be administered 100 mg of acetylsalicylic acid once a day, indefinitely. After the 3-month treatment period, a contrast-enhanced electrocardiogram-gated cardiac computed tomography will be performed to identify hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening of the bioprosthetic valve. The primary objective of the study is to assess the impact of apixaban on the prevention of hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening at 3 months. The secondary and exploratory endpoints will be clinical outcomes and safety profiles of the two strategies.

DISCUSSION

Antithrombotic therapy after aortic valve replacement is used to prevent valve thrombosis and systemic thromboembolism. Latent bioprosthetic valve thrombosis is a precursor of clinically significant prosthetic valve dysfunction or thromboembolic events. The hallmark feature of latent bioprosthetic valve thrombosis is hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening on cardiac computed tomography. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis occurs frequently in bioprosthetic aortic valves, more commonly in transcatheter than in surgical valves. There is no evidence on the effect of direct oral anticoagulants on the incidence of hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening after surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment bioprostheses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06184113. Registered on December 28, 2023.

Aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprosthesis in case of infective endocarditis: a literature review

Purpose

Recently, the use of rapid deployment (RD) aortic valve prostheses has been introduced for the treatment of aortic valve replacement (AVR), showing excellent hemodynamic performances.According to these data, some groups have proposed new RD valves as an alternative solution in the case of infective aortic endocarditis (IAE) to reduce the use of foreign materials, and the manipulation of the annulus.The aim of this review is to report the results of early clinical experiences with the use of RD bioprostheses in the case of IAE, in order to discuss technical and clinical aspects of this emerging strategy to better elucidate its advantages and limitations as a potential therapeutic solution.

Methods

An in-depth search of PubMed from January to March 2023 was performed. English-language articles were selected independently by authors following the criteria in order to consider all available experiences (full papers, case reports, and case series) that have investigated the use of RD in case of IAE.

Results

The use of rapid deployment bioprosthesis represents a bailout strategy in case of severe aortic valve endocarditis and should be evaluated with caution in selected cases. This review collects the first, initial, and pioneering experiences of the use of the RD prosthesis in case of infective endocarditis, particularly when the fragility of the annular tissues precludes a secure anchoring of sutured prostheses.The reduced use of foreign materials by minimizing the number of stitches, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times, and the excellent hemodynamic performances associated with the use of RD bioprosthesis represent the most important advantages that could justify their use in the setting of aortic valve endocarditis.

Conclusion

Although there are few anecdotal experiences, surgical aortic valve replacement with the use of RD represents an emerging strategy in case of aortic valve endocarditis. Its advantages, pros, and cons are under debate, and robust clinical trials are needed to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

Successful Implantation of Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve after TAVR Explantation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become widely used in recent years, However, there is also an increasing need for removal of TAVR valves due to prosthetic valve dysfunction (PVD) and the development of infective endocarditis. Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for these patients is risky due to the original patient background and anatomic conditions. Intuity rapid deployment aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) replacement would be useful for such high risk patients to prevent longer cardiac arrest time and obtain good hemodynamic results. However, there are few reports which present Intuity valve replacement after TAVR explantation. Herein, We report two cases in which we have achieved good hemodynamics with shorter cardiac arrest times by using a rapid deployment valve after TAVR explantation.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present 2 cases of successful implantation of the Intuity rapid deployment valve after TAVR explantation. The 84- and 88-year-old female patients had previously received TAVR for severe aortic stenosis with SAPIEN XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and developed PVD during follow-up. The TAVR valve was removed carefully, then an Intuity valve was implanted with cardiac arrest times of 69 and 41 min. Both patients had good echocardiographic results with effective orifice area of 2.0 cm2 and 1.2 cm2 and mean trans-aortic plessure gradient of 9 mmHg and 15 mmHg respectively without aortic regurgitation. They were discharged without major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical AVR using a rapid deployment valve is a useful alternative to sutured AVR after TAVR valve explantation. It allows for shorter cardiac arrest times and better postoperative hemodynamics without major complication.

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.

Innovations in Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Overview of the Intuity Rapid Deployment Valve

Rapid deployment/sutureless (RDS) valves have recently emerged as an innovative surgical solution, providing an alternative to traditional methods of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by eliminating the need for suture placement and tying. This innovation leads to a reduction in aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, enhancing the efficiency of the procedure. Among the 2 available RDS valves, the Edwards Intuity valve in particular has been demonstrated to be a particularly promising substitute in the field of SAVR. The Intuity valve distinguishes itself from other RDS and conventional valves by yielding superior outcomes, such as a significant reduction in mortality, increase in the longevity of the valve, and a marked decrease in both mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients. These benefits collectively contribute to its appeal as a favorable new solution. However, further investigation is needed to conclusively determine the long-term outcomes and safety of RDS valves. Nevertheless, the utilization of the Intuity valve presents an exciting solution to the existing limitations of conventional and minimally invasive SAVR, especially for patients afflicted with severe aortic stenosis.

Comparable Outcomes of Bicuspid Aortic Valves for Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Edwards Intuity is recognized as a relatively contraindicated bioprosthesis for bicuspid aortic valve disease. This study compared the early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves.

Methods

Of 278 patients who underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement using Intuity at Seoul National University Hospital, 252 patients were enrolled after excluding those with pure aortic regurgitation, prosthetic valve failure, endocarditis, and quadricuspid valves. The bicuspid and tricuspid groups included 147 and 105 patients, respectively. Early outcomes and the incidence of paravalvular leak were compared between the groups. A subgroup analysis compared the outcomes for type 0 versus type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves.

