Continuous Suture Technique for Aortic Valve Replacement Shortens Cross-Clamp and Bypass Times

The use of pledget-reinforced sutures during surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Literature presents conflicting results on the pros and cons of pledget-reinforced sutures during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to investigate the effect of pledget-reinforced sutures versus sutures without pledgets during SAVR on different outcomes in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A literature search was performed in five different medical literature databases. Studies must include patients undergoing SAVR and must compare any pledget-reinforced with any suturing technique without pledgets. The primary outcome was paravalvular leakage (PVL), and secondary outcomes comprised thromboembolism, endocarditis, mortality, mean pressure gradient (MPG) and effective orifice area (EOA). Results were pooled using a random-effects model as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) for which the no pledgets group served as reference.

Results

Nine observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was critical in seven studies, and high and moderate in two other. The pooled RR for moderate or greater PVL was 0.59 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.13, 2.73). The pooled RR for mortality at 30-days was 1.02 (95 % CI 0.48, 2.18) and during follow-up was 1.15 (95 % CI 0.67, 2.00). For MPG and EOA at 1-year follow-up, the pooled MDs were 0.60 mmHg (95 % CI -4.92, 6.11) and -0.03 cm2 (95 % CI -0.18, 0.12), respectively.

Conclusions

Literature on the use of pledget-reinforced sutures during SAVR is at high risk of bias. Pooled results are inconclusive regarding superiority of either pledget-reinforced sutures or sutures without pledgets. Hence, there is no evidence to support or oppose the use of pledget-reinforced sutures.

Continuous or interrupted pledgeted suture technique in stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a comparison of in-hospital outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is ambiguity in the literature regarding the continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR). At our center, there has been a gradual shift towards CST over the interrupted pledgeted technique (IPT). This study aims at comparing outcomes for both techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center study of patients undergoing AVR between January 2011 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Continuous suture technique and interrupted pledget-reinforced sutures. The pre-operative and In-hospital clinical characteristics and echocardiographic hemodynamics (i.e. transvalvular gradients and paravalvular leakage) were compared between CST and IPT.

RESULTS

We compared 791 patients with CST to 568 patients with IPT (median age: 73 and 74 years, respectively, p = 0.02). In CST there were 35% concomitant procedure vs. 31% in IPT (p = 0.16). Early mortality was 3.2% in CST versus 4.8% in IPT (p = 0.15), and a second cross-clamp due to a paravalvular-leak in 0.5% vs. 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.22). The CST was not associated with new-onset conduction-blocks mandating pacemaker implants(OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.14; P = 0.85). The postoperative gradients on echocardiography were lower in CST compared to IPT, especially in smaller annuli (peak gradients: 15.7mmHg vs. 20.5mmHg, in valve size < 23 mm, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The continuous suture technique was associated with lower postoperative gradients and shorter cross-clamp time compared to interrupted pledgeted technique. Differences in paravalvular leaks were non-significant, although slightly less in the continuous suture technique. There were no further differences in valve-related complications. Hence, continues suture technique is safe, with better hemodynamics compared to the interrupted pledgeted technique. This may be of clinical importance, especially in smaller size annular size.

Clinical Equivalence of Trubond® and Ethibond® Braided Polyester Sutures for Valvular Prosthesis Fixation During Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Paravalvular leak (PVL) following valve replacement is a serious cardiovascular complication that increases morbidity and mortality. Valve replacement with the interrupted suture technique using polyester suture provides adequate tensile strength and reduces the probability of tissue reaction. This study compared the clinical equivalence of Trubond®(Healthium) and Ethibond® (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson) braided polyester sutures for valvular prosthesis fixation using interrupted suturing, with respect to the proportion of subjects having PVL after aortic valve (AV) or mitral valve (MV) replacement. Methodology Patients undergoing AV/MV replacement were enrolled and randomized in this study. The primary endpoint of this prospective, multicentric, two-arm, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, single-blind study (December 2020-October 2022) was the presence of PVL in Trubond® (n = 40) and Ethibond® (n = 42) groups within 26 weeks of surgery. The secondary endpoints included event rate of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, re-hospitalization, re-intervention, wound infection, operative time, intraoperative suture parameters, postoperative hospital stay, time to resume normal activities and work, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and adverse events in both groups. Results Patients who underwent AV/MV replacement and were followed up until 26 weeks had no incidence of PVL or other postoperative complications. No requirement for readmission or re-intervention was noted in both groups. Intraoperative suture handling characteristics, operative time, and hospital stay were also comparable between the groups. With each follow-up, subjects in both groups exhibited improved postoperative functional abilities, quality of life, and health status. Conclusions Trubond® braided polyester suture is clinically equivalent to Ethibond® braided polyester suture. Trubond® suture is safe and effective for valvular prosthesis fixation in patients undergoing AV or MV replacement.

