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

Selective placement of novel compression suture technique to reduce pacemaker implantation rate following surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment INTUITY valve

OBJECTIVE

The use of RDV in SAVR is associated with risk of conduction abnormality requiring PPM implantation, when compared to conventional bioprosthetic valves. We aimed to evaluate the outcome after selective placement of annular compression sutures during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using Intuity rapid deployment valve (RDV).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively enrolled patients receiving SAVR using Intuity RDV. Selective placement of commissural compression suture was assessed for all patients based on their annular morphology. Outcomes including operative mortality, rate of pacemaker rate, paravalvular leak and change in trans-valvular pressure gradient were analyzed.

RESULTS

56 consecutive patients underwent SAVR with the INTUITY RDV at our institution from January 2020 to November 2021. The Mean age of our cohort was 69.9 ± 10.6 years with a EuroSCORE II of 3.4 ± 2.4%. 28.6% (16/56) of patients had notable conduction abnormalities pre-operatively, which included atrial fibrillation and left/right bundle branch block. Compression sutures were selectively applied in 19/56 (33.9%) patients. Of which, 13 were bicuspid aortic valve. Post-operatively, we observed no conduction abnormality requiring PPM implantation. In addition, only 3 of the 56 (5.4%) had any degree of paravalvular leak on post-operative echocardiography (all ≤ mild). The mean reduction in trans-valvular gradient was 29.9 mmHg and the mean pressure gradient at 1 month and 1 year follow-up were 9.3 ± 3.6 mmHg and 10.2 ± 4.1 mmHg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Selective placement of compression suture helps to avoid unnecessary oversizing, which may reduce the risk of paravalvular leak and post-operative PPM implantation.

Sutureless Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Systematic Review with Long-Term Results

Background: In recent years, in case of aortic valve replacement (AVR), a significant increase in the use of bioprostheses has been observed. The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis has proven to be safe and reliable in the short and mid-term, with limited but promising long-term results. An updated systematic review with the long-term results of patients who underwent a sutureless bioprosthesis implantation with a Perceval biological valve is herewith presented. Methods: Studies published between 2015 and 2024, including the long-term outcomes-with clinical as well as echocardiographic information for up to five years-of patients who underwent a Perceval implantation for AVR were selected from the published literature. The Cochrane GRADE system was used to assess the study quality, and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate studies. Results: Ten studies were selected with an overall number of 5221 patients. The long-term survival ranged from 64.8 to 87.9%, freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) from 96.1 to 100%, freedom from significant paravalvular leak from 98.5 to 100%, freedom from prosthetic endocarditis from 90.7 to 99%, and freedom from reintervention from 94 to 100%. The long-term mortality ranged from 6.5 to 27.4%. SVD was observed in 0-4.8% patients. Significant paravalvular leak was observed in 0-3.4% patients, and infective endocarditis was observed in 0-3.4%. A bioprosthesis-related reintervention at long-term follow-up was required for 0-4.3% of patients, and 1.7-7.1% of patients required a late new pacemaker implantation. The transprosthetic mean pressure gradient ranged from 9 to 14.7 mmHg, peak pressure gradient ranged from 17.8 to 26.5 mmHg, and EOA ranged from 1.5 to 1.7 cm2. Conclusions: This systematic review shows that there is still a paucity of data about sutureless bioprostheses. Nevertheless, the clinical results from prospective studies or retrospective series are encouraging. Medium- and long-term results seem to support the increasing use of this type of prosthesis.

Right Anterior Minithoracotomy Approach for Aortic Valve Replacement

By sparing the sternum, the right anterior minithoracotomy (RAMT) approach may facilitate a quicker functional recovery when compared with conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR). In the following review, outcomes after RAMT AVR are compared with full sternotomy AVR. The RAMT approach is described, including suggestions for patient selection. The application of the RAMT approach for other cardiac procedures is also discussed.