Results

The bicuspid group had more male and younger patients. Comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease, were less prevalent in the bicuspid group. Early echocardiographic evaluations demonstrated that the incidence of ≥mild paravalvular leak did not differ significantly between the groups (5.5% vs. 1.0% in the bicuspid vs. tricuspid groups, p=0.09), and the early clinical outcomes were also comparable between the groups. In the subgroup analysis between type 0 and type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves, the incidence of mild or greater paravalvular leak (2.4% vs. 6.7% in type 0 vs. type 1 or 2, p=0.34) and clinical outcomes were comparable.

Conclusion

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valves demonstrated comparable early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes to those for tricuspid aortic valves, and the outcomes were also satisfactory for type 0 bicuspid aortic valves.

Pacemaker after Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Prostheses: A Progress Report from the SURD-IR

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the need for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SuRD-AVR) in the context of a progress report from a large multicenter international registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 4,166 patients who underwent SuRD-AVR between 2008 and 2019. The primary outcome was the need for PPI before discharge. The study population was analyzed separately according to the implanted prostheses (Su cohort and RD cohort). Each cohort was divided into two groups based on the operation date: an early group ("EG" = 2008-2016) and a late group ("LG" = 2017-2019).

RESULTS

The rate of PPI decreased significantly in the Su cohort over time (EG = 10.8% vs LG = 6.3%, p < 0.001). In the Su cohort, a decrease in age, risk profile, and incidence of bicuspid aortic valve, increased use of anterior right thoracotomy, reduction of cardiopulmonary bypass time and of associated procedures, and more frequent use of smaller prostheses were observed over time. In the RD cohort, the rate of PPI was stable over time (EG = 8.8% vs LG = 9.3%, p = 0.8). In this cohort, a younger age, lower risk profile, and higher incidence of concomitant septal myectomy were observed over time.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed a significant decrease in the PPI rate in patients who underwent Su-AVR over time. Patient selection as well as surgical improvements and a more accurate sizing could be correlated with this phenomenon. The RD cohort revealed no significant differences either in patient's characteristics or in PPI rate between the two time periods.

Sutureless vs. rapid-deployment valve: a systemic review and meta-analysis for a direct comparison of intraoperative performance and clinical outcomes

Background

Sutureless and rapid-deployment valves are bioprostheses anchoring within the aortic annulus with few sutures, and they act as a hybrid of conventional surgical and transcatheter valves under aortic valve replacement. Considering that the 3F Enable valve is now off-market, the only two sutureless and rapid-deployment valves available on the world marketplace are the Perceval and Intuity valves. However, a direct comparison of the function of these two valves eludes researchers.

Purpose

Against this background, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the intraoperative performance and early clinical outcomes between the Perceval valve and the Intuity valve under sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement.

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases through PubMed/MEDLINE, OvidWeb, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from the establishment of the database to November 17, 2022, without language restriction) for studies comparing the sutureless valve (the Perceval) and the rapid-deployment valve (the Intuity) under aortic valve replacement. Our primary outcomes were early mortality and postoperative transvalvular pressure gradients. The secondary outcomes were defined to include aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time, paravalvular leak (any paravalvular leak, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak) after aortic valve replacement, need for pacemaker implantation, postoperative neurological events (stroke), and intensive care unit stay.

Results

This meta-analysis included ten non-randomized trials with 3,526 patients enrolled (sutureless group = 1,772 and rapid-deployment group = 1,754). Quality assessments were performed, with the mean scores of the studies reading 6.90 (SD = 0.99) out of 9 according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Compared with rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement, sutureless aortic valve replacement was associated with higher mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients postoperatively. In contrast, aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary time were needed less in sutureless aortic valve replacement vs. rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. There was no evidence of significant publication bias observed by the funnel plot and Egger's test.

Conclusions

For postoperative hemodynamics, sutureless aortic valve replacement was associated with increased mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients compared with rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. In sharp contrast, sutureless aortic valve replacement significantly reduced the amount of time needed for fixing the aortic cross-clamp and the cardiopulmonary bypass procedure.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022343884.

Conventional Biological versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Prostheses in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have proven to provide a significant decrease in procedural, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, leading to a significant reduction in mortality risk in elderly high-risk cohorts. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience on the sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and the concomitant mitral valve replacement (SMVR), comparing the combined conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with SMVR.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Between March 2018 and July 2022, 114 consecutive patients underwent a combined aortic and mitral valve replacement at our institution. We stratified the patients according to the operative procedures into two groups and matched them 1:2: Group 1 underwent a combined conventional SAVR and SMVR (n = 46), and Group 2 included combined SU-AVR with Perceval prosthesis and SMVR (n = 23).

RESULTS

No significant differences in the preoperative characteristics were present. SU-AVR combined with SMVR demonstrated excellent haemodynamic performance, comparable to that of SAVR plus SMVR, with median postoperative gradients over the aortic valve of 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 1 and 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 2 (p = 0.67). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative major adverse events such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction and kidney failure between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the permanent pacemaker implantation rate, paravalvular leakage or valve dislocation. We also could not detect any significant difference in postoperative mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SU-AVR has proven to be a reliable alternative to conventional valve prostheses in patients with multivalve disease undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, offering shorter procedural time and outstanding hemodynamic performance compared to the conventional surgical method.

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.

