Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies

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.

Right anterior mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation in octogenarians: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the early outcomes of octogenarians undergoing minimally invasive right anterior mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement (RAT-AVR) with those undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic valve disease.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, data were collected from octogenarians before and after RAT-AVR and TAVI between January 2021 and July 2022. Short-term outcomes, including the length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, all-cause mortality, and other major postoperative complications, were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, stroke, acute kidney dysfunction requiring renal replacement therapy, length of intensive care unit stay, or length of hospital stay. However, the TAVI group had a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker insertion (10% vs. 0%, p=0.54) and paravalvular leaks (75% vs. 0%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the present study on octogenarians, both TAVI and RAT-AVR showed comparable short-term results. Although both procedures were considered safe and effective in the selected group, RAT-AVR had a lower incidence of complete atrioventricular block and paravalvular regurgitation.

Ten-Year Long-Term Analysis of Mechanical and Biological Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

 For patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), structural valve deterioration (SVD) of a bioprosthesis (BP) is substantially accelerated in younger patients and valve-in-valve implantation is not always a considerable option. The risk-benefit assessment between SVD versus the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients with a mechanical prosthesis (MP) resulted in an age limit shift irrespective of inconsistent results reported in literature.

METHOD

 This retrospective single-center study compared 10-year long-term outcomes in patients undergoing isolated AVR with MP or BP. The risk-adjusted comparison of patients undergoing isolated AVR (n = 121) was performed after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, endocarditis, and chronic renal impairment (caliper of 0.2) leading to 29 pairs. Short- and long-term outcomes with respect to reoperation, major bleeding, stroke, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and overall survival at 10 years were analyzed.

RESULTS

 After PSM, groups were comparable with respect to preoperative characteristics, including patients with a mean age of 65 ± 3 years (MP) and 66 ± 4 years (BP) and an incidence rate of 6.9% for infective endocarditis in both cohorts. Short-term outcomes (transient neurologic disorder = 0.0 vs. 6.9%; stroke = 0.0%; in-hospital mortality = 3.4%) and in-hospital stays were comparable between MP and BP.

CONCLUSION

 After isolated AVR with MP and BP, 10-year long-term outcomes were comparable in the reported single-center cohort. MP can still be implanted safely without a disadvantage as regards long-term survival.

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.

The Evolving Role of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Valvular Procedures

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the standard treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative; it was initially intended for high-risk patients and has now expanded its use to patients of all risk groups. While TAVR has demonstrated promising outcomes in diverse patient populations, uncertainties persist regarding its long-term durability and potential complications, raising the issue of the ideal lifetime management strategy for patients with AS. Therefore, SAVR continues to play an important role in clinical practice, particularly in younger patients with longer life expectancies, those with complex aortic anatomy who are unsuitable for TAVR, and those requiring concomitant surgical procedures. The choice between TAVR and SAVR warrants personalized decision-making, considering patient characteristics, comorbidities, anatomical considerations, and overall life expectancy. A multidisciplinary approach involving an experienced heart team is crucial in the preoperative evaluation process. In this review, we aimed to explore the current role of surgical management in addressing aortic valve stenosis amidst the expanding utilization of less invasive transcatheter procedures.

Single-Center Real-World Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Isolated and Combined Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Due to their favourable hemodynamic performance and the ability to enable minimally invasive access procedures, sutureless aortic valve prostheses have found their place in the armamentarium of cardiothoracic surgeons. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients who underwent an SU-AVR with a Perceval valve between December 2019 and February 2023.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 69.3 ± 8.1 years, and patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a mean logistic EuroSCORE-II of 5.2 ± 8.1%. An isolated SU-AVR was performed in 85 (42.5%) patients, concomitant CABG was performed in 75 (37.5%) and 40 patients (20%) underwent a multivalve procedure involving SU-AVR. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp (CC) times were 82.1 ± 35.1 and 55.5 ± 27.8 min, respectively. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 4.5%, 6.5%, 7.5% and 8.2%, respectively. The postoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradient was 6.3 ± 1.6 mmHg and stayed stable over the follow-up time. We reported no cases of paravalvular leakage, and the incidence of stroke was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

With their favourable hemodynamic performance and shorter CC and CPB times, sutureless aortic valve prostheses facilitate minimally invasive access surgery, being a safe and durable promising approach for the surgical AVR.

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.

Conventional Biological versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Prostheses in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have proven to provide a significant decrease in procedural, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, leading to a significant reduction in mortality risk in elderly high-risk cohorts. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience on the sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and the concomitant mitral valve replacement (SMVR), comparing the combined conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with SMVR.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Between March 2018 and July 2022, 114 consecutive patients underwent a combined aortic and mitral valve replacement at our institution. We stratified the patients according to the operative procedures into two groups and matched them 1:2: Group 1 underwent a combined conventional SAVR and SMVR (n = 46), and Group 2 included combined SU-AVR with Perceval prosthesis and SMVR (n = 23).