Perceval ViV-TAVR: Perception Is Not Always Reality

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for failed Perceval sutureless valves has been shown to be safe and feasible. However, it is technically challenging and warrants understanding of potential risks and complications. We present a case of successful valve-in-valve implantation complicated by inadvertent wire passage outside of the Perceval frame.

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.

The Northern New England Rapid Deployment Valve Experience: Survival and Procedural Outcomes From 2015 to 2021

OBJECTIVE

The optimal approach and choice of initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) is evolving in the growing era of transcatheter AVR. Further survival and hemodynamic data are needed to compare the emerging role of rapid deployment (rdAVR) versus stented (sAVR) valve options for AVR.

METHODS

The Northern New England Cardiovascular Database was queried for patients undergoing either isolated AVR or AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with rdAVR or sAVR aortic valves between 2015 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, mechanical valves, dissection, emergency case status, and prior sternotomy. This resulted in a cohort including 1,616 sAVR and 538 rdAVR cases. After propensity weighting, procedural characteristics, hemodynamic variables, and survival outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

The breakdown of the overall cohort (2,154) included 1,164 isolated AVR (222 rdAVR, 942 sAVR) and 990 AVR + CABG (316 rdAVR, 674 sAVR). After inverse propensity weighting, cohorts were well matched, notable only for more patients <50 years in the sAVR group (4.0% vs 1.9%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.12). Cross-clamp (89 vs 64 min, SMD = -0.71) and cardiopulmonary bypass (121 vs 91 min, SMD = -0.68) times were considerably longer for sAVR versus rdAVR. Immediate postreplacement aortic gradient decreased with larger valve size but did not differ significantly between comparable sAVR and rdAVR valve sizes or overall (6.5 vs 6.7 mm Hg, SMD = 0.09). Implanted rdAVR tended to be larger with 51% either size L or XL versus 37.4% of sAVR ≥25 mm. Despite a temporal decrease in pacemaker rate within the rdAVR cohort, the overall pacemaker frequency was less in sAVR versus rdAVR (4.4% vs 7.4%, SMD = 0.12), and significantly higher rates were seen in size L (10.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.002) and XL (15% vs 5.6%, P < 0.004) rdAVR versus sAVR. No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (4.6% vs 4.6%, SMD = 0.01), 30-day survival (1.5% vs 2.6%, SMD = 0.08), or long-term survival out to 4 years were seen between sAVR and rdAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment valves offer a safe alternative to sAVR with significantly decreased cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Despite larger implantation sizes, we did not appreciate a comparative difference in immediate postoperative gradients, and although pacemaker rates are improving, they remain higher in rdAVR compared with sAVR. Longer-term hemodynamic and survival follow-up are needed.

Endoscopic Aortic Valve Replacement: Initial Outcomes of Isolated and Concomitant Surgery

BACKGROUND

The applicability of totally endoscopic surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in multivalve operations is unknown. This study describes an approach and perioperative outcomes of totally endoscopic isolated and concomitant AVR using various valve types.

METHODS

A total of 216 patients (114 male; mean age, 71.3 ± 11.3 years) underwent totally endoscopic AVR from May 2017 to October 2022 in a tertiary care center. The 3-port technique was used: a 3- to 4-cm main port without rib spreading, a 10-mm 3-dimensional endoscopic port, and a 5-mm left-hand port with femoral cannulations. Sutures were hand tied with a knot pusher. Descriptive analyses compared perioperative outcomes between patients with or without concomitant procedures.

RESULTS

Of 216 patients, concomitant surgery was performed in 33 (15.2%) patients. Of the 33, 21 (63.6%) had a concomitant mitral procedure. A stented bioprosthesis was implanted in 165 (76.3%) patients, a mechanical valve in 22 (10.2%) patients, and a rapid deployment or sutureless valve in 29 (13.4%) patients. Median operation time and aortic cross-clamp time were 175 minutes (interquartile range; 150-194 minutes) and 78 minutes (interquartile range; 67-92 minutes) for isolated AVR, respectively. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 1 patient (0.5%). Two patients (0.9%) had conversion to sternotomy. Major neurologic events occurred in 3 patients (1.4%). The major adverse event rate was similar between patients with or without concomitant procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic AVR can safely address concomitant valve diseases.

