Sutureless and rapid deployment implantation in bicuspid aortic valve: results from the sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry

The Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve: Evolution of Surgical Valve Technology

OBJECTIVE

The surgical treatment of aortic stenosis continues to evolve, and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) is an emerging technology. With the Perceval S (Corcym, London, UK) as the only true sutureless valve on the market, the objective of this review is to analyze the current literature on Perceval S. Focusing on valve design and deployment as well as applications of the technology for challenging pathology, clinical outcomes are assessed, including a comparison with transcatheter AVR (TAVR).

METHODS

PubMed and MEDLINE were searched by 3 authors for studies analyzing SUAVR from inception to May 19, 2023.

RESULTS

SUAVR facilitates minimally invasive surgery and offers an alternative strategy for patients with small aortic annuli. It also has a time-saving advantage for patients who require complex operations. SUAVR results in excellent long-term morbidity, mortality, durability, and hemodynamic function. In comparison with conventional surgical AVR (SAVR), SUAVR does have a greater risk of postoperative pacemaker implantation; however, increasing user experience and refinements in implantation technique have contributed to reductions in this outcome. SUAVR results in morbidity and mortality that is similar to rapid-deployment AVR. Midterm outcomes are superior to TAVR; however, further robust investigation into all of these comparisons is ultimately necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

SUAVR bridges the gap in technology between SAVR and TAVR. The application of this exciting technology will undoubtedly grow in the coming years, during which additional investigation is paramount to optimize preoperative planning, valve deployment, and reintervention strategies.

Innovations in Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Overview of the Intuity Rapid Deployment Valve

Rapid deployment/sutureless (RDS) valves have recently emerged as an innovative surgical solution, providing an alternative to traditional methods of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by eliminating the need for suture placement and tying. This innovation leads to a reduction in aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, enhancing the efficiency of the procedure. Among the 2 available RDS valves, the Edwards Intuity valve in particular has been demonstrated to be a particularly promising substitute in the field of SAVR. The Intuity valve distinguishes itself from other RDS and conventional valves by yielding superior outcomes, such as a significant reduction in mortality, increase in the longevity of the valve, and a marked decrease in both mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients. These benefits collectively contribute to its appeal as a favorable new solution. However, further investigation is needed to conclusively determine the long-term outcomes and safety of RDS valves. Nevertheless, the utilization of the Intuity valve presents an exciting solution to the existing limitations of conventional and minimally invasive SAVR, especially for patients afflicted with severe aortic stenosis.

Comparable Outcomes of Bicuspid Aortic Valves for Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Edwards Intuity is recognized as a relatively contraindicated bioprosthesis for bicuspid aortic valve disease. This study compared the early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves.

Methods

Of 278 patients who underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement using Intuity at Seoul National University Hospital, 252 patients were enrolled after excluding those with pure aortic regurgitation, prosthetic valve failure, endocarditis, and quadricuspid valves. The bicuspid and tricuspid groups included 147 and 105 patients, respectively. Early outcomes and the incidence of paravalvular leak were compared between the groups. A subgroup analysis compared the outcomes for type 0 versus type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves.

Results

The bicuspid group had more male and younger patients. Comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease, were less prevalent in the bicuspid group. Early echocardiographic evaluations demonstrated that the incidence of ≥mild paravalvular leak did not differ significantly between the groups (5.5% vs. 1.0% in the bicuspid vs. tricuspid groups, p=0.09), and the early clinical outcomes were also comparable between the groups. In the subgroup analysis between type 0 and type 1 or 2 bicuspid valves, the incidence of mild or greater paravalvular leak (2.4% vs. 6.7% in type 0 vs. type 1 or 2, p=0.34) and clinical outcomes were comparable.

Conclusion

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valves demonstrated comparable early echocardiographic and clinical outcomes to those for tricuspid aortic valves, and the outcomes were also satisfactory for type 0 bicuspid aortic valves.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in a Real-World All-Comers Population

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR) using Edwards Intuity.

METHODS

A total of 215 patients underwent rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity at our institution. The median follow-up duration was 22 months (interquartile range, 8-36). Primary outcomes were overall survival, cumulative incidence of cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were early and 1-year hemodynamic performances of the bioprosthetic valve.

