Sutureless aortic valves: who is the right patient?

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.

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.

An alternative approach for complicated prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis

Background

Surgical treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) with destruction of the aortic root and aortomitral continuity is demanding even in experienced hands.

Case presentation

Herein, we describe a case of a 71-year-old female patient who presented with PVE that was further complicated by a fistulous abscess cavity. The patient underwent removal of the dehisced prosthetic valve, radical annular debridement, reconstruction of the aortomitral curtain with a pericardial patch as a patch exclusion technique and implantation of a sutureless valve.

Conclusion

Patch exclusion technique, followed by sutureless valve implantation, might represent a feasible and safe alternative for the surgical treatment of complicated PVE.

Rapid deployment valves versus conventional tissue valves for aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Rapid deployment valves have been developed as a means to adjust for limitations in transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for the management of aortic valve disease. To date, many studies have shown that although rapid deployment valves facilitate a shorter surgical aortic valve replacement, they offer no clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of rapid deployment valves with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing tissue aortic valve replacement at a single center. The majority of patients were men and aged more than 60 years. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: (1) rapid deployment valves and (2) conventional sutured valve. Inverse probability treatment weighting method was used to create a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences in outcomes. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 2237 patients made up the study population from 2013 to 2019. After inverse probability treatment weighting, there were 295 patients in each group. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were found with the rapid deployment valves. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary and secondary outcomes. There was a significant difference in the rate of permanent pacemaker insertion with a 7% pacemaker rate in the rapid deployment valve group (P < .009).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that rapid deployment valves offer no benefit in straightforward aortic valve replacement, and further study will help identify which patient population the valve is suited for.

Surgical technique modifies the postoperative atrioventricular block rate in sutureless prostheses

Background

The main objective was to analyse the impact of the modification of the Perceval S implantation technique on the prevalence of postoperative atrioventricular block, which requires a permanent pacemaker, in our aortic valve replacement series. In addition, we attempted to identify those risk factors that are related to the appearance of this complication.

Methods

Five hundred and seventy-two valve replacements were carried out with PERCEVAL S in our centre up to July 2018. Use of modified technique (n=302). Minimally invasive approach (n=340). Associated coronary surgery (n=95). Patients with pacemakers prior to surgery (n=27) and associated mitral or tricuspid valve surgery (n=26) were excluded. We analysed variables of interest that could influence the increase in postoperative atrioventricular block. Technique performed, disorders of intraventricular conduction and pre/intraoperative characteristics. The influence of the modified technique was analysed.

Results

Five hundred and nineteen aortic valve replacements with PERCEVAL S. Age (years) (median 77, interquartile range 8). Height (cm) (159, 13.5). Euroscore II (%) (2.25, 2.27). Postoperative atrioventricular block standard technique (n=23, 10.14%). Modified technique (n=14, 4.30%) (P=0.009). Multivariate regression analysis. Final model AUC =0.740, maximum model AUC =0.774 (P>0.05). Includes: Technique used (P=0.024), height (P=0.043) and disorders of interventricular conduction, right bundle branch block (P=0.005), trifascicular block (P=0.008).

Conclusions

In our experience, the modified technique significantly decreases the incidence of postoperative atrioventricular block that requires a permanent pacemaker in the aortic valve replacement with PERCEVAL S. The prior electrocardiographic presence of right bundle branch block, trifascicular block and the height of the patient are associated with an increased risk of blocking.

Ten-year experience with the Perceval S sutureless prosthesis: lessons learned and future perspectives

Aortic stenosis has traditionally been addressed with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). In recent years, several technologies have emerged as alternative treatment methods for aortic valve disease. Among them, the Perceval (LivaNova, London, UK) is a sutureless valve that has been used in clinical practice for over 10 years. It has been implanted in over 20,000 patients worldwide. With nearly 600 Perceval implants since 2011, the Montreal Heart Institute has developed a worldwide expertise with this technology. In this article, we provide an overview of the clinical data currently available in the literature and discuss the lessons we have learned from our experience with the Perceval prosthesis.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in high risk patient groups

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) aims to preserve the sternal integrity and improve postoperative outcomes. In low risk patients, this technique can be achieved with comparable mortality to the conventional approach and there is evidence of possible reduction in intensive care and hospital length of stay, transfusion requirement, renal dysfunction, improved respiratory function and increased patient satisfaction. In this review, we aim to asses if these benefits can be transferred to the high risk patient groups. We therefore, discuss the available evidence for the following high risk groups: elderly patients, re-operative surgery, poor lung function, pulmonary hypertension, obesity, concomitant procedures and high risk score cohorts.