Two alternative sutureless strategies for aortic valve replacement: a two-center experience

Thrombocytopenia Following Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the safety and performance of the Perceval valve for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at 1 year after undergoing aortic stenosis (AS) treatment, and its effect on significant declines in the platelet count during the immediate postoperative period.Methods and Results: Data were collected retrospectively for the initial 121 patients (median age 77 years; 47.1% females) who underwent Perceval sutureless AVR between May 2019 and July 2022. Implantation was successful in all (100%), with median cross-clamp and CPB times of 59 and 100 min, respectively. Postoperative thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50×103/μL) was noted in 80 (66.1%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed advanced age (>80 years), preoperative low platelet count (<200×103/μL), and a sternotomy approach as significant risk factors for postoperative thrombocytopenia. One (0.8%) patient died within 30 days after the procedure. The 2-year site-reported event rate was 14% (n=17) for all-cause mortality, 0.8% (n=1) for cardiac mortality, 4.1% (n=5) for stroke, and 1.7% (n=2) for endocarditis and valve-related reoperation; there were no instances of paravalvular leakage or structural valve deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombocytopenia was common after Perceval sutureless AVR, although its impact was not significant. Although Perceval sutureless AVR was found to be a safe and effective option, preoperative assessment of potential bleeding should be performed and the Perceval valve should not be used for patients with a high bleeding risk.

Mid-term follow-up after suture-less aortic heart valve implantation

Background

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valve disease in the adult population and its prevalence increases with age. Unfortunately, older age and comorbidities significantly increase mortality, operative risk and worsen prognosis. In recent years, sutureless bioprosthesis [sutureless-aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR)] has become an alternative to standard AVR or TAVI in high-risk patients. Compared to standard AVR, the advantages of SU-AVR include shorter valve implantation, shorter aortic cross clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and higher valve EOA with more favorable hemodynamic parameters. Good early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes have been reported in several studies. However, although early SU-AVR results reported in the literature are encouraging, there are few results of long term follow-up. The aim of this study is to present long term echocardiographic hemodynamic outcomes of the Enable sutureless bioprosthesis.

Methods

The first human implantation of the Enable sutureless bioprosthesis was performed on the 13th January, 2005 by the authors of this manuscript. From that time until July 2008, 25 patients underwent isolated SU-AVR implantation. The median preoperative logistic EuroSCORE was 1.92±0.17 [standard deviation (SD)] and the STS score was 2.96±2.73. Preoperatively, 65.4% of patients were in NYHA class III or IV, the peak/mean gradient transaortic gradient was 84.6/52.1 mmHg.

Results

After the SU-AVR procedure, the average peak/mean aortic gradients were respectively: 12.9/7.1 mmHg at the intraoperative time; 18.1/9.5 mmHg at 3-6 months; 18.3/9.6 mmHg at 11-14 months; 16.9/9.3 mmHg at 2 years; 15.3/8 mmHg at 3 years; 13.4/7.1 mmHg at 4 years; 16.7/8.9 mmHg at 5 years follow-up. Other hemodynamic echocardiographic parameters such as LVOT diameter, LVOT peak velocity, LVOT TVI, valve peak velocity and valve TVI were stable during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

In summary, sutureless bioprostheses are safe and effective treatments for valve stenosis with excellent outcomes and hemodynamic profile which remained stable during the follow-up period. The peak and mean gradients were 16.7 and 8.9 mmHg, respectively, over a 5-year follow-up period.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition that is easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum longitudinally down the centre ("median sternotomy") and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is generally well tolerated, but as less invasive options have become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access has raised safety concerns with regards to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, and manufacturers' websites from inception to July 2016, with no language limitations. We reviewed references of identified papers to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, trans-apical, trans-femoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. The quality of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology and results of patient-relevant outcomes were summarised in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven trials with 511 participants. These included adults from centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Egypt. We performed 12 comparisons investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy.There was no evidence of any effect of upper hemi-sternotomy on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.82; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no evidence of an increase in cardiopulmonary bypass time with aortic valve replacement performed via an upper hemi-sternotomy (mean difference (MD) 3.02 minutes, 95% CI -4.10 to 10.14; participants = 311; studies = 5; low quality). There was no evidence of an increase in aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.95 minutes, 95% CI -3.45 to 5.35; participants = 391; studies = 6; low quality). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite end point.There was no evidence of an effect on length of hospital stay through limited hemi-sternotomy (MD -1.31 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.01; participants = 297; studies = 5; I2 = 89%; very low quality). Postoperative blood loss was lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -158.00 mL, 95% CI -303.24 to -12.76; participants = 297; studies = 5; moderate quality). The evidence did not support a reduction in deep sternal wound infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.30; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality) or re-exploration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.13; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; participants = 197; studies = 3; I2 = 70%; very low quality), but there was a small increase in postoperative pulmonary function tests with minimally invasive limited sternotomy (MD 1.98 % predicted FEV1, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.33; participants = 257; studies = 4; I2 = 28%; low quality). There was a small reduction in length of intensive care unit stays as a result of the minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy (MD -0.57 days, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.20; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was not reduced with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through limited compared to full sternotomy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.89; participants = 240; studies = 3; moderate quality), neither were postoperative ventilation times (MD -1.12 hours, 95% CI -3.43 to 1.19; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). None of the included studies reported cost analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.Considering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.There appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality-of-life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.

Perceval Sutureless Valve - are Sutureless Valves Here?

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) techniques, a renewed interest has developed in sutureless aortic valve concepts in the last decade. The main feature of sutureless aortic valve implantation is the speed of insertion, thus making implantation easier for the surgeon. As a result, cross clamp times and myocardial ischemia may be reduced. The combined procedures (CABG with AVR in particular) can be done with a short cross clamp time. Perceval valve also provides an increased effective orifice area as compared with a stented bioprosthesis. Sutureless implantation of the Perceval valve is not only associated with shorter cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times but improved clinical outcomes too. This review covers the sutureless aortic valves and their evolution, with elaborate details on Perceval S valve in particular (which is the most widely used sutureless valve around the globe).

Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has emerged as an innovative alternative for treatment of aortic stenosis. By avoiding the placement of sutures, this approach aims to reduce cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) duration and thereby improve surgical outcomes and facilitate a minimally invasive approach suitable for higher risk patients. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of SU-AVR approach in the current literature.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to January 2014. Relevant studies utilizing sutureless valves for aortic valve implantation were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified for inclusion of qualitative and quantitative analyses, all of which were observational reports. The minimally invasive approach was used in 40.4% of included patients, while 22.8% underwent concomitant coronary bypass surgery. Pooled cross-clamp and CPB duration for isolated AVR was 56.7 and 46.5 minutes, respectively. Pooled 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 2.1% and 4.9%, respectively, while the incidences of strokes (1.5%), valve degenerations (0.4%) and paravalvular leaks (PVL) (3.0%) were acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of current observational evidence suggests that sutureless aortic valve implantation is a safe procedure associated with shorter cross-clamp and CPB duration, and comparable complication rates to the conventional approach in the short-term.