RESULTS

The mean age was 68.6 ± 10.5 years, and EuroSCORE II was 3.09 ± 4.5. The study population included 113 patients (52.6%) with bicuspid valves (24 patients with type 0 bicuspid valves), 20 patients (9.3%) with pure aortic regurgitation, and 3 patients (1.4%) with infective endocarditis. Isolated AVR was performed in 70 patients (32.4%) and concomitant procedures were performed in 146 patients (67.6%), including aorta surgery (42.3%) and mitral valve procedure (22.3%). Operative mortality was 2.8%. Complete atrioventricular block occurred in 12 patients, but most of them were transient and only 3 patients received permanent pacemaker implantation before discharge. Overall survival at 3 years was 92.3%. Early hemodynamic data showed mean pressure gradients of 15.5 ± 5.0 and 12.7 ± 4.2 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively. One-year hemodynamics were also excellent with mean pressure gradients of 14.7 ± 5.3 and 10.7 ± 3.6 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on a real-world all-comers population, rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity could be performed for various indications, including bicuspid valve, pure aortic regurgitation, and infective endocarditis, and the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were excellent.

Risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to identify risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, 101 consecutive participants who underwent isolated AVR with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis were included. Primary endpoint was analysis of all-cause mortality. We performed a propensity-adjusted analysis of patients undergoing redo sutureless vs redo sutured AVR to understand the impact of sutureless valves in redo operations.

RESULTS

Pre-operative characteristics included a mean age of 71.2-years, mean EuroScore II of 3.51 (±4.48), mean body mass index of 30.2 (±6.8). Mean follow-up was 1.5 years. Intraoperatively, mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were 65 ± 29.6 and 47.3 ± 21.3 min, respectively. Valve redeployment was necessary in 9.9 % of cases and there was one intraoperative death. There were two hospital deaths (including the operative death) while only one was cardiac related. Postoperatively, mean ejection fraction was 55.5 % (±4.1 %), mean effective orifice was 1.5 (±0.3) cm2, and mean transvalvular gradient was 14.7 (±4) mmHg. At 7-years follow-up, 87.9 % of patients were alive. Risk predictors for all-cause death were female sex and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) grade ≥ 2. After matching, aortic cross-clamp time, inotrope use, blood product transfusions, respiratory failure, and post-operative arrhythmias were higher in the redo sutured group compared to the sutureless redo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve implantations have good clinical outcomes. Risk predictors for all-cause death included female sex and LVDD grade ≥ 2.

Pacemaker after Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Prostheses: A Progress Report from the SURD-IR

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the need for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SuRD-AVR) in the context of a progress report from a large multicenter international registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 4,166 patients who underwent SuRD-AVR between 2008 and 2019. The primary outcome was the need for PPI before discharge. The study population was analyzed separately according to the implanted prostheses (Su cohort and RD cohort). Each cohort was divided into two groups based on the operation date: an early group ("EG" = 2008-2016) and a late group ("LG" = 2017-2019).

RESULTS

The rate of PPI decreased significantly in the Su cohort over time (EG = 10.8% vs LG = 6.3%, p < 0.001). In the Su cohort, a decrease in age, risk profile, and incidence of bicuspid aortic valve, increased use of anterior right thoracotomy, reduction of cardiopulmonary bypass time and of associated procedures, and more frequent use of smaller prostheses were observed over time. In the RD cohort, the rate of PPI was stable over time (EG = 8.8% vs LG = 9.3%, p = 0.8). In this cohort, a younger age, lower risk profile, and higher incidence of concomitant septal myectomy were observed over time.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed a significant decrease in the PPI rate in patients who underwent Su-AVR over time. Patient selection as well as surgical improvements and a more accurate sizing could be correlated with this phenomenon. The RD cohort revealed no significant differences either in patient's characteristics or in PPI rate between the two time periods.

