Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.

Psychological Effects of Skin Incision Size in Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery Patients

Objective

Clinical benefits of minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery (MIVS) have been reported. Improved postoperative mental status was never analyzed with dedicated psychological tests. In the present study we intend to investigate potential benefits of MIVS for patient psychological well-being, with special attention to the relevance of the patient perception of the chest surgical scar, of the self body image and cosmetic aspects.

Methods

Between 2016 and 2017, 87 eligible patients, age 66.5 ± 14.5 years, operated on for heart valve surgery, underwent either conventional full sternotomy (CS; n = 48) or MIVS by V-shape hemi-sternotomy approach ( n = 39). Before selection of the surgical approach, patients had undergone preoperative evaluation of their psychological status using Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (STAI-Y), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) psychological tests. Six months postoperatively, patients filled in dedicated questionnaires to assess their psychological status, quality of life, and subjective perception, thus repeating the above-mentioned tests and adding the Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) v2.0 tests for scar-healing process evaluation.

Results

No patient died during the study.The 4 post-test scales of psychological well-being (BDI-II P = 0.04, STAI-Y P = 0.04, 2 indices of EQ-5D P = 0.03, P = 0.01) showed significant differences between the MIVS group and CS group, with MIVS-small incision patients having lower level of depression and anxiety symptoms and better quality of life. Mean score differences of scar perception (BIQ and POSAS v2.0) were significant, with MIVS patients having evaluated the scar quality significantly better than CS patients.

Conclusions

MIVS appears associated with significant esthetical and related psychological benefits, as documented by technical tests. These findings should be considered when selecting the most appropriate technique for heart valve surgery.

Rapid deployment or sutureless versus conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the early and follow-up outcomes of aortic valve replacement using rapid deployment or sutureless (RD) valves (RDAVR group) with aortic valve replacement using conventional bioprostheses (CAVR group).

METHODS

A literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and the secondary outcomes included the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and early mortality and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles (RDAVR group = 1297 patients; CAVR group = 1488 patients) were selected. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly shorter in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (mean difference, -26.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -31.86 to -20.82 and mean difference, -25.33; 95% CI, -30.79 to -19.87, respectively). The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of any paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion were significantly higher in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.53-3.51 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49-2.90, respectively). The pooled analysis showed that the risk of a paravalvular leak grade ≥2 in the RDAVR group did not significantly differ between the RDAVR and CAVR groups (RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.71-5.93). The risk of PPM insertion remained significant when only studies reporting adjusted outcomes were pooled. The risks of other postoperative complications, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up were not significantly different between the RDAVR and CAVR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDAVR is associated with significantly shorter ACC and CPB times than CAVR, although this difference did not translate into improved postoperative outcomes, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Care might be needed when implanting RD valves because they are associated with a higher incidence of PPM insertion, regardless of the RD valve type.

Rapid-deployment or transcatheter aortic valves in intermediate-risk patients?

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement represent two emerging therapies for patients with intermediate surgical risk and severe aortic stenosis. However, head-to-head comparisons between such novel therapies are lacking. Methods Severe aortic stenosis patients with intermediate surgical risk treated with rapid-deployment valve replacement at our institution were identified and compared with a propensity-matched population of patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Postoperative echocardiographic findings, in-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes were compared. Results We identified 60 patients who received transcatheter ( n = 30) or rapid-deployment ( n = 30) valve replacement. On postoperative echocardiography, freedom from paravalvular regurgitation was higher in the rapid-deployment valve group ( p < 0.001), while postoperative mean transprosthetic gradient was lower in the transcatheter valve group ( p = 0.03). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required more frequently in transcatheter valve patients ( p = 0.01). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was more common in the rapid-deployment valve group ( p = 0.03). Hospital mortality was similarly low in both groups ( p = 0.33). At midterm follow-up, mortality was comparable ( p = 0.42) but the rapid-deployment valve group still had a lower degree of paravalvular regurgitation. Conclusions Transcatheter and rapid-deployment valve replacement are promising treatment options for patients with intermediate surgical risk. These two techniques are associated with specific patterns of prosthesis function and postoperative complications. Further evaluation of the clinical impact of these therapies in this patient population is needed.