Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: A clinical and economic analysis

Clinical Midterm Results of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with Sutureless Valves

Background

Sutureless aortic valves may enable shorter procedure times, which benefits patients with elevated surgical risk. We describe the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the sutureless Perceval aortic bioprosthesis.

Methods

Data from a retrospective cohort were obtained from a clinical database. The study enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent surgical AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis between August 2015 and December 2020. In total, 113 patients were included (mean age, 75.3±8.4 years; 57.5% women; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 9.7%; mean follow-up period, 51.19±20.6 months). Of these patients, 41 were octogenarians (36.2%) and 3 were nonagenarians (2.6%). Transthoracic echocardiography was employed to assess changes in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and mean pressure gradient (MPG).

Results

The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.6%, and 13 patients developed new-onset atrial fibrillation. A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 3 patients (2.6%). The median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2 days), and the median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR, 9.5-15 days). The overall survival rate at 5 years was 95.9%. LVMI and MPG were reduced postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period. No structural valve deterioration was observed, and no meaningful paravalvular leakage developed during follow-up.

Conclusion

The use of a sutureless valve in the aortic position is safe and feasible, even for high-risk elderly patients requiring surgical AVR. LVMI and MPG decreased postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period.

An Analysis of Early Results after Valve Replacement in Isolated Aortic Valve Stenosis by Using Sutureless vs. Stented Bioprostheses: A Single-Center Middle-Income Country Experience

Background and Objectives: There is a lack of data about the survival of patients after the implantation of sutureless relative to stented bioprostheses in middle-income settings. The objective of this study was to compare the survival of people with isolated severe aortic stenosis after the implantation of sutureless and stented bioprostheses in a tertiary referral center in Serbia. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all people treated for isolated severe aortic stenosis with sutureless and stented bioprostheses from 1 January 2018 to 1 July 2021 at the Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases "Dedinje". Demographic, clinical, perioperative and postoperative data were extracted from the medical records. The follow-up lasted for a median of 2 years. Results: The study sample comprised a total of 238 people with a stented (conventional) bioprosthesis and 101 people with a sutureless bioprosthesis (Perceval). Over the follow-up, 13.9% of people who received the conventional and 10.9% of people who received the Perceval valve died (p = 0.400). No difference in the overall survival was observed (p = 0.797). The multivariate Cox proportional hazard model suggested that being older, having a higher preoperative EuroScore II, having a stroke over the follow-up period and having valve-related complications were independently associated with all-cause mortality over a median of 2 years after the bioprosthesis implantation. Conclusions: This research conducted in a middle-income country supports previous findings in high-income countries regarding the survival of people with sutureless and stented valves. Survival after bioprosthesis implantation should be monitored long-term to ensure optimum postoperative outcomes.

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.

Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement

Objectives

Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.

Methods

A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity‐matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).

Results

Random‐effects meta‐analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−1.35, −1.20], p < .001) and cross‐clamp times (SMD: −1.05, 95% CI: [−1.12, −0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: −0.385, 95% CI: [−0.679, −0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow‐up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05).

Conclusions

Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.

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.

A pooled analysis of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement

 

OBJECTIVES

We performed a literature meta-analysis to estimate the rate of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Pertinent articles were identified from the PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases. Eligible studies reported the de novo incidence of postoperative pacemaker implantation after Perceval valve surgery. Among 394 articles retrieved, 26 studies including 9492 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The pooled event rate for postoperative pacemaker implantation was 7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6-9%]; however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies. In a sub-analysis, there was no difference between the rates of pacemaker implantation calculated from multicentre and registry studies (8 studies, 6845 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-10%) and single-centre studies (18 studies, 2647 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-9%; P = 0.75). Implantation rates were similar in high-volume studies (16 studies, 9121 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-8%) than in low-volume studies (10 studies, 371 patients; pooled rate: 7%, 95% CI 4-14%; P = 0.5). Postoperative pacemaker implantation rates tended to decrease over time.

CONCLUSIONS

With a pooled event rate of 7%, postoperative pacemaker implantation remains an important limitation of Perceval sutureless valve surgery, although we observed a degree of variability across included studies. The resultant findings provide a useful estimate for physicians and patients and can serve as a benchmark for future comparative studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020188397.