The Hemodynamic Performance of the Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve in a Propensity-Matched Comparison to the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount and Perimount Magna Ease Valves for Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

The Perceval valve was shown to facilitate minimal-invasive operations and shorten operative times. We aimed to compare the early results of the Perceval valve to those of well-established valves, namely the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount and Perimount Magna Ease valve protheses, in terms of their clinical and hemodynamic performances.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study. For every patient operated with a Perceval valve, the last patient before and the next following patient receiving a Perimount valve was included in a control group leading to a 2:1 ratio (Perimount:Perceval). A propensity score matching was used and a subgroup analysis was performed to compare early and late Perceval patients as the sizing technique was changed over time.

RESULTS

From November 2013 to November 2017, 423 patients were identified. These included 141 consecutive patients receiving a Perceval valve through a full- or a hemi-sternotomy. In addition, 282 patients receiving a Perimount or a Magna Ease valve were enrolled. After propensity score matching, 127 matched patients were compared. Operating times were shorter and postoperative transvalvular pressure gradients were lower in the Perceval group (15 vs. 17 mmHg, p = 0.002). There was no difference in mortality and stroke rates. The incidence of new pacemaker implantations was higher in the Perceval group (7.1 vs. 18.9%, p = 0.005), mainly due to a very high incidence in the early phase of our Perceval experience prior to a change in the Perceval implantation technique. Subgroup analysis showed significantly better results in the late Perceval group.

CONCLUSION

Surgical outcome was good in both groups. The Perceval valve exhibited lower postoperative gradients, and the need for pacemaker implantation was higher and can be reduced by avoiding oversizing.

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.

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.

Pearls, pitfalls, and surgical indications of the Intuity TM heart valve: A rapid deployment bioprosthesis. A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To highlight short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the Intuity TM rapid deployment prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

We reviewed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, SciELO, LILACS, CCTR/CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for clinical trials, retrospective clinical studies, meta-analysis, and gray literature.

RESULTS

Fourty-five clinical studies with 12.714 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-day mortality ranged from 3.8% for Intuity and 3.9% for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 2.17%), permanent pacemaker implantation (Intuity 11.11% and TAVR 12.5%), stroke (Intuity 2.2% and TAVR 2.6%), myocardial infarction (MI) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 1%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other sutured bioprosthesis (SB), mortality ranged from 0% to 3.9% for Intuity and 0%-6.9% for SB. Long-term cardiac mortality ranged from 0.9% to 1.55% for Intuity and 1.4%-3.3% for the Perceval valve. The incidence of PVL (Intuity 0.24%-0.7% and Perceval 0%-1%), endocarditis (Intuity 0.2%-0.7% and Perceval 1.6%-6.6%), stroke (Intuity 0.36%-1.4% and Perceval 0%-0.8%), MI (Intuity 0.07%-0.26%), and SVD (Intuity 0.12%-0.7% and Perceval 0%) were comparable. Compared to standard full sternotomy (SFS), minimally invasive surgery (MINV) mortality ranged from 0% to 4.3% for MINV and 0%-2.1% for SFS. Hospital costs outcomes ranged from $37,187-$44,368 for the Intuity, $69,389 for TAVR, and $13,543 for SB. Intuity short-term mortality ranged between 0.9% and 12.4% while long-term mortality ranged between 2.6% and 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript provides a 360° overview of the current rapid deployments, sutureless, and TAVR prosthesis.

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.

Recent improvement in operative techniques lead to lower pacemaker rate after Perceval implant

Central picture.

