Midterm Outcomes Following Sutureless and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With 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.

Heart failure hospitalization following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk aortic stenosis

AIMS

In low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) may be an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population is incompletely characterized. This study aims to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of HFH in patients undergoing SU-SAVR versus TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients referred for AVR between 2013 and 2020 at two centres were consecutively included. The decision for SU-SAVR or TAVI was determined by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Cox regression and competing risk analysis were conducted to assess adverse events. Of 594 patients (mean age 77.5 ± 6.4, 59.8% male), 424 underwent SU-SAVR, while 170 underwent TAVI. Following a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 23.1 months, HFH occurred in 112 (27.8%) SU-SAVR patients and in 8 (4.8%) TAVI patients (P < 0.001). The SU-SAVR cohort exhibited higher all-cause mortality (138 [32.5%] patients compared with 30 [17.6%] in the TAVI cohort [P < 0.001]). These differences remained significant after sensitivity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline variables. SU-SAVR with HFH was associated with increased all-cause mortality (61.6% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Independent associates of HFH in SU-SAVR patients included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower glomerular filtration rate and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. SU-SAVR patients with HFH had a 12-month LVEF of 59.4 ± 12.7.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk AS, SU-SAVR is associated with a higher risk of HFH and all-cause mortality compared to TAVI. In patients with severe AS candidate to SU-SAVR or TAVI, TAVI may be the preferred intervention.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a single-centre cost analysis

AIMS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are both viable therapeutic interventions for aortic stenosis in elderly patients. Meta-analyses show similar all-cause mortality for both techniques albeit with a different pattern of adverse effects. This study means to compare costs and, to a lesser extent, clinical outcomes of both techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre analysis was performed for patients receiving SU-AVR or TAVI from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative clinical data were collected from patient files. Costs were assessed by a cost allocation tool. In an attempt to avoid confounding, propensity score matching was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 100) or SU-AVR (n = 268). After matching, there were 61 patients per treatment group. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SU-AVR group. Excluding device costs, total expenses for SU-AVR (median: €11,630) were significantly higher than TAVI (median: €9240). For both groups, these costs were mostly incurred on intensive care units, followed by nursing units. Non-medical staff was the largest contributor to expenses. Including device costs, SU-AVR (median: €14,683) was shown to be cost-saving compared to TAVI (median: €24,057).

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, we found SU-AVR to be cost-saving compared to TAVI, largely due to higher device costs associated with the latter. Excluding device costs, TAVI was associated with lower expenses and shorter length of stay. Non-medical staff was the largest source of costs, suggesting length of stay to be a major financial determinant.

Midterm Survival of Low-Risk Patients Treated With Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Background We performed a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR versus SAVR) to evaluate midterm outcomes in patients considered low risk for SAVR. Methods and Results Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of RCTs and PSM studies published by December 31, 2022 was conducted. Eight studies (3 RCTs, 5 PSM studies) met our eligibility criteria and included 5444 patients; 2639 patients underwent TAVR, and 2805 patients underwent SAVR. TAVR showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality at 8 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, [95% CI, 1.03-1.43], P=0.018). Up to 2 years of follow-up, TAVR was not inferior to SAVR (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.89-1.31], P=0.448); however, we observed a statistically significant difference after 2 years with higher mortality with TAVR (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14-2.00]; P=0.004). This difference was driven by PSM studies; our sensitivity analysis showed a statistically significant difference between TAVR and SAVR when we included only PSM studies (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.16-1.72], P=0.001) but no statistically significant difference when we included only RCTs (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.69-1.16], P=0.398). Conclusions In comparison with TAVR, SAVR appeared to be associated with improved survival beyond 2 years in low-risk patients. However, the survival benefit of SAVR was observed only in PSM studies and not in RCTs. The addition of data from ongoing RCTs as well as longer follow-up in previous RCTs will help to confirm if there is a difference in mid- and long-term survival between TAVR versus SAVR in the low-risk population.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment vs. Transcatheter Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients: Mid-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Recent trials showed that TAVI is neither inferior nor superior to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves (SuRD-AVR) when compared to TAVI in low surgical risk patients with isolated aortic stenosis.

METHODS

Data from five European Centers were retrospectively collected. We included 1306 consecutive patients at low surgical risk (EUROSCORE II < 4) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of SuRD-AVR (n = 636) or TAVI (n = 670) from 2014 to 2019. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score was performed, and two balanced groups of 346 patients each were obtained. The primary endpoints of the study were: 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. The secondary endpoint was 5-year survival freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was similar between the two groups (SuRD-AVR:1.7%, TAVI:2.0%, p = 0.779), while the TAVI group showed a significantly lower 5-year overall survival and survival freedom from MACCEs (5-year matched overall survival: SuRD-AVR: 78.5%, TAVI: 62.9%, p = 0.039; 5-year matched freedom from MACCEs: SuRD-AVR: 64.6%, TAVI: 48.7%, p = 0.004). The incidence of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and paravalvular leak grade ≥ 2 (PVL) were higher in the TAVI group. Multivariate Cox Regression analysis identified PPI as an independent predictor for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI patients had a significantly lower five-year survival and survival freedom from MACCEs with a higher rate of PPI and PVL ≥ 2 when compared to SuRD-AVR.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume CT protocol and TAVI-CT score for TAVI planning and outcome

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of an ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume protocol using third-generation dual-source (DS) CT for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) planning with coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment, coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and aortic valve calcium score (AVCS) quantification and to evaluate their relationship with TAVI outcome.

METHODS

In this retrospective study were selected 203 patients (131 males, 79.4 ± 5.4 years) underwent to TAVI and at 30- and 90-day follow-up. All patients had performed a third-generation 2 × 192-slices DSCT. The CT protocol included a non-contrast and a contrast high-pitch aortic acquisition for TAVI planning and CAD assessment. Semi-qualitative and quantitative image analysis were performed; the performance in CAD assessment was compared with ICA; the relationship between AVCS and CACS and paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) and major cardiovascular events (MACEs) were evaluated. Mean radiation dose were calculated. Non-parametric tests were used.

RESULTS

Semi-qualitative image analysis was good. Contrast enhancement >500 Hounsfield unit (HU) and contrast-to-noise ratio <20 were obtained in all segments. The diagnostic accuracy in CAD was 89.0%. AVCS was significantly higher in patients with 30-day severe PAR. AVCS and CACS were higher in patients with 90-day MACE complications, respectively, 1904.5 ± 621.3 HU (p < 0.0001) and 769.2 ± 365.5 HU (p < 0.0230). Mean radiation dose was 2.8 ± 0.3 mSv.

CONCLUSION

A TAVI planning ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume protocol using third-generation DSCT provides highly diagnostic images with CAD assessment, AVCS and CACS quantification and these latter were related with TAVI outcomes.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The proposed protocol using third-generation 2 × 192-slices DSCT allows with an ultra-low radiation dose and contrast volume the TAVI planning and the coronary artery assessment.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.