Minimal invasive implantation of an EDWARDS INTUITY rapid deployment aortic valve

Multicenter, propensity-weighted comparison of stented, rapid-deployment and new-generation aortic valves

Background

Conventional stented, rapid deployment and new-generation stented valves are now available for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). New-generation devices feature advanced tissue treatment for theoretical prolonged durability and a new stent design able to expand in case of future transcatheter Valve-in-Valve. Aim of this retrospective, multicenter, propensity-weighted study was to compare early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of these three different bioprostheses.

Methods

We analyzed data of 2589 patients from two national multicenter registries and one Institutional database. Study devices were Magna Ease, Intuity/Intuity Elite and Inspiris Resilia (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) and were implanted in 296 (11.4 %), 1688 (65.2 %) and 605 (23.4 %) patients, respectively. A propensity score weighting approach was employed.

Results

In isolated SAVR, aortic cross clamp (ACC) time was shorter for Intuity (Magna Ease: 87, Intuity: 55, Inspiris: 70 min; Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p < 0.001; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p < 0.001). Overall mortality was 2 %, 1.7 % and 0.5 % in Magna Ease, Intuity and Inspiris groups, respectively (Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p = 0.476; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p = 0.395); permanent pace-maker implantation rate was lower for Inspiris (Magna Ease: 6 %, Intuity: 6 %, Inspiris: 2 %; Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p = 0.679; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p < 0.001). Median mean gradients were 13, 10 and 10 mmHg for Magna Ease, Intuity and Inspiris, respectively (Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p < 0.001; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p = 0.13).

Conclusions

All study devices provide excellent early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Inspiris shows low rates of permanent pace-maker implantation and its transaortic gradients are similar to rapid-deployment valves and lower than Magna Ease.

Introduction of the Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve System Use in Elderly Patients With Endocarditis

Introduction

The rapid-deployment valve system (RDVS) was introduced to facility minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. In this study we evaluate the potential benefits of RDVS in elderly high-risk patients with endocarditis of the aortic valve.

Materials and Methods

Since the introduction of RDVS in our institution in December 2017 through October 2021, EDWARDS INTUITY rapid-deployment prosthesis (Model 8300A, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) has been implanted in a total of 115 patients for different indications by a single surgeon. Out of one-hundred and fifteen cases of RDVS implantation, seven patients with a median age of 77 yrs. (range 62-84yrs.), suffered from active infective endocarditis of the aortic valve. The median EuroSCORE II of these highly selected patient cohort was 77% (range 19-80%). Patient data were evaluated perioperatively including intra-operative data as well as in-hospital morbidity/mortality and follow-up after discharge from hospital.

Results

Three patients underwent previous cardiac surgery. Concomitant procedures were performed in six patients including, ascending aorta replacement (n = 3), mitral valve repair (n = 1), pulmonary valve replacement (n = 1), bypass surgery (n = 1), left atrial appendix resection (n = 1) and anterior mitral valve repair (n = 1). Median aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 56 min (range 29-122 min) and 81 min (range 45-162 min.), respectively. Post-operative complications in these elderly high-risk patients were atrial fibrillation (n = 3) and re-exploration for pericardial effusion (n = 1). One pacemaker implantation was required on postoperative day 6 due to sick sinus syndrome. There was one in-hospital death (14%) and one during follow-up (14%).

Conclusion

Rapid-deployment aortic valve system seems to be a viable option with acceptable morbidity and mortality in elderly high-risk patients with active infective endocarditis of the aortic valve.

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

Are Sutureless Aortic Valves Suitable for Severe High-Risk Patients Suffering from Active Infective Aortic Valve Endocarditis?

Background

Sutureless aortic valves were introduced to facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve surgery. Since sutureless aortic valves are a feasible procedure, we evaluated if any benefits could be identified in severe high-risk patients with active infective endocarditis of the aortic valve.

Material/Methods

Between April 2014 and April 2015, a total of 42 patients received a sutureless Perceval^® aortic valve (Sorin Biomedica Cardio Srl, Saluggia, Italy) for different indications. Nine of these patients (median age 71 years, range 47–83 years) suffered from active infective endocarditis, including four patients with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis. Five patients underwent prior cardiac surgery, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The median EuroSCORE II was 29.5% (range 16.8–87.7%). Post-operatively, data regarding mortality, operative results, and early operative morbidity were collected.

