Sutureless Aortic Prosthesis Valves versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Intermediate Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Literature Review

Aortic stenosis remains the most frequently occurring valvular pathology in the elderly population of Western countries. According to the latest guidelines, the therapeutic choice of aortic stenosis depends on the age of the patient (<75 years or >75 years) and the risk class (STS-Prom/Euroscore II < o >4%). Therefore, if the surgical indication is clear in young and low-risk patients and percutaneous treatment is the gold standard in older and high-risk patients, the therapeutic choice is still debated in intermediate-risk patients. In this group of patients, aortic valve stenosis treatment depends on the patient's global evaluation, the experience of the center, and, no less importantly, the patient's will. Two main therapeutic options are debated: surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In addition, the progressive development of mininvasive techniques for aortic valve surgery (right-anterior minithoracotomy) has also reduced the peri- and post-operative risk in this group of patients. The purpose of this review is to compare sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus TAVI in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Sutureless Valves, a "Wireless" Option for Patients With Aortic Valve Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter technologies triggered the recent revision of the guidelines that progressively widened the indications for the treatment of aortic stenosis. On the surgical realm, a technology avoiding the need for sutures to anchor the prosthesis to the aortic annulus has been developed with the aim to reduce the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and simplify the process of valve implantation. In addition to a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-like stent that exerts a radial force, these so-called "rapid deployment valves" or "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement also have cuffs to improve sealing and reduce the risk of paravalvular leak. Despite promising, the actual advantage of sutureless valves over traditional surgical procedures (surgical aortic valve replacement) or TAVR is still debated. This review summarizes the current comparative evidence reporting outcomes of "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement to TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

Novel Techniques and Technologies for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Large Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Background/Objectives: In an era of growing evidence for transaortic valve implantation (TAVI), our research topic was the evaluation of how surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVRs) are performing in terms of short- and long-term outcomes in different risk categories. Methods: This was a single centre, prospective, and observational cohort study of consecutive patients with aortic valve stenosis, undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement using a biological or mechanical prosthesis, Freestyle™ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) graft, homograft, or Ross procedure. The participant data were collected by review of an internal database. The primary endpoints were all-cause operative mortality (in hospital and at 30 days) and late mortality at the follow-up date. The secondary composite endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications. Results: 1501 patients underwent SAVR; the mean age was 67 years (SD: 12.6). The in-hospital mortality was 1% (n = 16). At a median follow-up of 60 months, the survival rate was 98.7%. The main predictors for mortality were operative urgency and cardiogenic shock. The overall incidence of PPM was 2.3% (n = 34). Patients who underwent Ross procedure were younger (mean age: 20 years (SD: 1.7)), had a lower incidence of postoperative complications, and were all alive at follow-up. Conclusions: SAVR shows an excellent survival rate and a low rate of postoperative complications despite an increasing surgical risk. Recent advancements in technology, like sutureless/rapid deployment prostheses and minimally invasive techniques, are shown to have favourable effects on outcomes.

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.

Thrombocytopenia among Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Sutureless Perceval S Bioprosthesis: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The sutureless Perceval S bioprosthesis is associated with postoperative thrombocytopenia. Our objectives were to compare the incidence, severity, and clinical implications of thrombocytopenia after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Perceval S or the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent AVR between March 2016 and August 2019 using the Perceval or Trifecta were retrospectively included. The primary endpoint was the nadir in platelet counts within 15 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included postoperative hemolysis and inflammatory parameters, as well as clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 156 patients were included (Perceval, n = 103; Trifecta, n = 53). Preoperatively, there was no difference in platelet counts between the two groups. Postoperatively, the Perceval S bioprosthesis was associated with a greater decrease in platelet counts. The nadir was reached at Day 3 for both groups, but thrombocytopenia was more severe for the Perceval S (Perceval S vs. Trifecta, 89.2 ± 37.7 × 109/L vs. 106.5 ± 34.1 × 109/L, p = 0.01). No difference regarding lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and white blood cells count was found. All-cause 30-day mortality rates (both valves, 2%, p = 0.98), hospital lengths of stay, and re-operation rates were similar.

CONCLUSION

The Perceval S bioprosthesis was associated with more severe postoperative thrombocytopenia. This did not translate into higher short-term morbidity or mortality.

Hemodynamic Performance of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a widely adopted treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Its popularity has grown significantly in recent years due to advancements in technology and imaging. As TAVI use is increasingly expanded to younger patients, the need for long-term assessment and durability becomes paramount. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic tools to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of aortic prosthesis, with a special focus on the comparison between transcatheter and surgical aortic valves and between self-expandable and balloon-expandable valves. Moreover, the discussion will encompass how cardiovascular imaging can effectively detect long-term structural valve deterioration.

Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm2) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

KEY QUESTION

What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

KEY FINDINGS

Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

KEY OUTCOMES

Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

Sutureless bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: Surgical and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The aging population and the increase in comorbidities urge the development of safer alternatives to the current surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis has shown promising results, especially in complex procedures and in patients requiring concomitant surgeries.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the clinical and hemodynamic performance, safety, and durability of the Perceval® prosthetic valve.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data from all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval® prosthetic valve between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients included (mean age 77.20 ± 5.08 years; 45.4% female; mean EuroSCORE II 2.91 ± 2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 33.31 ± 14.09 min and 45.55 ± 19.04 min, respectively. Mean intensive care unit and hospital stay were 3.32 ± 3.24 days and 7.70 ± 5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 98.99%, as two explants occurred. Four valves were reimplanted due to intraoperative misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82 ± 3.62 mmHg. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, new-onset atrial fibrillation in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary for 3.1%. Early mortality was 2.0%. We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes, or endocarditis, and one successfully treated valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the excellent clinical and hemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, up to a 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable option for the treatment of isolated aortic valve disease.

High Incidence of Transient Permanent Pacemaker Rate After Rapid Deployment Valve Replacement: Insights of a 9-Year Single-Centre Experience

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) remains debated. Expertise in this field has significantly increased over the last decade. This study aimed to investigate the need for PPI following implantation of a rapid deployment (RD) valve.

METHODS

Analysis of n=372 patients who underwent Edwards INTUITY (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n=251) and Perceval (Sorin/LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) (n=121) valve replacement at the current institution between May 2012 and August 2018 was performed. Coronary artery bypass graft procedures were additionally performed in patients with coronary artery disease. Baseline, preoperative and postoperative outcomes were examined regarding correctness and completeness of the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 23.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients (aged 75±6.3 yrs) with a high grade of aortic valve stenosis underwent either Edwards INTUITY (67%) or Perceval (33%) valve replacement. Seventy-six (76) patients (20%) presented with preoperative conduction disorders. Sixty (60) patients (16%) underwent PPI, which in most cases was performed during the first month after the initial operation. Follow-up was performed up to 9 years, presenting a persistent pacemaker dependency rate of 50% among all patients who underwent PPI. Twenty (20) (40%) PPI recipients showed no dependency on pacemaker, while 10 (10%) required temporary pacemaker support. Mean length of ICU stay was 4±5.1 days and in-hospital stay was 8.2±7.6 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPI after RD valve implantation still remains high compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. However, this study shows that this phenomenon appears to be transient in a significant proportion of the patients undergoing RD valve replacement. These findings might contribute to the scientific discussion and should be taken into consideration for the indication of RD valve replacement.

A survey of cardiac surgeons to evaluate the use of sutureless aortic valve replacement in Canada

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is gaining popularity for the treatment of aortic stenosis. We aimed to describe Canadian cardiac surgeons' practice patterns and perceptions regarding SuAVR.

METHODS

Content experts (clinicians and methodologists) developed the survey. Domains in the questionnaire include: respondent characteristics, factors influencing the decision to implant a SuAVR, barriers to SuAVR use, and interest in participating in a trial.

RESULTS

A total of 66 cardiac surgeons (median duration of practice: 15 years; range 8-20 years) from 18 hospitals across Canada responded to the survey for a response rate of 84%. Surgeons reported that the following patient characteristics increased the likelihood they would choose SuAVR: hostile root (73%), small annular size (55%), high Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (42%), older age (40%), to support minimally invasive surgery (25%) and redo-operation (23%). The following patient characteristics made surgeons less likely to pursue SuAVR: young age (73%), low STS score (40%), and large annular size (30%). Reported barriers to SuAVR use included: cost (33%), permanent pacemaker risk (27%) and uncertain durability (12%). Of respondents, 73% were interested in participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing SuAVR with transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary reasons for surgeons selecting SuAVR were high surgical risk and anatomical challenges. Cost is a primary factor limiting SuAVR use.

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.

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)

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 320 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n=254) or SU-AVR (n=66) at Severance Cardiovascular Hospital between July 2011 and September 2019 were included for analysis. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighted adjustment were performed to adjust for confounding baseline characteristics. Outcomes defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 in 62 patients pairs were compared.