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.

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.

Low-Risk Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Open surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is a viable alternative to transcatheter implantation in low-risk patients. In this light, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of SAVR performed through conventional and less invasive surgical approaches in a high-volume center.

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 395 consecutive patients who underwent open SAVR from January 2019 through December 2019 in our center. We evaluated and compared the operative results and postoperative major adverse outcomes of 3 surgical approaches: full median sternotomy (n=267), upper ministernotomy (ministernotomy) (n=106), and right anterior thoracotomy (minithoracotomy) (n=22).

Overall, the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 0.8% (3 patients). Stroke occurred in 8 patients (2%), disabling stroke in 4 patients (1%), myocardial infarction in 1 (0.2%), and surgical site infection in 13 (3.2%). There was no difference in 30-day mortality rate or incidence of postoperative major adverse events among the 3 surgical groups. Stroke and surgical site infection occurred more frequently, but not significantly so, in the full-sternotomy group. The mean hospital stay was longer after full sternotomy (9.1 ± 5.5 d) than after ministernotomy (7.5 ± 2.9 d) or minithoracotomy (7.4 ± 1.9 d) (P=0.012).

Our findings suggest that open SAVR performed in a high-volume center is associated with a low early mortality rate and that less invasive approaches result in faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stays.

Comparison of Sutureless Bioprosthetic Valve With Surgical or TAVR for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background

Clinical advantages of sutureless rapid-deployment (RD) aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) have not been elucidated compared with surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement.

Objectives

This study sought to investigate comparative effectiveness and safety of RD-AVR compared with SAVR and TAVR in a prospective cohort of patients with severe AS.

Methods

The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 12 months. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics.

Results

Among 1,020 eligible patients, 107 (10.5%) underwent RD-AVR, 437 (42.8%) underwent SAVR, and 476 (46.7%) underwent TAVR. In the matched cohorts of RD-AVR and SAVR (n = 107), the incidence of primary composite outcome at 12 months was similar between the 2 groups (8.0% vs 10.8%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-1.84; P = 0.52). In the matched cohorts of RD and TAVR (n = 58), the incidence of primary composite outcome at 12 months did not statistically differ between the 2 groups (9.4% vs 16.2%, respectively; HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.18-1.57; P = 0.25).

Conclusions

In this propensity-matched cohort of patients who underwent AVR for severe AS, we did not detect significant differences in the rates of the primary composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 12 months when comparing RD-AVR with SAVR and TAVR. Because the study was underpowered, the results should be considered as hypothesis generating highlighting the need for further research. (ASAN Medical Center Aortic Valve Replacement Registry [ASAN-AVR]; NCT03298178)

Surgical pericardial heart valves: 50 Years of evolution

Valve disease carries a huge burden globally and the number of heart valve procedures are projected to increase from the current 300 000 to 800 000 annually by 2050. Since its genesis 50 years ago, pericardial heart valve has moved leaps and bounds to ever more ingenious designs and manufacturing methods with parallel developments in cardiology and cardiovascular surgical treatments. This feat has only been possible through close collaboration of many scientific disciplines in the fields of engineering, material sciences, basic tissue biology, medicine and surgery. As the pace of change continues to accelerate, we ask the readers to go back with us in time to understand developments in design and function of pericardial heart valves. This descriptive review seeks to focus on the qualities of pericardial heart valves, the advantages, successes and failures encapsulating the evolution of surgically implanted pericardial heart valves over the past five decades. We present the data on comparison of the pericardial heart valves to porcine valves, discuss structural valve deterioration and the future of heart valve treatments.

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.

Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multicenter analysis of "real-world" data

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggested that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be indicated also for low-risk patients. However, robust evidence is still lacking, particularly regarding valve performance at follow-up that confers a limitation to its use in young patients. Moreover, a literature gap exists in terms of 'real-world' data analysis. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus transfemoral TAVR.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrieved from a centralized database of nine cardiac surgery centers between 2010 and 2018. Follow-up was completed in June 2019. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Patients in the TAVR group (n=1002) were older and with more comorbidities than SuAVR patients (n=443). The PSM analysis generated 172 pairs. No differences were recorded between groups in 30-day mortality [SuAVR vs TAVR: n=7 (4%) vs n=5 (2.9%); p=0.7] and need for pacemaker implant [n=10 (5.8%) vs n=20 (11.6%); p=0.1], but costs were lower in the SuAVR group (20486.6±4188€ vs 24181.5±3632€; p<0.01). Mean follow-up was 1304±660 days. SuAVR patients had a significantly higher probability of survival than TAVR patients (no. of fatal events: 22 vs 74; p<0.014). Median follow-up was 2231 days and 2394 days in the SuAVR and TAVR group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of aortic valve stenosis with surgical sutureless or transcatheter prostheses is safe and effective. By comparing the two approaches, patients who can undergo surgery after heart team evaluation show longer lasting results and a more favorable cost ratio.

The Impact of Biomedical Engineering on the Development of Minimally Invasive Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

(1) We describe the boundary conditions for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) with the aim to reduce procedure-related patient injury and discomfort. (2) The analysis of the MICS work process and its demand for improved tools and devices is followed by a description of the relevant sub-specialties of bio-medical engineering: electronics, biomechanics, and materials sciences. (3) Innovations can represent a desired adaptation of an existing work process or a radical redesign of procedure and devices such as in transcutaneous procedures. Focused interaction between engineers, industry, and surgeons is always mandatory (i.e., a therapeutic alliance for addressing 'unmet patient or professional needs'. (4) Novel techniques in MICS lean heavily on usability and safe and effective use in dedicated hands. Therefore, the use of training and simulation models should enable skills selection, a safe learning curve, and maintenance of proficiency. (5) The critical technical steps and cost-benefit trade-offs during the journey from invention to application will be explained. Business considerations such as time-to-market and returns on investment do shape the cost-benefit room for commercial use of technology. Proof of clinical safety and effectiveness by physicians remains important, but establishing the technical reliability of MICS tools and warranting appropriate surgical skills come first.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have been introduced to facilitate the implant process, speed up the operating time and improve haemodynamic performance. The goal of this study was to assess the potential advantages of using sutureless prostheses during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in a large multicentre population.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2019, a total of 3402 patients in 11 hospitals underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with minimal access approaches using a bioprosthesis. A total of 475 patients received sutureless valves; 2927 received standard valves. The primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day deaths. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of major complications following procedures performed with sutureless or standard bioprostheses. Propensity matched comparisons was performed based on a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The annual number of sutureless valve implants increased over the years. The matching procedure paired 430 sutureless with 860 standard aortic valve replacements. A total of 0.7% and 2.1% patients with sutureless and standard prostheses, respectively, died within 30 days (P = 0.076). Cross-clamp times [48 (40-62) vs 63 min (48-74); P = 0.001] and need for blood transfusions (27.4% vs 33.5%; P = 0.022) were lower in patients with sutureless valves. No difference in permanent pacemaker insertions was observed in the overall population (3.3% vs 4.4% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.221) and in the matched groups (3.6% vs 4.7% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.364).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sutureless prostheses is advantageous and facilitates the adoption of a minimally invasive approach, reducing cardiac arrest time and the number of blood transfusions. No increased risk of permanent pacemaker insertion was observed.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation After Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from the RADAR Registry