RESULTS

No significant differences in the preoperative characteristics were present. SU-AVR combined with SMVR demonstrated excellent haemodynamic performance, comparable to that of SAVR plus SMVR, with median postoperative gradients over the aortic valve of 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 1 and 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 2 (p = 0.67). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative major adverse events such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction and kidney failure between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the permanent pacemaker implantation rate, paravalvular leakage or valve dislocation. We also could not detect any significant difference in postoperative mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SU-AVR has proven to be a reliable alternative to conventional valve prostheses in patients with multivalve disease undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, offering shorter procedural time and outstanding hemodynamic performance compared to the conventional surgical method.

Early pacemaker insertion after aortic valve replacement with an Edwards Intuity sutureless valve

BACKGROUND

Postoperative conduction disorders are serious adverse events in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and may prolong the duration of hospitalization and require pacemaker insertion.

AIM

Our aim was to evaluate the rate of pacemaker insertion after implantation of an Edwards Intuity sutureless aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) compared with a standard surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This retrospective single-centre study included patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with an Intuity sutureless aortic valve or a standard bioprosthetic valve between 4 June 2014 and 27 June 2016. The main outcome criterion was the rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion. Secondary outcome criteria included the rate of new conduction disorders, the rate of atrial arrhythmia or paroxysmal conduction disorders, mortality and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients received an Intuity sutureless aortic valve (median age 76 years, interquartile range 71-80 years), and 176 were implanted with a standard biological aortic valve (median age 73 years, interquartile range 68-79 years; P=0.007). The rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion, after adjustment, was 22.44% in the Intuity group and 5.66% in the standard aortic valve group (P=0.030). The main indications for postoperative pacemaker insertion were complete atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block with prolongation of the H-V interval. The rate of new postoperative left bundle branch block conduction disorders was significantly higher in patients implanted with an Intuity valve (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 23.05; P=0.012).

CONCLUSION

Higher rates of pacemaker insertion and new conduction disorders were observed in patients implanted with an Intuity sutureless bioprosthesis compared with those who received a standard surgical aortic valve.

The hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable aortic bioprostheses in the elderly: a comparison between rapid deployment and transcatheter implantation

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid deployment valve (RDV) is a relatively recent treatment option. Aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable (BE)-RDVs and BE-transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in a high surgical risk and frail-elderly population.

METHODS

BE-THVs and BE-RDVs were respectively implanted in 138 and 47 patients, all older than 75 years and with a Canadian Study of Health and Aging category of 5 or above. Echocardiographic assessment was performed at discharge and at six months.

RESULTS

At discharge, transprosthetic pressure gradients and indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) were similar in both cohorts. At six-month follow-up, BE-RDV showed lower peak (14.69 vs 20.86 mmHg; p <0.001) and mean (7.82 vs 11.83 mmHg; p <0.001) gradients, as well as larger iEOA (1.05 vs 0.84 cm²/m²; p <0.001). Similar findings were also shown considering only small sized valves. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage was more prevalent in BE-THVs at discharge (14.49 vs 0.00%; p=0.032) and, considering exclusively small prostheses, at six months too (57.69 vs 15.00%; p=0.014). Nevertheless, BE-THVs determined amelioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (53.79 vs 60.14%; p <0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (35.81 vs 33.15 mmHg; p=0.042) and tricuspid regurgitation severity (40.58 vs 19.57%; p=0.031) from discharge to mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-RDVs showed better hemodynamic performance, especially when implanted in small annulus. Despite their worse baseline conditions, transcatheter patients still exhibited a greater improvement of their echocardiographic profile at mid-term follow-up.

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.

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.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 320 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n=254) or SU-AVR (n=66) at Severance Cardiovascular Hospital between July 2011 and September 2019 were included for analysis. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighted adjustment were performed to adjust for confounding baseline characteristics. Outcomes defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 in 62 patients pairs were compared.

RESULTS

Device success (79.0% vs. 79.0%, p>0.999) and 30-day mortality (4.8% vs. 0.0%, p=0.244) did not differ between the TAVR and SU-AVR groups. The TAVR group developed more frequent mild or moderate paravalvular leakage (59.7% vs. 8.1%, p<0.001), whereas SU-AVR was associated with higher rates of major or life-threatening bleeding (9.7% vs. 22.6%, p=0.040), acute kidney injury (8.1% vs. 21.0%, p=0.041), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (4.8% vs. 32.3%. p<0.001) at 30 days, along with longer stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) (1.9±1.6 days vs. 5.9±9.2 days, p=0.009) and hospital (7.1±7.9 days vs. 13.1±8.8 days, p<0.001). The TAVR group showed a trend towards a higher 1-year all-cause mortality, compared with the SU-AVR group (7.0% vs 1.7%, p=0.149). Cardiovascular mortality, however, did not differ significantly (1.6% vs 1.7%, p=0.960).

