Minimally invasive rapid deployment Edwards Intuity aortic valve implantation

The Impact of Biomedical Engineering on the Development of Minimally Invasive Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

(1) We describe the boundary conditions for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) with the aim to reduce procedure-related patient injury and discomfort. (2) The analysis of the MICS work process and its demand for improved tools and devices is followed by a description of the relevant sub-specialties of bio-medical engineering: electronics, biomechanics, and materials sciences. (3) Innovations can represent a desired adaptation of an existing work process or a radical redesign of procedure and devices such as in transcutaneous procedures. Focused interaction between engineers, industry, and surgeons is always mandatory (i.e., a therapeutic alliance for addressing 'unmet patient or professional needs'. (4) Novel techniques in MICS lean heavily on usability and safe and effective use in dedicated hands. Therefore, the use of training and simulation models should enable skills selection, a safe learning curve, and maintenance of proficiency. (5) The critical technical steps and cost-benefit trade-offs during the journey from invention to application will be explained. Business considerations such as time-to-market and returns on investment do shape the cost-benefit room for commercial use of technology. Proof of clinical safety and effectiveness by physicians remains important, but establishing the technical reliability of MICS tools and warranting appropriate surgical skills come first.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation After Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from the RADAR Registry

INTRODUCTION

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement has been recently introduced in clinical practice. Different studies have reported a significant reduction in surgical times with excellent hemodynamic profiles and short-term results. However, an increase in permanent pacemaker requirements compared with conventional aortic valve replacement has been described. Nevertheless, risk factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation are not well known. The aim of this study is to report our early outcomes with rapid deployment aortic valve replacement within the RADAR Registry, especially focusing on risk factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and January 2016, 164 patients undergoing isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with Edwards INTUITY Elite (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) were included in the RADAR Registry. Pre-, intra- and postoperative clinical data results and complications were recorded, especially focusing on risk factors for the development of postoperative complete or high-grade AV block requiring pacemaker implantation. Patients were followed up for up to 1 year with evaluation of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 164 consecutive patients were included in this study, where 128 patients (78.05%) had an isolated aortic valve replacement (group 1) and 36 (21.95%) a concomitant procedure (group 2). The surgical approach was ministernotomy in 61 patients (37.20%) and median sternotomy in 100 patients (60.98%). Complications with valve implantation were observed in three patients. Postoperative complete or high-degree AV block requiring a permanent pacemaker implantation developed in ten patients (6.9%). Seven patients died in-hospital (4.27%). No significant differences between groups were found in terms of stroke, postoperative infection, mortality, atrial fibrillation and postoperative atrioventricular block. Seven patients presented acute renal impairment (5.51%) in group 1 versus seven patients (20%) in group 2 (p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, low weight and preoperative arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, bifascicular block, left bundle branch block) emerged as risk factors for postoperative AV block requiring a pacer. In median follow-up of 1 year, seven (4.27%) patients died, and no cases of structural valve deterioration or endocarditis were observed. Significant patient-prosthesis mismatch was found in seven (4.27%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Initial experience with rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in the RADAR Registry demonstrates low rates of implantation complications and good perioperative and 1-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. Incidence of postoperative AV block requiring a pacer correlated with low weight and preoperative arrythmias (atrial fibrillation, bifascicular block and left bundle branch block). Avoidance of oversizing and careful consideration of implantation of this technology in patients with pre-existing arrythmias could minimize the risk for postoperative pacemaker implantation.

Edwards Intuity Aortic Bioprosthesis in Patient with Bicuspid Aortic Valve

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is generally considered to be a contraindication to sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR). Implantation of the Edwards Intuity aortic bioprosthesis is an innovative approach associated with superior hemodynamic performance, significantly reduced myocardial ischaemia and cardiopulmonary bypass times and proves to be suitable for type 1 and 2 of bicuspid aortic valves replacement. We report a case of successful AVR using a fast deployment bioprosthesis,the Edwards Intuity Valve System, in a 67-year-old woman with a bicuspid aortic valve and concomitant severe aortic stenosis.