INTRODUCTION

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement has been recently introduced in clinical practice. Different studies have reported a significant reduction in surgical times with excellent hemodynamic profiles and short-term results. However, an increase in permanent pacemaker requirements compared with conventional aortic valve replacement has been described. Nevertheless, risk factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation are not well known. The aim of this study is to report our early outcomes with rapid deployment aortic valve replacement within the RADAR Registry, especially focusing on risk factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and January 2016, 164 patients undergoing isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with Edwards INTUITY Elite (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) were included in the RADAR Registry. Pre-, intra- and postoperative clinical data results and complications were recorded, especially focusing on risk factors for the development of postoperative complete or high-grade AV block requiring pacemaker implantation. Patients were followed up for up to 1 year with evaluation of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 164 consecutive patients were included in this study, where 128 patients (78.05%) had an isolated aortic valve replacement (group 1) and 36 (21.95%) a concomitant procedure (group 2). The surgical approach was ministernotomy in 61 patients (37.20%) and median sternotomy in 100 patients (60.98%). Complications with valve implantation were observed in three patients. Postoperative complete or high-degree AV block requiring a permanent pacemaker implantation developed in ten patients (6.9%). Seven patients died in-hospital (4.27%). No significant differences between groups were found in terms of stroke, postoperative infection, mortality, atrial fibrillation and postoperative atrioventricular block. Seven patients presented acute renal impairment (5.51%) in group 1 versus seven patients (20%) in group 2 (p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, low weight and preoperative arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, bifascicular block, left bundle branch block) emerged as risk factors for postoperative AV block requiring a pacer. In median follow-up of 1 year, seven (4.27%) patients died, and no cases of structural valve deterioration or endocarditis were observed. Significant patient-prosthesis mismatch was found in seven (4.27%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Initial experience with rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in the RADAR Registry demonstrates low rates of implantation complications and good perioperative and 1-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. Incidence of postoperative AV block requiring a pacer correlated with low weight and preoperative arrythmias (atrial fibrillation, bifascicular block and left bundle branch block). Avoidance of oversizing and careful consideration of implantation of this technology in patients with pre-existing arrythmias could minimize the risk for postoperative pacemaker implantation.

Need for permanent pacemaker implantation following implantation of the rapid deployment valve in combined procedures: a single centre cohort study

Background

Rapid deployment aortic valves may interfere with the cardiac conduction system. We investigated the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following the implantation of Edwards INTUITY valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA).

Methods

One hundred twenty patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the INTUITY valve in a combined procedure at the German Heart Centre Munich between April 2016 and December 2019. Twenty-four patients with prior PPI or concomitant ablation procedures (24/120, 20%) were excluded. Patient-specific, procedural and post-procedural outcomes were assessed in the remaining 96 cases.

Results

AVR was successful in all cases. Seventy-four percent of the study population were men. Mean age was 69.5±7.6 years. EuroSCORE II was 3.2±2.9. Forty-six patients (46/96, 47.9%) presented with pre-operative conduction disorders, right bundle branch block (RBBB) (17/96, 17.7%) and first-degree or second degree atrio-ventricular block (AVB) (18/96, 18.8%), in particular. In total, 9 patients (9/96, 9.4%) underwent PPI. PPI was required in 3 patients (3/50, 6.0%) who did not have a pre-existing conduction disorder due to new high degree AVB. 6 patients with pre-operative conduction disorders (6/46, 13%) needed PPI. Timing of PPI was 5.2±1.5 days (median 5). Independent predictors of PPI were preoperative RBBB [odds ratio (OR) =4.554, P=0.049] and large valve size (#27) (OR =5.527, P=0.031).

Conclusions

The analysis of the data collected enabled us to identify patient factors associated with higher risk for post-operative PPI following AVR with the INTUITY valve. Patient factors associated with post-operative PPI, were RBBB and large valve size. These patients should be closely monitored following the procedure, in particular.

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.

Surgical sutureless and sutured aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior to surgery in low surgical risk patients. We compared outcomes in patients treated with a sutured (stented or stentless) or sutureless surgical valve from the Evolut Low Risk Trial.

METHODS

The Evolut Low Risk Trial enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk. Patients were randomized to self-expanding TAVR or surgery. Use of sutureless or sutured valves was at the surgeons' discretion.

