Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients

Sutureless Aortic Prosthesis Valves versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Intermediate Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Literature Review

Aortic stenosis remains the most frequently occurring valvular pathology in the elderly population of Western countries. According to the latest guidelines, the therapeutic choice of aortic stenosis depends on the age of the patient (<75 years or >75 years) and the risk class (STS-Prom/Euroscore II < o >4%). Therefore, if the surgical indication is clear in young and low-risk patients and percutaneous treatment is the gold standard in older and high-risk patients, the therapeutic choice is still debated in intermediate-risk patients. In this group of patients, aortic valve stenosis treatment depends on the patient's global evaluation, the experience of the center, and, no less importantly, the patient's will. Two main therapeutic options are debated: surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In addition, the progressive development of mininvasive techniques for aortic valve surgery (right-anterior minithoracotomy) has also reduced the peri- and post-operative risk in this group of patients. The purpose of this review is to compare sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus TAVI in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

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.

Minimally Invasive Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has arisen as a viable alternative to surgery. Similarly, minimally invasive surgical aortic valve replacement (mini-SAVR), such as ministernotomy and minithoracotomy, have also gained interest. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to further investigate the efficacy of TAVR versus mini-SAVR.

METHODS

Medical databases were comprehensively searched for studies comparing TAVR with a mini-SAVR modality, defined as minimally invasive aortic surgery, ministernotomy, minithoracotomy, or rapid-deployment or sutureless SAVR. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using the generic inverse variance method. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, midterm mortality, 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), paravalvular leak (PVL), new permanent pacemaker (PPM), new-onset atrial fibrillation, and postintervention mean and peak valve pressure gradients and were pooled as risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 5,071 patients (2,505 mini-SAVR vs 2,566 TAVR) from 12 studies were pooled. Compared with TAVR, mini-SAVR showed significantly lower rates of both 30-day (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.96, P = 0.03) and midterm mortality at 4 years of follow-up (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.87, P < 0.001). Furthermore, mini-SAVR was protective against 30-day PVL (RR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.13, P < 0.001) and new PPM (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.57, P < 0.001). Conversely, TAVR was protective against 30-day AKI (RR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.32, P = 0.002) and postinterventional mean gradients (MD = 1.65, 95% CI: 0.25 to 3.05, P = 0.02). No difference was observed for 30-day stroke (RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.24, P = 0.38), new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 0.93 to 3.44, P = 0.08), or postinterventional peak gradients (MD = 3.24, 95% CI: -1.10 to 7.59, P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TAVR, mini-SAVR was protective against 30-day and midterm mortality, 30-day PVL, and new permanent pacemaker, while TAVR patients had lower 30-day AKI. Future randomized trials comparing the efficacy of mini-SAVR approaches with TAVR are needed.

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.

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.

A survey of cardiac surgeons to evaluate the use of sutureless aortic valve replacement in Canada

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is gaining popularity for the treatment of aortic stenosis. We aimed to describe Canadian cardiac surgeons' practice patterns and perceptions regarding SuAVR.

METHODS

Content experts (clinicians and methodologists) developed the survey. Domains in the questionnaire include: respondent characteristics, factors influencing the decision to implant a SuAVR, barriers to SuAVR use, and interest in participating in a trial.

RESULTS

A total of 66 cardiac surgeons (median duration of practice: 15 years; range 8-20 years) from 18 hospitals across Canada responded to the survey for a response rate of 84%. Surgeons reported that the following patient characteristics increased the likelihood they would choose SuAVR: hostile root (73%), small annular size (55%), high Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (42%), older age (40%), to support minimally invasive surgery (25%) and redo-operation (23%). The following patient characteristics made surgeons less likely to pursue SuAVR: young age (73%), low STS score (40%), and large annular size (30%). Reported barriers to SuAVR use included: cost (33%), permanent pacemaker risk (27%) and uncertain durability (12%). Of respondents, 73% were interested in participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing SuAVR with transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary reasons for surgeons selecting SuAVR were high surgical risk and anatomical challenges. Cost is a primary factor limiting SuAVR use.