In-Hospital Mortality and Risk Prediction in Minimally Invasive Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective. Available evidence suggests that a minimally invasive approach with the use of sutureless bioprostheses has a favorable impact on the outcome of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods. From 2010 to 2019, 2732 patients underwent conventional AVR through median sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis (n = 2048) or minimally invasive AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis (n = 684). Results. Using the propensity score, 206 patients in each group were matched, and the matched groups were well balanced regarding preoperative risk factors. Both unmatched and matched patients of the sutureless + minimally invasive group showed significantly shorter cross-clamp times and longer ICU stay. In-hospital mortality was the only outcome measure that was confirmed in both analyses, and was higher in the stented + conventional group (2.54% and 2.43% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) compared with the sutureless + minimally invasive group (0.88% and 0.97% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) (p = 0.0047 and p < 0.0001, respectively). No differences in postoperative pacemaker implantation were recorded in matched patients of both groups (n = 2 [1%] in the stented + conventional group vs. n = 4 [2%] in the sutureless + minimally invasive group; p = 0.41). The discrimination power of EuroSCORE II was not confirmed in the sutureless + minimally invasive group, yielding an area under the ROC curve of 0.568. Conclusions. Minimally invasive sutureless AVR has a favorable impact on the immediate outcome and is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with conventional AVR, resulting in the absence of the discrimination power of EuroSCORE II for predicting AVR outcomes.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in pure aortic regurgitation: expanding the indications

Background

In the era of transcatheter methods, patients presenting with a pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are not considered eligible for transcatheter treatment and therefore require another less invasive surgical option. We sought to review our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in patients presenting with symptomatic pure AR, which until now is a contraindication for implementation of sutureless valve prostheses in Europe.

Methods

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 80 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. We analyzed the outcomes and postoperative complications of 12 patients presenting with a pure severe AR undergoing SU-AVR using Perceval (Corcym).

Results

The mean age of the patients was 67 ± 9.1 years old. All patients presented with symptomatic pure AR. Patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the mean EuroSCORE-II of 3.6 ± 2.6%. Six patients (50%) underwent a concomitant CABG procedure. The mean operating- and cross clamp time was 127.25 ± 45.9 and 40.33 ± 17.3 min respectively. All isolated SU-AVR were performed via J-sternotomy or right anterolateral thoracotomy. There were no cases of device dislocation. No patients presented with a paravalvular leakage. We observed excellent mean postoperative pressure gradient at follow-up 5.7 ± 1.5 mmHg.

Conclusions

Our experience with SU-AVR shows the feasibility of sutureless technologies in the aortic valve surgery due to pure AR. Besides the great technical success and excellent hemodynamics, SU-AVR in severe AR offers a great opportunity of reducing the invasivity of the surgical procedure and potentially reducing hospital cost without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement Through Lateral Mini-Thoracotomy - Feasibility and Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval bioprosthetic heart valve (MISUAVR) is commonly performed through a right anterior thoracotomy (AT). However, a lateral thoracotomy (LT) may be superior as it does not require rib and right internal thoracic artery (RITA) cutting.Methods and Results: In total, 38 MISUAVRs performed from May 2019 to approximately August 2021 were retrospectively reviewed; 21 through LT (Group L), and 17 through AT (Group A). In Group L, the skin incision was made on the right anterior axillary line and third intercostal space, and in group A, on the right anterior chest and second or third intercostal space. All other surgical techniques were the same. Age, body surface area, EuroSCORE II, and ejection fraction were similar between the patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass (L: 82±19 vs. A: 93±28 min, P=0.19) and cross-clamp times (L: 57±13, vs. A: 64±23 min, P=0.19) were similar. Rib and/or RITA cutting were required in 94.6% of patients in group A and in none of group L (P<0.001). Surgical visualization score was better in group L (L: 1.19±0.40 vs. A: 1.94±0.69, P<0.01). Total amount of intraoperative bleeding was lower in group L (L: 623±141 vs. A: 838±316 mL, P<0.01). Duration of hospital stay was similar (P=0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

MISUAVR through LT has multiple advantages over AT.

Avoiding oversizing in sutureless valves leads to lower transvalvular gradients and less permanent pacemaker implants postoperatively

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of changing the sizing strategy in aortic valve replacement using the Perceval sutureless prosthesis on haemodynamic outcomes and postoperative pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients implanted with the Perceval valve between 2007 and 2019 was performed by comparing patients implanted before the modification of sizing strategy (OLD group) and after (NEW group). The outcome parameters evaluated were the implanted prosthesis size, haemodynamical profile and postoperative pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

The entire patient cohort (784 patients) consisted of 52% female patients, with a mean age of 78.53 [standard deviation (SD): 5.8] years and a mean EuroSCORE II of 6.3 (range 0.7-76). In 55.5% of cases, surgery was combined. The NEW cohort had more male patients (54.6% vs 43.4%) (P = 0.002). Mean implanted valve size, corrected for body surface area, was significantly lower in the NEW cohort (13.1, SD: 1.4 vs 13.5, SD: 1.4 mm/m2, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 3.4%. Peak and mean transvalvular gradients at discharge were significantly lower in the NEW versus OLD groups: 24.4 mmHg (SD: 9.2) versus 28.4 mmHg (SD: 10.3) (P < 0.001) and 13.6 mmHg (SD: 5.3) versus 15.5 mmHg (SD: 6.0) (P < 0.001). The mean effective opening area and the indexed effective opening area, respectively, increased from 1.5 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.85 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.27) in the OLD group to 1.7 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.93 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.30) in the NEW group (P < 0.001). No difference was found in paravalvular leakage ≥1/4. Centrovalvular leakage ≥1/4 significantly decreased from 18% to 7.9% (P < 0.001). With the new sizing, the new postoperative pacemaker implantation rate decreased significantly from 11% to 6.1% (P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Correct sizing of sutureless aortic valves is crucial to obtain the best possible haemodynamics and avoid complications.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Versus Sutured Aortic Valve Replacement: a Propensity Matched Comparison from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless (Perceval, Livanova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) aortic valve replacement (group 1) versus sutured aortic valve replacement (group 2).

