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

Contemporary outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients referred for a transcatheter approach

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to examine which patients referred to our structural valve clinic for potential transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are receiving surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) whether due to unsuitable anatomy for TAVR versus other reasons.

METHODS

Individuals referred for TAVR from January 2019 to March 2022, who ultimately underwent SAVR were examined, retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 surgical groups: TAVR was technically unsuitable (SAVR-TU) and those in which TAVR was technically feasible (SAVR-TF).

RESULTS

215 patients referred for TAVR underwent SAVR with 61 (28.4%) patients in the SAVR-TU group and 154 (71.6%) in the SAVR-TF group. The SAVR-TU group were more commonly female (52.5% vs 23.4%, p < 0.0001), had a higher incidence of stroke at baseline (9.8% vs 2.0%, p = 0.017) were frailer (5-m gait 5.2 s vs 4.7 s, p = 0.0035), and had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (2.2 vs 1.7, p = 0.04). In the SAVR-TU group, unsuitability for TAVR was due to inadequate aortic root anatomy (86.9%), and poor peripheral access (6.6%). In the SAVR-TF group, the most common reasons for SAVR referral were concomitant coronary artery disease (42.9%), bicuspid aortic valve disease (16.9%), and concomitant aortic aneurysm (10.4%). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 1.4% with no difference between both groups. One-year survival was 96.7%.

CONCLUSION

Despite a higher trend of aortic stenosis being treated with TAVR, higher risk patients unsuitable for TAVR can have SAVR with excellent outcomes. Moreover, patients with AS and concomitant other pathology should be evaluated for cardiac surgery.

Early Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Right Anterior Thoracotomy vs. Median Full Sternotomy in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the early postoperative outcomes of right anterior thoracotomy minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (RAT-MIAVR) surgery with those of median full sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MFS-AVR) approach with the goal of identifying potential benefits or drawbacks of each technique.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, cohort study included 476 patients who underwent RAT-MIAVR or MFS-AVR in our hospital from January 2015 to January 2023. Of these, 107 patients (22.5%) underwent RAT-MIAVR, and 369 patients (77.5%) underwent MFS-AVR. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias, resulting in 95 patients per group for analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, two groups were comparable in preoperative characteristics. RAT-MIAVR group showed longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (130.24 ± 31.15 vs. 117.75 ± 36.29 minutes, P=0.012), aortic cross-clamping time (76.44 ± 18.00 vs. 68.49 ± 19.64 minutes, P=0.004), and longer operative time than MFS-AVR group (358.47 ± 67.11 minutes vs. 322.42 ± 63.84 minutes, P=0.000). RAT-MIAVR was associated with decreased hospitalization time after surgery, lower postoperative blood loss and drainage fluid, a reduced incidence of mediastinitis, increased left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower pacemaker use compared to MFS-AVR. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of major complications and in-hospital mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RAT-MIAVR is a feasible and safe alternative procedure to MFS-AVR, with comparable in-hospital mortality and early follow-up. This minimally invasive approach may be a suitable option for patients requiring isolated aortic valve replacement.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Less Is More? Combined Approaches to Improve Mortality and Morbidity after Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, one of the main goals of aortic valve surgery is to reduce the biological impact, mortality, and complications. It is well-known that long operative times in terms of the extracorporeal circulation, but above all, of the aortic cross-clamp time (ACC), represent a risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In order to shorten the aortic cross-clamp time, many technological improvements, such as sutureless prostheses, have been introduced, but their actual effectiveness has not been proven yet. The aim of this study was to assess the 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery, focusing on the ACC length.

METHODS

All 3139 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement between January 2013 and July 2022 at our institution were enrolled. The data were retrospectively collected and the baseline characteristics and intraoperative variables were recorded. In order to adjust the results according to the differences in the baseline characteristics, propensity score matching was performed and four groups of 351 patients were obtained based on the first, second, third, and fourth quartile of the ACC time.

RESULTS

The patient population included 132 redo surgeries (9.4%) and 61 cases of active endocarditis (4.3%), with an overall median EuroSCORE II of 1.8 (IQR 1.2-3.1). An increase across the groups was observed in terms of the acute kidney failure (p < 0.001) incidence, the number of blood transfusions (p = 0.022), prolonged hospital stays (p < 0.001), the and respiratory failure (p < 0.001) incidence. A p of < 0.1 was found for the 30-day mortality (p = 0.079). The predictors of an early 30-day mortality were standard full sternotomy (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.14-5.40, p = 0.022), EuroSCORE II (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.16, p < 0.001), and a trend for a longer ACC time (Q4 vs. Q1: OR 2.62, 95% CI 0.89-7.68, p = 0.080).

CONCLUSIONS

Shortening the operative times resulted in marked improvements of the patients' outcomes. The combined use of minimally invasive approaches and sutureless aortic valve prostheses allows for a lower 30-day events rate. New technologies should be assessed to obtain the best results with the least risk.

Sternal-Sparing Surgical Options in Combined Aortic Valve and Coronary Artery Disease: Proof of Concept

OBJECTIVE

The standard management of concomitant aortic valve (AV) and coronary artery disease has been coronary artery bypass and AV replacement (AVR). With the advent of minimally invasive options, many isolated lesions have been successfully managed using a sternal-sparing approach. In our institution, patients with isolated AV disease are offered minimally invasive surgical or transcatheter AVR, and those with isolated coronary artery disease are routinely managed with robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass or percutaneous coronary intervention. Various combinations of these techniques can be used when a sternal-sparing posture is desired because of patient risk or preference. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes in patients with combined AV and coronary disease who were managed using sternal-sparing approaches.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 10 patients in our minimally invasive surgical database who presented with concomitant AV and coronary artery disease and underwent combined sternal-sparing management of these 2 lesions using various combinations of minimally invasive approaches.

RESULTS

Four patients had totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass and minimally invasive AVR at the same time, 2 patients underwent transcatheter AVR followed by totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass, and 4 patients underwent minimally invasive AVR with percutaneous coronary intervention. There was no 30-day mortality. The duration of postoperative surgical hospital stay was 3.1 ± 0.9 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Sternal-sparing approaches in combined AV and coronary artery disease are feasible with patient-specific treatment selection of minimally invasive techniques.

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.

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.

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.