RESULTS

There were 680 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve implantation (205 sutureless, 475 sutured). The VARC-2 30-day safety composite endpoint was similar in the sutureless and sutured group (10.8% vs 11.0%, P=.93). All-cause mortality between groups was similar between groups at 30 days (0.5% vs 1.5%, P=.28) and 1 year (3.3% vs 2.6%, P=.74). Disabling stroke was also similar at 30 days (2.0% vs 1.5%, P=.65) and 1 year (2.6% vs 2.2%, P=.76). Permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was significantly higher in the sutureless compared with the sutured group (14.4% vs 2.9%, P<.001). AV-related hospitalizations occurred more often at 1 year with sutureless valves (9.1% vs 5.1%, P=.04). Mean gradients 1 year after sutureless and sutured AVR were 9.9±4.2 vs 11.7±4.7mm Hg (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk patients, sutureless versus sutured valve use did not demonstrate a benefit in terms of 30-day complications and produced marginally better hemodynamics, but with an increased rate of pacemaker implantation and valve-related hospitalizations.

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 surgery

Since their introduction, it has been demonstrated that minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of aortic valve diseases. To date, the main advantage of these approaches is represented by the reduced surgical trauma, with a subsequent reduced complication rate and faster recovery. This makes such approaches an appealing choice also for frail patients [obese, aged, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. The standardization of the minimally invasive techniques, together with the implementation of preoperative workup and anesthesiological intra- and post-operative care, led to an amelioration of surgical results and reduction of surgical times. Moreover, the improvement of surgical technology and the introduction of new devices such as sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves, has helped the achievement of comparable results to traditional surgery. However, transcatheter technologies are nowadays more and more important in the treatment of aortic valve disease, also in low risk patients. For this reason surgeons should put new efforts for further reducing the surgical trauma in the future, even taking inspiration from other disciplines. In this review, we aim to present a review of literature evidences regarding minimally invasive treatment of aortic diseases, also reflecting our personal experience with MIAVR techniques. This review could represent a tool for a well-structured patient assessment and preoperative planning, in order to safely carrying out an MIAVR procedure with satisfactory outcomes.

Midterm outcomes with a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis in a prospective multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report midterm clinical outcomes with a self-expandable sutureless aortic valve.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2013, 658 patients at 25 European institutions received the Perceval sutureless valve (LivaNova Plc, London, United Kingdom). Mean follow-up was 3.8 years; late cumulative follow-up was 2325.2 patient-years.

RESULTS

The mean age of the population was 78.3 ± 5.6 years and 40.0% (n = 263) were 80 years of age or older; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7.2 ± 7.4. Concomitant procedures were performed in 31.5% (n = 207) of patients. Overall duration of cardiopulmonary bypass time was 64.8 ± 25.2 minutes and aortic cross-clamping time was 40.7 ± 18.1 minutes. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 3.7% (23 patients), with an observed:expected ratio of 0.51. Overall survival was 91.6% at 1 year, 88.5% at 2 years, and 72.7% at 5 years. Peak and mean gradients remained stable during follow-up, and were 17.8 ± 11.3 mm Hg and 9.0 ± 6.3 mm Hg, respectively, at 5 years. Preoperatively, 33.4% of those who received the Perceval valve (n = 210) were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II versus 93.1% (n = 242) at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This series, representing, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up with sutureless technology in a prospective, multicenter study, shows that aortic replacement using sutureless valves is associated with low mortality and morbidity and good hemodynamic performance.

Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Sutureless aortic valves are a novel option for aortic valve replacement. We sought to demonstrate noninferiority of sutureless versus standard bioprostheses in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

METHODS

The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients were randomized (March 2016 to September 2018) to aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or stented valve using conventional or minimally invasive approach. Primary outcome was freedom from major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention) at 1 year.