Comparison of Sutureless Bioprosthetic Valve With Surgical or TAVR for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background

Clinical advantages of sutureless rapid-deployment (RD) aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) have not been elucidated compared with surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement.

Objectives

This study sought to investigate comparative effectiveness and safety of RD-AVR compared with SAVR and TAVR in a prospective cohort of patients with severe AS.

Methods

The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 12 months. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics.

Results

Among 1,020 eligible patients, 107 (10.5%) underwent RD-AVR, 437 (42.8%) underwent SAVR, and 476 (46.7%) underwent TAVR. In the matched cohorts of RD-AVR and SAVR (n = 107), the incidence of primary composite outcome at 12 months was similar between the 2 groups (8.0% vs 10.8%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-1.84; P = 0.52). In the matched cohorts of RD and TAVR (n = 58), the incidence of primary composite outcome at 12 months did not statistically differ between the 2 groups (9.4% vs 16.2%, respectively; HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.18-1.57; P = 0.25).

Conclusions

In this propensity-matched cohort of patients who underwent AVR for severe AS, we did not detect significant differences in the rates of the primary composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 12 months when comparing RD-AVR with SAVR and TAVR. Because the study was underpowered, the results should be considered as hypothesis generating highlighting the need for further research. (ASAN Medical Center Aortic Valve Replacement Registry [ASAN-AVR]; NCT03298178)

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk patients: A case of rational over exuberance. The time is not now

BACKGROUND

Review of evidence and concerns, relating to extension of transcatheter aortic valve implantation usage to low-risk patients.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature review was conducted identifying articles relating to transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

RESULTS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is effective in patients with aortic stenosis. Currently, long-term durability and cost-effectiveness are unproven, anticoagulation requirement undefined, permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak rates higher than following surgical aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supporting transcatheter aortic valve implantation usage in low-risk patients is insufficient. Extending use now, to this large young patient population is premature, and should be delayed.

Minimally invasive surgery versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently been approved for use in patients who are at intermediate and low surgical risk. Moreover, recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miAVR). The present meta-analysis compared the outcomes of TAVR and miAVR in the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We conducted an electronic search across six databases from 2002 (TAVR inception) to December 2019. Data from relevant studies regarding the clinical and length of hospitalisation outcomes were extracted and analysed using R software. We identified a total of 11 cohort studies, of which seven were matched/propensity matched. Our analysis demonstrated higher rates of midterm mortality (≥1 year) with TAVR (risk ratio (RR): 1.93, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.22), but no significant differences with respect to 1 month mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.81), stroke (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.87) and bleeding (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.56 to 3.75) rates. Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to experience paravalvular leakage (RR: 14.89, 95% CI: 6.89 to 32.16), yet less likely to suffer acute kidney injury (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.69) compared with miAVR. The duration of hospitalisation was significantly longer in the miAVR group (mean difference: 1.92 (0.61 to 3.24)). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment revealed ≤moderate quality of evidence in all outcomes. TAVR was associated with lower acute kidney injury rate and shorter length of hospitalisation, yet higher risks of midterm mortality and paravalvular leakage. Given the increasing adoption of both techniques, there is an urgent need for head-to-head randomised trials with adequate follow-up periods.

Video-Assisted Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Minithoracotomy for All Comers With Aortic Valve Disease

OBJECTIVE

Right anterior minithoracotomy is a promising technique for aortic valve replacement and has shown excellent results in terms of mortality and morbidity. Against this background, we analyzed our institutional experience in this technique during the last 3 years.