RESULTS

Device success (79.0% vs. 79.0%, p>0.999) and 30-day mortality (4.8% vs. 0.0%, p=0.244) did not differ between the TAVR and SU-AVR groups. The TAVR group developed more frequent mild or moderate paravalvular leakage (59.7% vs. 8.1%, p<0.001), whereas SU-AVR was associated with higher rates of major or life-threatening bleeding (9.7% vs. 22.6%, p=0.040), acute kidney injury (8.1% vs. 21.0%, p=0.041), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (4.8% vs. 32.3%. p<0.001) at 30 days, along with longer stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) (1.9±1.6 days vs. 5.9±9.2 days, p=0.009) and hospital (7.1±7.9 days vs. 13.1±8.8 days, p<0.001). The TAVR group showed a trend towards a higher 1-year all-cause mortality, compared with the SU-AVR group (7.0% vs 1.7%, p=0.149). Cardiovascular mortality, however, did not differ significantly (1.6% vs 1.7%, p=0.960).

CONCLUSION

TAVR achieved a similar 1-year survival rate free from cardiovascular mortality as SU-AVR and was associated with a lower incidence of complications, except for paravalvular leakage, and shorter stays in the ICU and hospital.

Morphologic investigation on Perceval S, a sutureless pericardial valve prosthesis: collagen integrity after collapsing-ballooning and structural valve deterioration at distance

Perceval S is a self-expandable, stent-mounted bioprosthetic valve (BPV), with glutaraldehyde treated bovine pericardium, processed with homocysteic acid as an anti-calcification treatment. The stent is crimpable but the valve insertion is done surgically via a shorter procedure which does not require sutures. OBJECTIVES: MATERIAL AND METHODS: RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS: Collapsing and ballooning do not alter cusp collagen periodicity. Structural valve deterioration with stenosis, due to dystrophic calcification and fibrous tissue overgrowth, seldom occurred in the mid-term. Glutaraldehyde fixed pericardium has the potential to undergo structural valve deterioration with time, similar to well-known BPV failure. This supports the recommendation to pursue improvement of tissue valve treatment with enhanced durability.

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.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes in 121 Patients Who Underwent Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation - Early Results From a Single Korean Institution

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of Perceval sutureless valves in the Korean population and to introduce a modified technique of guiding suture placement during valve deployment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From December 2014 to April 2019, 121 patients (mean age: 74.7±6.2 years; 53.7% female) received a Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement. To prevent conduction system injury, the depth of guiding suture placement (1 mm below the nadir of the annulus) was modified. All patients underwent echocardiographic evaluation at discharge and 6-12 months postoperatively, with a mean follow up of 13.7±11.2 months. Concomitant surgeries, such as coronary artery bypass grafting, and other valvular surgeries, were performed in 45.5% of cases. The mean aortic cross-clamp times for isolated and minimal procedures were 32.8±7.9, and 41.2±8.0 min, respectively. The overall transvalvular mean gradients were 13.1±3.8 mmHg at discharge and 11.5±4.7 mmHg at the last follow up. After modifying the guiding suture placement, permanent pacemaker implantation risk decreased from 9.9% to 2.5%. Cardiac-related mortality was 0.8%, with no patient developing valvular or paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, or endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceval valve implantation provided a significant cardiac-related survival benefit with excellent early hemodynamic and clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to determine whether adjusting the implantation depth, such as modification of the guiding suture technique, can reduce the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation.

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.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless bioprosthesis through right minithoracotomy with completely central cannulation-Early results in 203 patients

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) might improve clinical outcomes, particularly in high-risk and elderly patients. Sutureless/rapid deployment bioprosthesis can offer advantage of decreasing the cross-clamp time (XCT) and easing the procedure. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and perioperative outcomes of mini-AVR using sutureless bioprothesis via the right minithoracotomy approach with our modified technique of central cannulation.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 203 patients consecutively undergoing isolated AVR between March 2016 and June 2018 with the right minithoracotomy approach and our modified technique of central cannulation. Aortic valve diseases were stenosis (89.9%), regurgitation (1.6%), and mixed valve disease (8.5%). Patients with concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary endpoints were 30-day and 4-month mortality.

RESULTS

Mean age was 76 ± 6.2 years, 63 (31%) patients were 80 years or older. Cardiopulmonary bypass and XCT were 60.5 (39-153) and 35 (24-76) min, respectively. Thirty-day and 4-month mortality were 1% (two patients). We have observed minor paravalvular leak (PVL) which occurred in seven patients (3.4%), and no moderate/severe PVL was found perioperatively. One patient developed moderate/severe PVL during the 4-month follow-up. There was no structural valve degeneration. Two (1%) patients needed conversion to full sternotomy, and two (1%) patients to ministernotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-AVR via the right minithoracotomy approach with central cannulation is an effective and safe procedure and demonstrates excellent early clinical outcomes. This approach can be particularly valuable in higher risk and elderly patients.