RESULTS

At 47 centers (12 countries), 910 patients were randomized to sutureless (n = 453) or conventional stented (n = 457) valves; mean ages were 75.4 ± 5.6 and 75.0 ± 6.1 years, and 50.1% and 44.9% were female, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were 2.4 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 1.3, and a ministernotomy approach was used in 50.4% and 47.3%, respectively. Concomitant procedures were performed with similar rates in both groups. Noninferiority was demonstrated for major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year, whereas aortic valve hemodynamics improved equally in both groups. Use of sutureless valves significantly reduced surgical times (mean extracorporeal circulation times: 71.0 ± 34.1 minutes vs 87.8 ± 33.9 minutes; mean crossclamp times: 48.5 ± 24.7 vs 65.2 ± 23.6; both P < .0001), but resulted in a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs 3.6% at 1 year). Incidences of perivalvular and central leak were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless valves were noninferior to stented valves with respect to major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (alone or with coronary artery bypass grafting). This suggests that sutureless valves should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program.

Minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: Propensity matched data from two centers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to gain popularity. This study compares outcomes of AVR through right anterolateral thoracotomy (RALT) to those of AVR through full median sternotomy (MS).

METHODS

Outcomes of two propensity-matched groups of 85 each, out of 250 patients that underwent isolated AVR through RALT or MS at our two institutions, were compared in a retrospective study.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 85 matched pairs with balanced preoperative characteristics. Procedure times were significantly shorter in the RALT group (median difference: 13 min [-25 to -0.5]; p = .039), cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer (median difference: 17 min [10-23.5]; p = < .001) and ventilation times shorter (median difference: 259 min [-390 to -122.5]; p = < .001). There was no significant difference in aortic cross-clamp times (median difference: 1.5 min [-3.5 to 6.5]; p = .573). The RALT group had lower rates of perioperative platelet transfusions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.00 [0.00-0.59]; p = .0078) and postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.10 [0.00-0.70]; p = .012), as well as shorter hospitalization times (median difference: 2.5 days [-4.5 to -1]; p = .005). There were no significant differences regarding paravalvular leakage (p = .25), postoperative stroke (p = 1), postoperative atrial fibrillation (p = .12) or 1-year-mortality (p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found RALT to be an equally safe approach to surgical AVR as MS. Furthermore, RALT showed advantages regarding important aspects of postoperative recovery, especially concerning pulmonary function.

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.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement on Minimally Invasive Extracorporeal Circulation: Going beyond Aesthetics

We present our multidisciplinary and multistep strategy in patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mAVR) on minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) compared with control groups of a single strategy and conventional techniques. This cohort study included high-risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] risk score >8%) undergoing aortic valve surgery under different strategies during the period from January 2017 until March 2019. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index, and STS score: group 1 (MiAVR) based on a minimally invasive technique with J-mini-sternotomy, rapid deployment valve (RDV), and type IV customized MiECC; group 2 (control-mAVR) consisted of minimally invasive technique with only J mini-sternotomy and RDV on a conventional extracorporeal system; group 3 (control-MiECC): full sternotomy and type IV customized MiECC; and group 4 (control): full sternotomy on a conventional extracorporeal system. The MiAVR group had significantly less duration of x-clamp time (35.4 ± 11 minutes), postoperative respiratory support (4.1 ± 1 hour), postoperative hemorrhage (250 ± 50 mL), and intensive care unit stay (1 ± .5 days) than the control-conventional (group 4) group. Seventy-six percent of patients did not receive any blood products in MiAVR (p = .025 vs. group 4). Incidence of atrial fibrillation (8%) and low cardiac output (14%) in MiAVR were significantly better than control. Critics of minimally invasive techniques sustain that potential advantages are offset by a longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass duration, which may translate into inferior clinical outcomes. We advocate that our multidisciplinary approach supported by multiple technologies may be associated with faster recovery and superior outcomes than conventional minimally/conventional techniques.

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.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.