METHODS

Patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement between 2014 and 2020 were analysed using data from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Patients in group 1 and group 2 were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 7708 patients were included in the study. After matching, 2 groups of 2643 each were created. Patients in group 1 were more likely to undergo minimally invasive approaches and were associated with shorter operative times when compared with group 2. Overall in-hospital mortality was similar between groups. While an increased risk of stroke was observed in group 1 in the first study period (2014-2016) (relative risk 3.76, p < 0.001), no difference was found in more recent year period (relative risk 1.66, p = 0.08)(p for heterogeneity 0.003). Group 1 was associated with reduced rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, atrial fibrillation and mild aortic regurgitation. New pacemaker implant was three-fold higher in group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed significant differences in procedural and clinical outcomes between the study groups. These results suggest that sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program. The knowledge of the respective post-aortic valve replacement benefits for different valve technologies may result in patient-tailored valve selection with improved clinical outcomes.

Non-Inferiority of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in the TAVR Era: David versus Goliath

BACKGROUND

The rapid development of transcatheter treatment methods has made transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) a feasible alternative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recently, indications for TAVR have been expanded to intermediate- and low-risk patients, although there still remains a portion of ineligible patients. We sought to evaluate and compare our experience with sutureless SAVR and transapical TAVR in the "grey-area" of patients unsuitable for transfemoral access.

METHODS

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 248 consecutive patients underwent a sutureless SAVR (SU-SAVR) or TA-TAVR at our institution. We performed a pair-matched analysis and identified 56 patient pairs based on the EuroSCORE II. All transcatheter procedures were performed using SAPIEN XT/3™ prostheses, while all surgical procedures deployed the Perceval (LivaNova) aortic valve.

RESULTS

All patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the median EuroSCORE-II of 3.1% (IQR 1.9-5.3). Thirty-four patients from the surgical group (60.7%) underwent a concomitant myocardial revascularization. There was no significant difference in major adverse events, pacemaker implantation or postoperative mortality during follow-up. Both interventions demonstrated technical success with similar mean postoperative pressure gradients at follow-up and no cases of paravalvular leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement constitutes a feasible treatment alternative for patients with aortic valve disease who are ineligible for transfemoral access route and/or require concomitant coronary revascularization. With its excellent hemodynamic performance, similar survival compared to TA-TAVR, and high cost-efficiency without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay SU-AVR might be considered for patients in the "grey-area" between TAVR and SAVR.

Incidence, Predictors and Prognostic Value of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Sutureless Valve Implantation in Low-Risk Aortic Stenosis Patients

OBJECTIVES

SU-SAVR has been associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) compared with conventionally implanted aortic bioprostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors and mid-term prognostic impact of PPM after Perceval (Livanova, London, UK) SU-SAVR in low-risk patients.

METHODS

A total of 400 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II < 4%) patients without prior pacemaker who underwent SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis from 2013 to 2019 in two centres were included. Baseline, clinical and electrocardiographic parameters, procedural characteristics, and follow-up data were collected.

RESULTS

PPM was required in 36 (9%) patients after SU-SAVR, with a median time between the procedure and PPM implantation of 7.5 (4.5-10.5) days. Older age and prior right bundle branch block (RBBB) were associated with an increased risk of PPM (p < 0.05 for all), but only baseline RBBB was found to be an independent predictor of new PPM requirement (Odds ratio: 2.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-5.81; p = 0.022). At a median follow-up of 3.4 (2.3-4.5) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality (PPM: 36%, no PPM: 22%, p = 0.105) or heart failure rehospitalization (PPM: 25%, no PPM: 21%, p = 0.839).

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 out of 10 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing SU-SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis required PPM implantation. Prior RBBB determined an increased risk (close to 3 times) of PPM following the procedure. PPM was not associated with a higher risk of clinical events at 3-year follow-up.

The feasibility of mitral valve device foldoplasty: an in vivo study to evaluate durable retention

OBJECTIVES

We have previously shown in experimental settings that a leaflet foldoplasty device reduces redundant leaflet area to re-establish mitral valve (MV) coaptation. The current study investigates the in vivo device retention and functional durability following foldoplasty.

METHODS

The prototype is of superelastic nitinol formed into a 3-dimensional shape. It is unfolded to engage a specified area of leaflet tissue and then folded to exclude this tissue from the coaptation surface. Design modifications were made and tested in benchtop studies to determine the optimal design for durable retention within the leaflet. To evaluate in vivo performance, posterior leaflet chordae were severed in Yorkshire pigs to produce complete posterior leaflet prolapse and severe mitral regurgitation. Design modifications were then used for MV repair. Five animals that underwent repair using the optimal design were observed for 2 weeks postoperative to evaluate the functional result and implant retention.

RESULTS

Device position and orientation were maintained at 2 weeks while preserving the functional MV repair in all 5 animals. Coaptation height was 5.5 ± 1.5 mm, which was not significantly different from a baseline of 4.9 ± 0.8 mm. The degree of leaflet excursion was 41.0 ± 16.0 compared to a baseline of 58.7 ± 27.5.

CONCLUSIONS

Device foldoplasty is a new concept for MV repair based on the reduction of redundant leaflet tissue area. This study demonstrates the feasibility of safe maintenance of this repair without early dislodgement or embolization.

Sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: results from a multicentric registry

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical and hemodynamic in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

We examined 4695 patients who underwent isolated or combined SURD-AVR. The "sutureless" Perceval valve was used in 3133 patients and the "rapid deployment" Intuity in 1562. Potential confounding factors were addressed by the use of propensity score matching. After matching, 2 well-balanced cohorts of 823 pairs (isolated SURD-AVR) and 467 pairs (combined SURD-AVR) were created.