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.

Recent advances in aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve replacement has stood the test of time but is no longer an operation that is exclusively approached through a median sternotomy using only sutured prostheses. Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed through a number of minimally invasive approaches employing conventional mechanical or bioprostheses as well as sutureless valves. In either case, the direct surgical access allows inspection of the valve, complete excision of the diseased leaflets, and debridement of the annulus in a controlled and thorough manner under visual control. It can be employed to treat aortic valve pathologies of all natures and aetiologies. When compared with transcatheter valves in patients with a high or intermediate preoperative predictive risk, conventional surgery has not been shown to be inferior to transcatheter valve implants. As our understanding of sutureless valves and their applicability to minimally invasive surgery advances, the invasiveness and trauma of surgery can be reduced and outcomes can improve. This warrants further comparative trials comparing sutureless and transcatheter valves.

Current results and remaining challenges of trans-catheter aortic valve replacement expansion in intermediate and low risk patients

TAVR has become the standard treatment in patients at increased surgical risk (STS or EuroSCORE II ≥4% or logistic EuroSCORE I ≥ 10% or other risk factors not included in these scores such as frailty, porcelain aorta, sequelae of chest radiation) and it is increasingly being performed in patients at intermediate to low (STS or EuroSCORE II <4% or logistic EuroSCORE I < 10%) surgical risk. Although non-inferiority has been demonstrated in intermediate and low-risk patients, several challenges need to be addressed before expansion to younger patients. Current trends, trials results, and remaining challenges are summarized and discussed in this review.

Postoperative Plasma Mitochondrial DNA and Cytokine Profiles of Elderly Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

INTRODUCTION

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is gaining increasing interest as a marker of cellular damage and could also act as an inflammatory mediator in cardiopulmonary bypass induced postoperative inflammatory response. Although minimally invasive heart valve surgery reportedly reduces inflammation, the mtDNA and cytokine profile in this context remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Here, we report a prospective series of 40 elderly patients with aortic stenosis who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) through upper ministernotomy with either a sutureless (n = 20) or a conventional (n = 20) valve. Primary end points included serial plasma levels of mtDNA (T1: at baseline; T2: 4 hours after surgery; and T3: 24s hour after surgery), cytokines (interleukin-6 [IL-6], tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α]), and myocardial necrosis biomarkers (MNBs), whereas secondary end points included clinical and echocardiographic data.

RESULTS

Significant increases in the postoperative plasma levels (T2) of mtDNA, cytokines, and MNBs were observed in all patients. The postoperative plasma levels of mtDNA, TNF-α, and MNBs showed no significant differences between the treatment groups, although there was a trend toward lower levels in the sutureless group. The decreases in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times seen in the sutureless group were associated with significant lower postoperative levels (T2 and T3) of IL-6.

CONCLUSION

AVR through upper ministernotomy was associated with a significant increase in postoperative plasma levels of mtDNA and cytokines. There was no difference in the mtDNA levels between the sutureless and conventional valve groups, suggesting a similar level of inflammation in both groups. However, the shorter operation time observed in the sutureless valve group was associated with significantly lower postoperative levels of IL-6, indicating potential clinical benefits.

Cost-utility of surgical sutureless bioprostheses vs TAVI in aortic valve replacement for patients at intermediate and high surgical risk

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implants (TAVIs) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) show differing effectiveness and safety profiles. The approaches also differ in their surgical cost (including operating room and device).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the incremental cost-utility of SU-AVR vs TAVIs for the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk patients in the US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Australia.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation compares in-hospital pathways of patients undergoing SU-AVR or TAVIs; later, patient history is modeled at the cohort level. Hospital outcomes for TAVIs reproduce data from recent series; in SU-AVR patients, outcomes are obtained by applying relative efficacy estimates in a recent meta-analysis on 1,462 patients. After discharge, survival depends on the development of paravalvular leak and the need for dialysis. A comprehensive third-party payer perspective encompassing both in-hospital and long-term costs was adopted.

RESULTS

Due to lower in-hospital (4.1% vs 7.0%) and overall mortality, patients treated with SU-AVR are expected to live an average of 1.25 years more compared with those undergoing TAVIs, with a mean gain of 1.14 quality-adjusted life-years. Both in-hospital and long-term costs were lower for SU-AVR than for TAVIs with total savings ranging from $4,158 (France) to $20,930 (US).

CONCLUSION

SU-AVR results dominant when compared to TAVIs in intermediate- to high-risk patients. Both in-hospital and long-term costs are lower for SU-AVR than for TAVI patients, with concomitant significant gains in life expectancy, both raw and adjusted for the quality of life.