A Comprehensive Review of Management Strategies for Bicuspid Aortic Valve (BAV): Exploring Epidemiology, Aetiology, Aortopathy, and Interventions in Light of Recent Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stands as the most prevalent congenital heart condition intricately linked to aortic pathologies encompassing aortic regurgitation (AR), aortic stenosis, aortic root dilation, and aortic dissection. The aetiology of BAV is notably intricate, involving a spectrum of genes and polymorphisms. Moreover, BAV lays the groundwork for an array of structural heart and aortic disorders, presenting varying degrees of severity. Establishing a tailored clinical approach amid this diverse range of BAV-related conditions is of utmost significance. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the epidemiology, aetiology, associated ailments, and clinical management of BAV, encompassing imaging to aortic surgery. Our exploration is guided by the perspectives of the aortic team, spanning six distinct guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted an exhaustive search across databases like PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and Embase to extract relevant studies. Our review incorporates 84 references and integrates insights from six different guidelines to create a comprehensive clinical management section.

RESULTS

BAV presents complexities in its aetiology, with specific polymorphisms and gene disorders observed in groups with elevated BAV prevalence, contributing to increased susceptibility to other cardiovascular conditions. The altered hemodynamics inherent to BAV instigate adverse remodelling of the aorta and heart, thus fostering the development of epigenetically linked aortic and heart diseases. Employing TTE screening for first-degree relatives of BAV patients might be beneficial for disease tracking and enhancing clinical outcomes. While SAVR is the primary recommendation for indicated AVR in BAV, TAVR might be an option for certain patients endorsed by adept aortic teams. In addition, proficient teams can perform aortic valve repair for AR cases. Aortic surgery necessitates personalized evaluation, accounting for genetic makeup and risk factors. While the standard aortic replacement threshold stands at 55 mm, it may be tailored to 50 mm or even 45 mm based on patient-specific considerations.

CONCLUSION

This review reiterates the significance of considering the multifactorial nature of BAV as well as the need for further research to be carried out in the field.

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.

Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm²) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

KEY QUESTION

What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

KEY FINDINGS

Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

KEY OUTCOMES

Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Sutureless or rapid deployment valves in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging surgical technique using the transcatheter valve technology, which may lead to reduction in cross-clamp time and potentially better hemodynamics compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve. The absence of subannular pledgets results to excellent hemodynamic performance with reduced turbulent flow and larger effective orifice area. However, complications from both surgical and transcatheter AVR may still occur and impact survival. The incidence of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation are not low. Although technical modifications can improve these outcomes, there is a learning curve effect. Therefore, technical and anatomical considerations as well as better patient selection are paramount for better outcomes. In this review, we discuss the use of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in setting of (1) complex procedures, (2) minimally invasive AVR, and (3) small aortic annulus. The advantage of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in terms of mortality remains to be clarified; therefore, it is necessary to accumulate long-term outcomes in an appropriate patient cohort.

Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis with and without Aortopathy: Considerations for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The treatment of aortic stenosis has evolved in recent years with the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a complementary strategy to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The majority of clinical trials to date have included only tricuspid aortic stenosis and excluded bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs). BAVs are associated with unique challenges related to their anatomy, clinical presentation, and association with aortopathy. BAV has a spectrum of phenotypes and the classification is still evolving. There have been no definitive clinical guidelines on triaging BAV patients towards TAVR or SAVR. Given that TAVR is moving from high-risk to low-risk patients and becoming more widely used in the treatment of BAV, there are many factors that must be considered. The aim of this article is to review the literature and present considerations for heart teams to discuss in order to offer patients the best lifetime management strategy for BAV stenosis.

The use of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve prosthesis in patients with bicuspid aortic valve: A focused review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to describe the postoperative outcomes and complications of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) treated with sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis.

