Hemodynamic assessment of Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis by dobutamine stress echocardiography

Sutureless Valve in Repeated Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from an International Prospective Registry

OBJECTIVE

To report early and midterm results registry of patients undergoing repeated aortic valve replacement (RAVR) with sutureless prostheses from an international prospective registry (SURE-AVR).

METHODS

Between March 2011 and June 2019, 69 patients underwent RAVR with self-expandable sutureless aortic bioprostheses at 22 international cardiac centers.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was 2.9% with a predicted logistic EuroSCORE II of 10.7%. Indications for RAVR were structural valve dysfunction (84.1%) and infective prosthetic endocarditis (15.9%) and were performed in patients with previously implanted bioprostheses (79.7%), mechanical valves (15.9%), and transcatheter valves (4.3%). Minimally invasive approach was performed in 15.9% of patients. Rate of stroke was 1.4% and rate of early valve-related reintervention was 1.4%. Overall survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 97% and 91%, respectively. No major paravalvular leak occurred. Rate of pacemaker implantation was 5.8% and 0.9% per patient-year early and at follow-up, respectively. The mean transvalvular gradient at 1-year and 5-year follow-up was 10.5 mm Hg and 11.5 mm Hg with a median effective orifice area of 1.8 cm²and 1.8 cm², respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RAVR with sutureless valves is a safe and effective approach and provides excellent clinical and hemodynamic results up to 5 years.

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients: A case-control study

Introduction: Aortic valve stenosis is the most frequent cardiac valve pathology in the western world. In high-risk patients, conventional aortic valve replacement (C-AVR) carries high rates of morbidity and mortality. In the last few years, rapid-deployment valves (RDV) have been developed to reduce the surgical risks. In this work, we aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes of rapid-deployment AVR (RD-AVR) with those of the C-AVR in high-risk patients.

Methods: This retrospective case-control study identified 23 high-risk patients who underwent RD-AVR between 12/2015 to 01/2018. The study group was compared with a control group of 46 patients who were retrospectively selected from a database of 687 C-AVR patients from 2016 to 2017 which matched with the study group for age and Euro SCORE II.

Results: RD-AVR group presented more cardiovascular risk factors. Euro SCORE II was higher in the RD-AVR group (P =0.06). In the RD-AVR group, we observed significantly higher mean prosthetic size (P <0.001). In-hospital mortality was zero in RD-AVR group versus 2 deaths in C-AVR group. Hospital stay was longer in the RD-AVR group with statistical significance (P =0.03). In the group AVR with associated cardiac procedures, while comparing subgroups RD-AVR versus C-AVR, early mean gradient was lower in the first cited (P =0.02). The overall mean follow-up was 10.9 ± 4.3 months.

Conclusion: The RD-AVR technique is reliable and lead to positive outcomes. This procedure provides a much larger size with certainly better flow through the aortic root. It is an alternative to C-AVR in patients recognized to be surgically fragile.

Perceval or Trifecta to Prevent Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch

The Trifecta aortic valve has excellent hemodynamics characteristics. Moreover, the Perceval prosthesis may achieve better hemodynamics than the conventional valves; therefore, it has been proposed to reduce the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Our aim was to compare the prevalence of this complication between both prostheses. All patients who underwent valve replacement with a Perceval or a Trifecta from 2016 to 2020 at our institution were included. We calculated the prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch for each prosthesis and size and performed a multinomial logistic regression model to investigate the impact of choosing one prosthesis over the other. A total of 516 patients were analyzed. Moderate mismatch was present in 33 (8.6%) in the Trifecta group and 28 (21.4%) in the Perceval group, p < 0.001. Severe mismatch was present in 8 (2.1%) patients with Trifecta and 5 (3.8%) patients with Perceval, p = 0.33. Compared with the Perceval, the Trifecta prosthesis was shown to reduce moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.02). Both prostheses led to a similar risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.9 (95% CI 0.3-2.8, p = 0.79). Both prostheses provide a very low risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. Compared with the Perceval prothesis, the Trifecta prosthesis is able to reduce by 50% the risk of moderate mismatch.