METHODS

Between April 2017 and March 2019, 513 consecutive all comers with aortic valve disease underwent video-assisted minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a 3-cm skin incision as right anterior minithoracotomy at our institution. A camera and automatic fastener technology were used for the valve implantation in all patients. Clinical data were prospectively entered into our institutional database.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary bypass time accounted for 68 ± 24 min and the myocardial ischemic time 38 ± 12 minutes. Thirty-day mortality and overall mortality was 0.4% (2 patients) and 1.4% (7 patients), respectively. Postoperative cerebrovascular events were noted in 8 patients (1.5%). Intensive care stay and hospital stay were 2 ± 2 and 9 ± 7 days, respectively. Pacemaker implantation, injury of the right internal mammary artery, and conversion to full sternotomy were noted in 7 patients (1.4%), 3 patients (0.6%), and 1 patient (0.2%), respectively. Paravalvular leak need to intervention was noted in 2 patients (0.4%). Rethoracotomy rate was 2% (11 patients). Transient postoperative dialysis was necessary for 14 patients (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Video-assisted minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through the right anterior minithoracotomy is a safe approach and yields excellent outcomes in high-volume centers. The use of a camera and automatic fastener technology facilitates this procedure.

Long-term outcomes of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has become a prominent area of research as the medical community evaluate its place amongst other aortic valve interventions. The main advantages of SURD-AVR established to date are the reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, as well as facilitating minimally invasive surgery in high-risk surgical patients. This current systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, is the first focusing on long-term outcomes regarding safety, efficacy and durability of SURD-AVR from available current literature.

Methods

A literature search via six electronic databases was performed from their inception to November 2019. Inclusion criteria for this systematic review included survival and postoperative echocardiographic outcomes greater than five years in patients who underwent SURD-AVR with either Perceval or Intuity valves. Studies were identified and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Long-term survival outcomes were aggregated using digitized Kaplan-Meier curves where available.

Results

After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, four studies were identified for review. All four studies were observational and in total reported data for 1,998 patients. Almost half (42.4%) of patients underwent SURD-AVR via full sternotomy, with almost one third (30.1%) also undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures. Aggregate overall survival rates at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up were 94.9%, 91.2%, 89.0%, and 84.2%, respectively. Incidence of strokes (4.8%), severe paravalvular leaks (PVLs) (1.5%) and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (8.2%) at up to 5-year follow-up were acceptable. At 5-year follow-up hemodynamic outcomes were also acceptable for mean pressure gradient (MPG) (range, 8.8-13.6 mmHg), peak pressure gradient (PPG) (range, 18.9-21.1 mmHg) and effective orifice area (EOA) (range, 1.5-1.8 cm²).

Conclusions

Evaluation of the evidence reporting long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR suggests that it is a safe procedure for AVR with low rates of complications. Long-term outcomes presented in this review show that not only does SURD-AVR have acceptable survival rates, but also good hemodynamic performance at 5-year follow-up.

Challenges and experience of setting up an aortic service

Aortic surgery is a complex procedure posing high risks in comparison to other adult cardiac surgeries. Novel surgical approaches including minimally invasive procedures, sutureless aortic valve replacement, and transcatheter aortic valve implantation have been found to be acceptable alternatives to conventional surgeries. In addition, novel endovascular repair techniques and hybrid procedures have been introduced for the management of patients with thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies. However, these modalities are not readily available in every center, and such novel procedures impose a learning curve for surgeons and high costs for affected patients. In this review, we discuss the challenges of setting up an aortic service, having regard to the Iranian experience.

Placement of a rapid deployment aortic valve in a patient with severely calcified aortic root homograft

Significant aortic calcification is a known sequelae of homograft aortic root replacement and creates a treatment challenge if these patients require cardiac reintervention. The standard surgical option for patients requiring an aortic valve replacement in the setting of a calcified aortic homograft has been a Bentall procedure, which is high-risk with extended cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass and operative times. We present a patient with a severely calcified aortic homograft who underwent successful valve replacement using a rapid deployment aortic valve leaving the aortic root and arch intact and avoiding the more extensive redo aortic root replacement. Similar cases in the literature are rare.