BACKGROUND

The use of sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses is generally avoided in patients with BAV due to anatomical concerns and the elevated risk of para-prosthetic leaks. Multiple studies have reported the use of these prostheses into patients with BAV with varying degrees of success. The focus of this review is to consolidate the current available evidence on this topic.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy in multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials) for relevant articles. All abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirteen articles, including case reports and case series were ultimately included for analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1052 total citations, 44 underwent full text review and 13 (4 case reports, 6 retrospective analyses, and 3 prospective analyses) were included in the scoping review. Across all 13 studies, a total of 314 patients with BAV were used for data analysis. In sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses, the mean postoperative aortic valvular gradients were less than 15 mmHg in all studies with mean postoperative aortic valvular areas all greater than 1.3 cm.² There were 186 total complications for an overall complication rate of 59%. Individual complications included new onset atrial fibrillation (n = 65), required pacemaker insertion (n = 24), intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation (n = 20), new onset atrioventricular block (n = 18), and new onset paravalvular leakage (n = 10).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sutureless and rapid deployment prostheses in patients with BAV showed comparable intraoperative and implantation success rates to patients without BAV. Postoperative complications from using these prostheses in patients with BAV included new onset atrial fibrillation, intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation, new onset atrioventricular block, and required pacemaker insertion. Various techniques have been described to minimize these complications in patients with BAV receiving sutureless or rapid deployment prostheses.

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.

AIM

We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ² and t-test.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.

Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

Objective: To highlight the main target points covered by clinical studies on the Perceval sutureless valve for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and raise a point of discussion for further expansion of its use when compared with stented bioprostheses (SB) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods: We reviewed clinical trials and retrospective studies published up to date and compared the outcomes in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) stroke, paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding and long-term outcomes.

Results: Clinical studies showed that 30-day mortality ranged from 0–4% for Perceval and 2.9–7% for TAVR. The incidence of PVL (Perceval 1.9–19.4 vs. TAVR 9–53.5%), PPI (Perceval 2–11.2 vs. TAVR 4.9–25.5%), stroke (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–2.8%), MI (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–3.5%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0–6.4% for Perceval and 0–5.9% for SB. The incidence of PVR (Perceval 1–19.4 vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7 vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), stroke (Perceval 0–3.7 vs. SB 1.8–7.3%) and MI (Perceval 0–7.8 vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable among the groups. In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, mortality rate was (0–4%) and PVL incidence was (0–2.3%). However, there was a high incidence of PPI (0–20%), and stroke (0–8%). Long-term survival ranged between 96.7–98.6%.

Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its implantation speed, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, the reduced aortic cross-clamp time and the shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

Surgical pericardial heart valves: 50 Years of evolution

Valve disease carries a huge burden globally and the number of heart valve procedures are projected to increase from the current 300 000 to 800 000 annually by 2050. Since its genesis 50 years ago, pericardial heart valve has moved leaps and bounds to ever more ingenious designs and manufacturing methods with parallel developments in cardiology and cardiovascular surgical treatments. This feat has only been possible through close collaboration of many scientific disciplines in the fields of engineering, material sciences, basic tissue biology, medicine and surgery. As the pace of change continues to accelerate, we ask the readers to go back with us in time to understand developments in design and function of pericardial heart valves. This descriptive review seeks to focus on the qualities of pericardial heart valves, the advantages, successes and failures encapsulating the evolution of surgically implanted pericardial heart valves over the past five decades. We present the data on comparison of the pericardial heart valves to porcine valves, discuss structural valve deterioration and the future of heart valve treatments.

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

A new technique that prevents paravalvular leakage after aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve system

BACKGROUND

We report our 1-year single-center experience of a new technique of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve (RD-AVR) to avoid postoperative complications. We also report the unexpected pitfalls and handling techniques that we have seen in past cases.

METHODS

We performed aortic valve replacement on 38 patients between May 2019 and April 2020. Their mean age was 74 years. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and short-term results during a 1-year follow-up period, while the secondary outcomes were related to prosthetic valve function, especially paravalvular leakage (PVL). We further analyzed the relationship between the new technique and its outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 196 min. There were no in-hospital deaths, and the mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 11.8 days. Valvular measurements using three-dimensional computed tomography were larger and more accurate than those measured using ultrasonic echocardiography. Postoperative RD-AVR prosthetic valve function was excellent. However, PVL occurred in four cases 1 week and 1 year postoperatively and regurgitation did not improve. A gap associated with PVL was identified below the right-noncoronary commissure. To prevent PVL, we additionally stitched this gap in the later 18 cases; there was no case of PVL and no new pacemaker implantation in these cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PVL is more likely to occur if there is a gap below the R-N commissure, especially in cases with a large annulus; therefore, applying an additional stitch to the R-N commissure is extremely useful.