CONCLUSION

TAVR achieved a similar 1-year survival rate free from cardiovascular mortality as SU-AVR and was associated with a lower incidence of complications, except for paravalvular leakage, and shorter stays in the ICU and hospital.

Minimally-invasive versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review with meta-analysis of propensity-matched studies

Background

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MiAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide aortic valve replacement (AVR) by less invasive methods than conventional surgical AVR, by avoiding complete sternotomy. This study directly compares and analyses the available evidence for early outcomes between these two AVR methods.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing MiAVR to TAVI, according to predefined search criteria. Propensity-matched studies with sufficient data were included in a meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies with 9,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Analysis of risk-matched patients showed no difference in early mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.37–1.54, P=0.44). MiAVR had a signal towards lower rate of postoperative stroke, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13). MiAVR had significantly lower rates of new pacemaker (PPM) requirement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16–0.52, P<0.0001) and postoperative aortic insufficiency (AI) or paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01–0.20, P<0.0001) compared to TAVI, (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.13–1.29, P=0.13), while acute kidney injury (AKI) was higher in MiAVR compared to TAVI (11.1% vs. 5.2%, OR 2.28, 95% CI, 1.25–4.16, P=0.007).

Conclusions

In patients of equivalent surgical risk scores, MiAVR may be performed with lower rates of postoperative PPM requirement and AI/PVL, higher rates of AKI and no statistical difference in postoperative stroke or short-term mortality, compared to TAVI. Further prospective trials are needed to validate these results.

Rapid deployment valves versus conventional tissue valves for aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Rapid deployment valves have been developed as a means to adjust for limitations in transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for the management of aortic valve disease. To date, many studies have shown that although rapid deployment valves facilitate a shorter surgical aortic valve replacement, they offer no clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of rapid deployment valves with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing tissue aortic valve replacement at a single center. The majority of patients were men and aged more than 60 years. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: (1) rapid deployment valves and (2) conventional sutured valve. Inverse probability treatment weighting method was used to create a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences in outcomes. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 2237 patients made up the study population from 2013 to 2019. After inverse probability treatment weighting, there were 295 patients in each group. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were found with the rapid deployment valves. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary and secondary outcomes. There was a significant difference in the rate of permanent pacemaker insertion with a 7% pacemaker rate in the rapid deployment valve group (P < .009).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that rapid deployment valves offer no benefit in straightforward aortic valve replacement, and further study will help identify which patient population the valve is suited for.

A meta-analysis comparing transaxillary and transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background

While transfemoral (TF) approach is considered as the default access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the alternative access route of choice remains to be elucidated. Transaxillary (TAx) approach has shown promise as an excellent option. We performed a meta-analysis of the studies comparing the TF and TAx approaches using one type of self-expandable transcatheter valve to avoid device-related bias.

Methods

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2018 to identify articles comparing TAx-TAVR and TF-TAVR. The studies included in this meta-analysis contain data related to the use of the CoreValve device. Patients' baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and clinical outcomes were extracted from the articles and pooled for analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis included five studies comprising 1,414 patients in the TF group and 489 patients in the TAx group. The average EuroScores of the TF and TAx groups were 20.04±13.89 and 22.73±14.73, respectively. The TAx group has higher rates of major comorbidities. No difference was found between the two groups with regard to vascular complications (P=0.71; OR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.71-1.65), aortic regurgitation (P=0.90; OR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.71-1.49), and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation (P=0.42; OR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.46). The TAx group has a lower incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) (P=0.05; OR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.62). No difference was observed in 30-day mortality (P=0.32; OR 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.17) or 1-year mortality (P=0.21; OR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.50-1.16).

Conclusions

TAx-TAVR is associated with overall comparable outcomes to TF TAVR in high-risk patient cohorts, despite higher incidences of major comorbidities in the TAx-TAVR patient population. The rate of AKI appears to be lower after TAx-TAVR.

Surgical technique modifies the postoperative atrioventricular block rate in sutureless prostheses

Background

The main objective was to analyse the impact of the modification of the Perceval S implantation technique on the prevalence of postoperative atrioventricular block, which requires a permanent pacemaker, in our aortic valve replacement series. In addition, we attempted to identify those risk factors that are related to the appearance of this complication.