RESULTS

Patients who received Perceval and Intuity valves showed similar in-hospital mortality and rate of major postoperative complications. Perceval was associated shorter cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. In the isolated SURD-AVR group, patients receiving Perceval were more likely to undergo anterior right thoracotomy incision. Postoperative transvalvular gradients were significantly lower for the Intuity valve compared to those of the Perceval valve, either in isolated and combined SURD-AVR. The Intuity valve was associated with a lower rate of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm the safety and efficacy of SURD-AVR regardless of the valve type. The Perceval valve was associated with reduced operative times and increased anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve showed superior hemodynamic outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

Early conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement with the sutureless Perceval prosthesis

BACKGROUND

To determine the incidence of postoperative conduction disorders and need for pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement(AVR) with the Perceval prosthesis.

METHODS

From January 2007 to December 2017, 908 patients underwent AVR with Perceval S in 5 participating centers. Study endpoints focused on electrocardiographic changes after AVR and the incidence of new pacemaker(PM) implantation in 801 patients after exclusion of patients with previous PM(n=48) or patients undergoing tricuspid(n=28) and/or AF ablation(n=31) surgery. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors for PM need.

RESULTS

Mean age was 79.7±5.2 years, 476(59.4%) were females. Median logistic Euroscore II was 4.1%(IQR 2.6-6.0). Isolated AVR was performed in 441(55.1%) patients. Associated procedures were CABG(n=309, 38.6%) and mitral valve surgery(n=51, 6.4%). Overall 30d-mortality was 3.9%, and 2.8% for isolated AVR. Electrocardiographic changes included a significant increase of LBBB (7.4 to 23.7%, p<0.001) and development of complete AV block, requiring PM implantation in 9.5%. Multivariable analysis revealed independent of a learning period(OR 1.91, 95%CI 1.16-3.13, p=0.011), pre-existing RBBB(OR 2.77, 95%CI 1.40-5.48, p=0.003), intra-operative prosthesis repositioning(OR 6.70, 95%CI 1.89-24.40, p=0.003) and size XL(OR 6.81, 95%CI 1.55-29.96, p=0.011) as significant predictors of PM implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a challenging elderly population, use of the Perceval S for AVR provides low operative mortality, but at the risk of an increased PM implantation rate. Besides to pre-existing right-bundle branch block, the significant effect of size XL, an increased valve size/BSA ratio and need for intra-operative repositioning on PM rate are underscoring the reappraisal of the annular sizing policy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive surgical techniques with optimal outcomes are of paramount importance. Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valves are increasingly implanted via minimally invasive approaches. We aimed to analyse the procedural outcomes of a full sternotomy (FS) compared with those of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) and further assess MICS, namely ministernotomy (MS) and anterior right thoracotomy (ART).

METHODS

We selected all isolated aortic valve replacements in the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR, n = 2257) and performed propensity score matching to compare aortic valve replacement through FS or MICS (n = 508/group) as well as through MS and ART accesses (n = 569/group).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 1.6% in FS and MICS patients who had a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 11%. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were shorter in the FS group than in the MICS group (mean difference 3.2 and 9.2 min; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing FS had a higher rate of acute kidney injury (5.6% vs 2.8%; P = 0.012). Direct comparison of MS and ART revealed longer mean cross-clamp and CPB times (12 and 16.7 min) in the ART group (P < 0.001). The postoperative outcome revealed a higher stroke rate (3.2% vs 1.2%; P = 0.043) as well as a longer postoperative intensive care unit [2 (1-3) vs 1 (1-3) days; P = 0.009] and hospital stay [11 (8-16) vs 8 (7-12) days; P < 0.001] in the MS group than in the ART group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this non-randomized international registry, FS resulted in a higher rate of acute kidney injury. The ART access showed a lower stroke rate than MS and a shorter hospital stay than all other accesses. All these findings may be related to underlying patient risk factors.

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.

Right anterior mini thoracotomy approach for isolated aortic valve replacement: Early outcomes at a Canadian center

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this manuscript was to report the clinical outcomes of the initial series of 100 consecutive Right Anterior Mini Thoracotomy (RAMT) aortic valve replacement (AVR) implantations at a Canadian Center.

METHODS

This retrospective study reported the clinical outcomes of the first 100 patients who underwent the RAMT approach for isolated surgical AVR in Calgary, Canada, between 2016 and 2020. Primary outcomes were death within 30 days of surgery and disabling stroke. Secondary outcomes included surgical times, the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM), incidence of postoperative blood transfusion in the intensive care unit (ICU), postsurgical atrial fibrillation (AF), length of ICU/hospital stay, postsurgical AF, residual paravalvular leak (PVL), postoperative transvalvular gradient, need for postsurgical intravenous opioids, duration of invasive ventilation in the ICU, and chest tube output in the first 12 h postsurgery.

RESULTS

In this study, 54 patients were male, and the average age of the cohort was 72 years. Mortality within 30 days of surgery was 1% with no disabling postoperative strokes. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp was 84 and 55 min, respectively. PPM rate was 3%, incidence of blood transfusion in the ICU was 4%, and the rate of postoperative AF was 23%. Median length of ICU and hospital stay was 1 and 5 days, respectively. Rate of mild or greater residual PVL was 3%, while the average residual transvalvular mean gradient was 8.5 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

The sternum-sparing RAMT approach can be safely integrated into surgical practice as a minimally invasive alternative for isolated AVR, and can reduce postoperative bleeding and narcotic requirements.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Rapid-Deployment Aortic Bioprostheses