Results

There were no cases of 30-day mortality. Four patients needed abscess closure with pericardium. Three patients underwent left atrial appendix closure: one left ventricular thrombectomy, one bypass grafting, and one arch replacement. Median aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 35 minutes (range 26–88 minutes) and 52 minutes (range 40–133 minutes), respectively. The median intubation time was 14 hours (range 1–9 hours). In these high-risk patients, no postoperative morbidity was found except for one re-intubation due to extensive delirium and one re-exploration. No pacemaker implantation was needed. Echocardiographic evaluation showed no central or para-valvular regurgitation, and a median discharge mean gradient of 5.5 mm Hg (range 2.5–10.0 mm Hg).

Conclusions

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in very high-risk patients suffering from active infection endocarditis seems to be an option with limited morbidity and appropriate echocardiographic results, however, further studies are needed.

International Expert Consensus on Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves in Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive Approaches

Objective

To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach.

Results

No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed tomographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs.

Conclusions

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.

Initial Experience with Aortic Valve Replacement via a Minimally Invasive Approach: A Comparison of Stented, Stentless and Sutureless Valves

Background

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of MIS-AVR among 3 different types of biological heart valves.

Material/Methods

Complete data were obtained from 79 patients who underwent MIS-AVR between January 2010 and June 2015. Patients were divided into 3 groups: 27 patients (group A) received Medtronic 3f^® (Medtronic Inc., Fridley, MN, USA), 36 patients (group B) received DokimosPlus^® (LabCor Laboratórios Ltda., Belo Horizonte, Brazil) and 16 patients (group C) received Perceval^® (Sorin Biomedica Cardio S.r.l., Saluggia VC, Italy) valves.

Operative and postoperative parameters such as duration of operation, bypass time, duration of ventilation, morbidity, and mortality were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Hemodynamic assessment with transthoracic echocardiography was performed before discharge.

Results

The EuroSCORE II ranged between 0.67 and 6.94 with no significant difference between the groups. The median operative time was 166 min (range 90–230 min) in total, with significantly shorter times in group C (120 min [range 90–200]). The median total ventilation time was significantly lower in group C and significantly higher in group A. Hemodynamic evaluation demonstrated a mean maximal velocity (v_max) over the aortic valve of 2.3 m/s (range 0.9–4.3 m/s) with average mean and peak pressure gradient values of 10 mmHg (range 3–24 mmHg) and 20 mmHg (range 5–42 mmHg), respectively. Group A showed the highest values for v_max (H>5.99).

No significant difference was found regarding duration of hospitalization. Mortality was 3%.

Conclusions

In conclusion, all 3 valves showed good perioperative results, satisfying hemodynamic performance, and low complication rates.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement with Perceval bioprosthesis: are there predicting factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation?

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless bioprostheses has become an alternative to conventional AVR for patients with intermediate to high operative risk. However, this technique is associated with an increased risk of postoperative conduction disorders.

METHODS

We analysed 258 patients who underwent AVR with the Perceval prosthesis from July 2010 to September 2014 at our centre. Electrocardiography were obtained at baseline to record preoperatively the presence of conduction disorders. Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative procedures and complications (61 variables) were compared between patients with permanent pacemaker (PPM group) and without (no-PPM group) need for postoperative PPM implantation.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-nine patients underwent isolated AVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis, 89 patients had associated surgery and 23 patients underwent redo operations. The mean age was 77.7 ± 5 years, 139 patients were female (46%) and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 13.2 ± 11%. At baseline, 8 patients had already an implanted pacemaker. Postoperatively, 27 patients (10.5%) required new PPM implantation due to complete atrioventricular block. On univariate analysis, age (PPM vs no-PPM group: 80 ± 5 vs 77 ± 5 years, P = 0.009) and preoperative presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB) [overall n = 20 (7.8%); PPM vs no-PPM group: 9 vs 11 (33 vs 4.8%); P < 0.001] were identified as independent predictors of postoperative conduction disorders, but only pre-existing RBBB persisted on multivariate analysis (odds ratio 11.3-C-statistic 0.74, error estimate 0.064, confidence interval 0.672-0.801; P = 0.0002). Among patients undergoing sutureless AVR, the rate of PPM implantation was high.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the data collected made it possible to identify preoperatively a subset of patients undergoing sutureless AVR at higher risk of postoperative atrioventricular block. Additional surgical precautions should be implemented to prevent the occurrence of conduction disorders after sutureless AVR.