Methods

Five hundred and seventy-two valve replacements were carried out with PERCEVAL S in our centre up to July 2018. Use of modified technique (n=302). Minimally invasive approach (n=340). Associated coronary surgery (n=95). Patients with pacemakers prior to surgery (n=27) and associated mitral or tricuspid valve surgery (n=26) were excluded. We analysed variables of interest that could influence the increase in postoperative atrioventricular block. Technique performed, disorders of intraventricular conduction and pre/intraoperative characteristics. The influence of the modified technique was analysed.

Results

Five hundred and nineteen aortic valve replacements with PERCEVAL S. Age (years) (median 77, interquartile range 8). Height (cm) (159, 13.5). Euroscore II (%) (2.25, 2.27). Postoperative atrioventricular block standard technique (n=23, 10.14%). Modified technique (n=14, 4.30%) (P=0.009). Multivariate regression analysis. Final model AUC =0.740, maximum model AUC =0.774 (P>0.05). Includes: Technique used (P=0.024), height (P=0.043) and disorders of interventricular conduction, right bundle branch block (P=0.005), trifascicular block (P=0.008).

Conclusions

In our experience, the modified technique significantly decreases the incidence of postoperative atrioventricular block that requires a permanent pacemaker in the aortic valve replacement with PERCEVAL S. The prior electrocardiographic presence of right bundle branch block, trifascicular block and the height of the patient are associated with an increased risk of blocking.

Cost-utility of surgical sutureless bioprostheses vs TAVI in aortic valve replacement for patients at intermediate and high surgical risk

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implants (TAVIs) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) show differing effectiveness and safety profiles. The approaches also differ in their surgical cost (including operating room and device).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the incremental cost-utility of SU-AVR vs TAVIs for the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk patients in the US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Australia.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation compares in-hospital pathways of patients undergoing SU-AVR or TAVIs; later, patient history is modeled at the cohort level. Hospital outcomes for TAVIs reproduce data from recent series; in SU-AVR patients, outcomes are obtained by applying relative efficacy estimates in a recent meta-analysis on 1,462 patients. After discharge, survival depends on the development of paravalvular leak and the need for dialysis. A comprehensive third-party payer perspective encompassing both in-hospital and long-term costs was adopted.

RESULTS

Due to lower in-hospital (4.1% vs 7.0%) and overall mortality, patients treated with SU-AVR are expected to live an average of 1.25 years more compared with those undergoing TAVIs, with a mean gain of 1.14 quality-adjusted life-years. Both in-hospital and long-term costs were lower for SU-AVR than for TAVIs with total savings ranging from $4,158 (France) to $20,930 (US).

CONCLUSION

SU-AVR results dominant when compared to TAVIs in intermediate- to high-risk patients. Both in-hospital and long-term costs are lower for SU-AVR than for TAVI patients, with concomitant significant gains in life expectancy, both raw and adjusted for the quality of life.

Ten-year experience with the Perceval S sutureless prosthesis: lessons learned and future perspectives

Aortic stenosis has traditionally been addressed with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). In recent years, several technologies have emerged as alternative treatment methods for aortic valve disease. Among them, the Perceval (LivaNova, London, UK) is a sutureless valve that has been used in clinical practice for over 10 years. It has been implanted in over 20,000 patients worldwide. With nearly 600 Perceval implants since 2011, the Montreal Heart Institute has developed a worldwide expertise with this technology. In this article, we provide an overview of the clinical data currently available in the literature and discuss the lessons we have learned from our experience with the Perceval prosthesis.

Comparison of hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of transcatheter and sutureless aortic bioprostheses: how to make the right choice in intermediate risk patients

Current surgical treatment options for aortic valve stenosis (AS), as alternatives to that of conventional operation with a midline sternotomy, include sutureless valve replacement (SUAVR) and transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI). Patients with high surgical risk, or those who are judged to be inoperable, are typically good candidates for the TAVI procedure. The best treatment option in patients with an intermediate risk profile, however, the so called "grey zone", is still currently under debate. Sutureless aortic valve replacement has been recently presented as a valid alternative for patients with low- to intermediate-risk. Data available on prostheses' hemodynamic performance and patients' clinical outcomes play a crucial role in the process of device selection. Compared to TAVI, SUAVR provides lower rate of significant postoperative paravalvular leak (PVL), which has shown to be a predictor for mortality. On the contrary, transcatheter valves seem to perform better in terms of transvalvular mean and peak gradients. Therefore, SUAVR and TAVI are both reliable options in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis, as an alternative to conventional surgery, and the choice of the best device should be tailored to patient's anatomical and surgical characteristics.