Aim of this retrospective, multicenter study was to evaluate early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with Intuity rapid-deployment bioprostheses (RDB) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). We analyzed data from the Italian Registry of Intuity Valve (INTU-ITA registry) that is a national, real-world and independent from the industry registry. Preoperative variables were defined according to EuroSCORE and postoperative outcomes according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC). Survival distribution was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier approach. A Cox-Proportional Hazard Model was employed to assess the effect of the covariates on patients' survival. The registry included 1687 patients from 23 centers (June 2012-September 2019). Aortic cross clamp time for isolated SAVR was 55 minutes (IQR: 45-70 minute). Postoperative pace-maker rate was 6.3%. At discharge transaortic peak and mean gradients were: 18 mm Hg (IQR: 14-23 mm Hg) and 10 mmHg (IQR: 8-13 mm Hg), respectively. Indexed effective orifice area was 1.10 cm²/m² (IQR: 0.91-1.31 cm²/m²) and the incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was 0.6%. Hemodynamic data for all valve sizes remained stable during follow-up. Thirty-day overall mortality was 1.8% (30 patients), and at follow-up it was 5.3% (89 patients). Kaplan-Meier overall survival was 95.5% (94.3-96.7%); 90.7% (88.3-93.1%); 86.4% (82.6-90.4%) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Serum creatinine (HR: 1.36; 95%CI: 1.04-1.81; p = 0.0397) and cross-clamp time (HR: 1.01; 95%CI: 1.002-1.017; p = 0.0077) were identified as independent predictors of mortality. According to our data from the INTU-ITA registry, SAVR with RDB provides good early clinical and hemodynamic results that are confirmed at follow-up.

Direct comparison of rapid deployment versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis

Background

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the procedural and early outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using rapid deployment valve (RD group) versus sutureless valve (SU group).

Methods

A literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were mean transvalvular pressure gradient (MPG) after AVR, the incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL) and the need for a permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The secondary outcomes included aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, early mortality and other postoperative complications, such as atrial fibrillation, bleeding reoperation and stroke.

Results

Eight articles were included, and all outcomes except MPG after AVR in matched valve sizes were extracted from 7 studies (RD group =842 patients and SU group =1,386 patients). The pooled analysis demonstrated a lower MPG in the RD group than in the SU group, with mean difference (MD) of 2.64 mmHg. The pooled risk ratios of any PVL and grade ≥2 (or moderate) PVL were not significantly different between the groups; however, the incidence of PPI was significantly lower in the RD group than in the SU group, with a risk ratio of 0.69. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly longer in the RD group than in the SU group, with weighted MDs of 8.74 (P<0.001) and 9.94 (P<0.001) minutes, respectively. The risks of early mortality and other postoperative complications were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

AVR using RD valve was associated with better valve hemodynamics in terms of the MPG than AVR using SU valve, and better outcomes were observed in the RD group regarding PPI. Procedural times were longer in AVR using RD valve than SU valve. Early clinical outcomes showed no difference between RD and SU valve.

A new technique that prevents paravalvular leakage after aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve system

BACKGROUND

We report our 1-year single-center experience of a new technique of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve (RD-AVR) to avoid postoperative complications. We also report the unexpected pitfalls and handling techniques that we have seen in past cases.

METHODS

We performed aortic valve replacement on 38 patients between May 2019 and April 2020. Their mean age was 74 years. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and short-term results during a 1-year follow-up period, while the secondary outcomes were related to prosthetic valve function, especially paravalvular leakage (PVL). We further analyzed the relationship between the new technique and its outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 196 min. There were no in-hospital deaths, and the mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 11.8 days. Valvular measurements using three-dimensional computed tomography were larger and more accurate than those measured using ultrasonic echocardiography. Postoperative RD-AVR prosthetic valve function was excellent. However, PVL occurred in four cases 1 week and 1 year postoperatively and regurgitation did not improve. A gap associated with PVL was identified below the right-noncoronary commissure. To prevent PVL, we additionally stitched this gap in the later 18 cases; there was no case of PVL and no new pacemaker implantation in these cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PVL is more likely to occur if there is a gap below the R-N commissure, especially in cases with a large annulus; therefore, applying an additional stitch to the R-N commissure is extremely useful.

Comparison of Self-Expanding RDV Perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF

BACKGROUND

 Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have emerged as increasingly used alternatives to conventional aortic valve replacement to treat patients at higher surgical risk. Therefore, in this single-center study, we retrospectively compared clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of two self-expanding biological prostheses, the sutureless and rapid deployment valve (RDV) Perceval-S (PER) and the transcatheter heart valve (THV) ACURATE neo/TF (NEO) in a 1:1 propensity-score-matching (PSM) patient cohort.

METHODS

 A total of 332 consecutive patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent either singular RDAVR with PER (119) or TAVI with NEO (213) at our institutions between 2012 and 2017. To compare the unequal patient groups, a 1:1 PSM for preoperative data and comorbidities was conducted. Afterward, 59 patient pairs were compared with regard to relevant hemodynamic parameter, relevant paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent postoperative pacemaker (PPM) implantation rate, and clinical postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

 Postoperative clinical short-term outcomes presented with slightly higher rates for 30-day all-cause mortality (PER = 5.1% vs. NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.619) and major adverse cardiocerebral event in PER due to cerebrovascular events (transient ischemic attack [TIA]-PER = 3.4% vs. TIA-NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.496 and Stroke-PER = 1.7% vs. Stroke-NEO = 0.0%, p = 1). Moreover, we show comparable PPM rates (PER = 10.2% vs. NEO = 8.5%, p = 0.752). However, higher numbers of PVL (mild-PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 55.9%, p = 0.001; moderate or higher-PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 6.8%, p = 0.119) after TAVI with NEO were observed.

CONCLUSION

 Both self-expanding bioprostheses, the RDV-PER and THV-NEO provide a feasible option in elderly and patients with elevated perioperative risk. However, the discussed PER collective showed more postoperative short-term complications with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality and cerebrovascular events, whereas the NEO showed higher rates of PVL.

Early and Two-year Outcomes after Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: a Nationwide Population-based Study

BACKGROUND

We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data.

METHODS

From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs.