Aortic valve biologic protheses: A cohort comparison of premature valve failure

BACKGROUND

Recent reports suggest an increased rate of early structural valve degeneration (SVD) in the Trifecta bioprosthesis (Abbott Cardiovascular). We sought to compare the intermediate-term outcomes of the Magna (Edwards Life Sciences) and Trifecta valves.

METHODS

All surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVRs) with Trifecta or Magna/Magna Ease bioprostheses at an academic medical center were extracted from an institutional database. Patients who survived until after discharge (2011-2019) were included. The primary outcome was valve failure for any reason requiring reintervention or contributing to death, identified by reintervention or review of cause of death. Time to failure was estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox Proportional Hazards Modeling.

RESULTS

Out of 1444 patients, 521 (36%) underwent Trifecta and 923 (64%) underwent Magna implantation with a median follow-up of 27.6 months. Trifecta patients had larger median valve size (25 vs. 23 mm, p < .001) and lower median gradient (8.0 vs. 10.9 mmHg, p < .001). Trifecta patients had higher 48-month estimated failure rates (20.2 ± 7.6% vs. 2.6 ± 0.7%, p < .0001), with failure rates of 21.4 versus 9.2 failures per 1000 person-years (p < .001). After risk-adjustment, Trifecta patients had a 5.3 times hazard of failure (95% confidence interval: 2.78-12.34, p < .001) compared to Magna patients. Only Trifecta valves failed due to sudden aortic regurgitation, 8 out of 521 (1.5%).

CONCLUSION

Despite lower postoperative mean gradients, the Trifecta bioprosthesis may have an increased risk of intermediate-term SVD. Further research is warranted to confirm the potential for sudden valve failure.

An ex vivo evaluation of two different suture techniques for the Ozaki aortic neocuspidization procedure

 

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the Ozaki procedure using a single interrupted suture technique (SST) and compared this with the standard continuous suture technique (CST) with regard to hydrodynamic valve performance. In addition, both techniques were compared with the native aortic valve (NAV).

METHODS

Effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient and leakage volume were evaluated in the NAV as well as after an Ozaki procedure using SST or CST in fresh swine aortic roots using a mock circulation loop. The NAV, SST and CST were evaluated under 4 defined hydrodynamic conditions.

RESULTS

Both suture techniques resulted in a similar effective orifice area under all conditions [for stroke volume of 70 ml: SST: 1.50 (1.35-1.87) vs CST: 1.57 (1.41-1.72) cm2, P = 0.8] and there were no significant differences between both suture techniques and the NAV (P > 0.05). Regarding mean pressure gradient, the Ozaki procedure with SST and CST showed no significant differences [7.23 (5.53-8.91) vs 7.04 (6.65-7.60) mmHg, P = 0.72] and there was no significant difference between both suture techniques and the NAV (P > 0.1). In leakage volume, there was no significant difference between SST and CST [4.49 (3.91-4.99) vs CST: 4.23 (3.58-4.87) ml/stroke, P = 0.34].

CONCLUSIONS

The Ozaki procedure with SST performed similarly to that with CST with regard to hydrodynamic performance. Our results suggest that the Ozaki procedure can be performed with SST instead of CST, which may be useful in patients with limited surgical exposure, such as a small annulus.

Continuous Suture Technique for Aortic Valve Replacement: Technical Considerations and Controversies

Continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a simple, secure, and fast surgical technique that has been shown to significantly decrease cross clamp time and cardiac bypass time, ultimately resulting in decreased myocardial ischemic injury, operation time, and hospital stay. However, previous studies have reported increased risk of periprosthetic regurgitation with CST for AVR. We describe our technique for AVR using CST in 100 patients with low complication rate and no perioperative paravalvular aortic insufficiency.