RESULTS

Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR grouP = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

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.

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.

Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement with the Perceval S and Intuity Elite

BACKGROUND

 Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) has emerged as an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement. This single-center study retrospectively analyzed clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of the Perceval S (LivaNova) and Intuity Elite (Edwards LifeSciences) rapid deployment valves (RDVs) in a propensity score matched patient cohort.

METHODS

 A total of 372 consecutive patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent RDAVR between 2012 and 2018 at our institution. The Intuity Elite (INT group) and Perceval S (PER group) were implanted in 251 and 121 patients, respectively. After 1:1 propensity score matching for relevant preoperative comorbidities, 107 patient pairs were compared with respect to relevant perioperative data including hemodynamic parameter, postoperative pacemaker implantation, and 30-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

 Propensity score matching resulted in balanced characteristics between groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp time did not differ between groups, but more patients in the INT group received coronary artery bypass grafting compared with the PER group (56 vs. 42%; p = 0.055). Thirty-day mortality (4.7 vs. 2.2%) and need for permanent pacemaker implantation (7 versus 4.4%) were comparable between the INT and PER groups for isolated AVR and also for combined procedures, respectively. Cerebrovascular events showed comparable low rates for both RDVs (INT group [1.9%] vs. PER group [2.8%]). Indexed effective orifice area was higher in the INT group (0.90 vs. 0.82 cm²/m²) and coupled to a lower peak (17 ± 7 vs. 22 ± 8) and mean (10 ± 5 vs. 12 ± 4) pressure gradients compared with the PER group.

CONCLUSIONS

 Our propensity score analysis in AVR patients showed good hemodynamic characteristics with comparable 30-day mortality rate and complications rates for both investigated RDVs.

Operative outcome of patients at low, intermediate, high and 'very high' surgical risk undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment prostheses: results of the SURD-IR registry

OBJECTIVES

The ideal strategy for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients of varying risk categories has become a debated topic in the last years: should the transcatheter or surgical approach be adopted? The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of low-, intermediate-, high- and very high-risk patients undergoing sutureless, rapid deployment aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2017, data on a total of 3651 patients were collected from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR). Of these, 2057 patients who underwent primary isolated aortic valve replacement were considered for this analysis and classified as being at low (EuroSCORE <5; n = 500), intermediate (EuroSCORE 5-10; n = 901), high (EuroSCORE 11-20; n = 500) and very high (EuroSCORE >20; n = 156) preoperative risk.

RESULTS

Overall, a less invasive approach was used in 74.1% of patients and represented the most frequent (>50%) approach in all risk categories. The Perceval prosthesis was used more frequently than other devices, especially in patients at high and very high risk. Hospital mortality was 1.6%, 0.8%, 1.9% and 2.7% in low-, intermediate-, high- and very high-risk patients, respectively, with no significant differences among subgroups. Similarly, postoperative complication rates were similar across the different risk categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless, rapid deployment biological valve prostheses is associated with excellent results and represents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. This seems to be particularly true in patients with a higher risk profile.

Intermediate-term outcome of 500 consecutive rapid-deployment surgical aortic valve procedures†

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards INTUITY Valve System is a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, inspired from the Edwards Magna valve and transcatheter technology, with a subvalvular stent frame to enable rapid deployment. We report a single-centre experience of aortic valve replacement with this novel bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Five hundred consecutive patients, of whom 45.6% were female with a mean age of 73.5 [standard deviation (SD) 7.9 years], with severe aortic stenosis who received a rapid deployment aortic valve between May 2010 and July 2017 were included in a prospective and ongoing database. The median follow-up time was 12 months, and the total accumulated follow-up time was 818 patient years. Preoperative characteristics, operative parameters, survival, valve-related adverse events and valve haemodynamics were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was 0.8% (4/500), and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 94%, 89% and 81%, respectively. A minimally invasive surgical approach was chosen in 236 patients (47%), of which 122 (24%) were operated on through an anterior right thoracotomy. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times for isolated aortic valve replacement were 53 (SD 17) and 89 (SD 29) min for full sternotomy as well as 75 (SD 23) and 110 (SD 31) min for minimally invasive surgery approaches (P < 0.001). Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13 (SD 5), 11 (SD 4), 12 (SD 5) and 11 (SD 3) mmHg, respectively. New pacemaker implantation was necessary in 8.6% of patients. A single case (0.2%) of structural degeneration was registered after 6 years. Valve explantation for non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis occurred in 9 patients (1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid deployment aortic valve has shown excellent results concerning haemodynamic performance, durability and safety. Implantation requires specific training, and the rate of pacemaker implantation remains a matter of concern. This novel valve also facilitates minimally invasive approaches and may be beneficial in complex combined procedures.

Conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement: what is the real impact of sutureless and rapid deployment valves?

Background

Although sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been associated with an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to conventional AVR (c-AVR), the predictors of new conduction abnormalities remain to be clarified. This study aimed to identify risk factors for conduction disorders in patients undergoing AVR surgery.

Methods

Data from 243 patients receiving minimally invasive AVR were prospectively collected. SURD-AVR was performed in 103 (42.4%) patients and c-AVR in 140 (57.6%). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of new-onset conduction disorders, defined as first degree atrioventricular (AV) block, advanced AV block requiring PPM implantation, left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB).

Results

The unadjusted comparison revealed that SURD-AVR was associated with a higher rate of advanced AV block requiring PPM when compared with c-AVR (10.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.01). After adjusting for other measured covariates (OR: 1.6, P=0.58) and for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 5.1, P=0.1), no significant relationship between type of AVR and PPM implantation emerged. On multivariable analysis, preoperative first-degree AV block (OR: 6.9, P=0.04) and RBBB (OR: 6.9, P=0.03) were independent risk factors for PPM. Subgroup analysis of patients with normal preoperative conduction revealed similar incidence of PPM between SURD-AVR and c-AVR (1.3% vs. 1.9%, P=0.6). When compared with c-AVR, SURD-AVR was associated with a greater incidence of postoperative new onset LBBB (18.1% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001). This finding was confirmed after adjusting for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 6.3, P=0.009).

Conclusions

Our study revealed that the risk of PPM implantation in patients receiving surgical AVR is heavily influenced by the presence of pre-existing conduction disturbances rather than the type of valve prosthesis. Conversely, SURD-AVR emerged as an independent predictor for LBBB and was associated with an increased risk of PPM in patients presenting with RBBB.

Single-Center Outcomes with Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

 Rapid-deployment valves can reduce procedural times and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery. In our institution, more than 500 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

 A total of 510 patients underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2017, of whom 270 patients underwent isolated AVR and 240 underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The cumulative follow-up time was 1,444 patient-years, the median follow-up time 2.8 years, respectively RESULTS:  An early all-cause mortality of 3.5% (n = 18) was seen with a cumulative survival of 91.9 ± 2.2% after 12 months. Mean cross-clamp times were 37 ± 19 minutes for isolated AVR and 93 ± 29 minutes for AVR with concomitant procedures. The rate of new pacemaker implantation was 7.8% (n = 40). No case of structural degeneration occurred in the follow-up. Three (0.6%) cases of endocarditis were registered.

CONCLUSIONS

 Rapid deployment AVR can be performed safely with low complication rates and good hemodynamic results. Therefore, the relevance in aortic valve surgery can be stressed.

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.

Outcome of rapid deployment aortic valves: long-term experience after 700 implants

Background

The Edwards Intuity Valve System is a bioprosthesis with a balloon-expandable stent frame which enables rapid-deployment (RD). We aimed to analyze our single-center long-term experience with a follow-up until 9 years after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with this bioprosthesis.

Methods

Between May 2010 and May 2019, 700 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis or combined aortic valve disease, implanted with a RD valve at our institution, were included in a prospective database. Median follow-up was 19 months and the total accumulated follow-up was 2,140 patient-years. Pre-operative characteristics, operative parameters, survival rates, valve-related adverse events and valve hemodynamics were assessed.

Results

Mean age was 74±8 years, 45% female. Concomitant procedures were performed in 339 (48.4%) patients. In case of isolated AVR (361/700), a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach was conducted in 283 patients (78.4%). Cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times for isolated AVR were 107.7±28.2 and 73.8±21.3 minutes for MIS approaches and 92.8±28.8 and 57.5±20.6 minutes for full sternotomy (P<0.001), respectively. Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13±5, 11±4, 12±5 and 13±8 mmHg. New early pacemaker implantation was required in 8.9% of patients. Re-intervention or re-operation with valve explantation for structural degeneration, non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis, occurred in 21 cases (3%). Thirty-day mortality was 0.7% (5/700) and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 98%, 91% and 76%.

Conclusions

We report excellent long-term results in this updated single center experience for RD aortic valves regarding durability, safety and hemodynamic performance.

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses

Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the 'gold standard' for treatment of severe or symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The increasing age of patients and increasing comorbidities has led to the development of procedures to minimise operative time and reduce risks of surgery. One method of reducing operative times is the use of sutureless aortic valves (SU-AVR). We examine the current literature surrounding the use of SU-AVR. Alternatives to AVR are SU-AVR, sometimes referred to as rapid deployment valves, or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI has been demonstrated to be superior over medical therapy in patients deemed inoperable and non-inferior in high and intermediate-risk patients compared with surgical AVR. However, the lack of excision of the calcified aortic valve and annulus raises concerns regarding long-term durability and possibly thromboembolic complications. TAVI patients have increased rates of paravalvular leaks, major vascular complications and pacemaker implantation when compared with conventional AVR. SU-AVR minimises the need for suturing, leading to reduced operative times, while enabling complete removal of the calcified valve. The increase in use of SU-AVR has been mostly driven by minimally invasive surgery. Other indications include patients with a small and/or calcified aortic root, as well as patients requiring AVR and concomitant surgery. SU-AVR is associated with decreased operative times and possibly improved haemodynamics when compared with conventional AVR. However, this has to be weighed against the increased risk of paravalvular leak and pacemaker implantation when deciding which prosthesis to use for AVR.

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of aortic valve endocarditis in high risk patients is controversial and the ideal treatment has not been found yet. We describe a selected series of eight patients treated with rapid-deployment aortic valve prosthesis as a therapeutic solution for minimizing the risks associated with annulus manipulation in case of severe aortic infective endocarditis.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients (five men and three women) with a mean age of 74.3±7.2 years, mean logistic EuroSCORE II of 16.0%±0.1%, affected by aortic native (1 patient), or prosthetic valve endocarditis (7 patients), were treated with Edwards Intuity Elite implantation. Hemodynamic performance and infective data were collected pre-, intra-, and postoperatively with a mean follow-up of 2.7±0.7 years.

RESULTS

One case of in-hospital mortality was noted. None of the patients had any embolic or infective complication postoperatively. The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 148.4±41.6 and 90.5±25.3 min, respectively. The postoperative echocardiographic controls indicated a mean transvalvular gradient of 16.7±3.0 mmHg and one case of paravalvular leaks (2 +). Two patients underwent epigastric permanent pacemaker implantation. During the follow-up, seven patients were alive, with no evidence of symptoms or recurrences of endocarditis or embolic episodes. No new paravalvular leaks were noted, and the mean gradient on the valves was 12.4±3.4 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in selected very high-risk patients affected by infective endocarditis could be a reasonable choice with acceptable results. However, further studies are needed to confirm these results.

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.