Sutureless bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: Surgical and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The aging population and the increase in comorbidities urge the development of safer alternatives to the current surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis has shown promising results, especially in complex procedures and in patients requiring concomitant surgeries.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the clinical and hemodynamic performance, safety, and durability of the Perceval® prosthetic valve.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data from all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval® prosthetic valve between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients included (mean age 77.20 ± 5.08 years; 45.4% female; mean EuroSCORE II 2.91 ± 2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 33.31 ± 14.09 min and 45.55 ± 19.04 min, respectively. Mean intensive care unit and hospital stay were 3.32 ± 3.24 days and 7.70 ± 5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 98.99%, as two explants occurred. Four valves were reimplanted due to intraoperative misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82 ± 3.62 mmHg. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, new-onset atrial fibrillation in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary for 3.1%. Early mortality was 2.0%. We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes, or endocarditis, and one successfully treated valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the excellent clinical and hemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, up to a 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable option for the treatment of isolated aortic valve disease.

[Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the Medical Curricula in Portugal: A Cross-Sectional Analysis]

INTRODUCTION

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has gained relevance as a method of prevention for HIV in certain people and settings. Following the publication of the guideline on PrEP prescribing in Portugal, we aimed to assess the knowledge of Portuguese Medical Students about PrEP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online survey was sent to Medical students of Portuguese Medical Schools. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the results and an analytic cross-sectional study to identify factors associated with "knowing about PrEP", "having had one class about PrEP" and "identifying eligible groups correctly".

RESULTS

Of the 796 students that responded to the survey, 64.6% were aware of what PrEP is. Of these, 34.44% acquired this knowledge during their training. Out of the total amount of respondents, 4.77% could identify correctly and completely the eligible groups for PrEP. As the training years went by, the probability of being aware of PrEP, having had one class about PrEP, and identifying the eligible groups correctly, increased. Of the sixth-year students, 43.48% had had one class about PrEP and among the students that were aware of PrEP, 28% identified what the eligible groups were. After adjusting for the school year, we found differences between Medical Schools regarding the outcomes. The association between the different ways of learning about PrEP and the ability to correctly identify eligible groups for PrEP was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The differences between Medical Schools could be harmonized through changes in the medical curricula that would allow this topic to be addressed more often.

Sutureless bioprosthesis as an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement surgery

Background

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The ageing population and the rising in comorbidities have urged the development of safer alternatives to the current gold standard surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis have shown promising results, especially in technically difficult procedures and as more and more patients need concomitant surgeries.

Purpose

Assess clinical and haemodynamic performance, safety and durability of the sutureless bioprosthesis implanted in patients with aortic valve disease, over a period of 5 years, both in isolated aortic valve replacement surgeries as well as in concomitant procedures.

Methods

Single centre retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data of all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients analysed (mean age 77.20±5.08 years; 45.40% were female; mean logistic EuroSCORE 2.91±2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis. To assess the comparative risk of adding concomitant procedures, patients were divided into two groups and compared: one comprised patients who underwent isolated valve implantation (n=132) and the other patients who had concomitant coronary artery bypass graftings (n=49). 15 patients had other heterogeneous concomitant procedures and were therefore not considered in this comparison.

Results

Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 45.50±19.04 and 36.50±11.40 minutes, respectively. 4 valves were reimplanted due to misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82±3.62 mmHg. Mean ICU and total hospital stay were 3.32±3.20 and 7.70±5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 99%, as two explantations occurred. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, atrial fibrillation de novo in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary in 3.1%. Early mortality was 0.51%. We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes or endocarditis and one successfully treated valve thrombosis. By comparison, patients with concomitant procedures had worse left ventricular function (40.8 vs 79.5%; p=0.030), longer aortic clamping (43.33±11.60 vs 27.30±8.10 minutes; p<0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (59.98±17.60 vs 37.45±11.30 minutes; p<0.001), as expected. ICU stay after surgery was also longer (3.96±3.20 vs 2.80±2.70 days; p=0.016). Apart from this, there were no other significant differences in postoperative complications and survival, even up to 5 years.

Conclusion

Our study confirms the excellent clinical and haemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, even up to the 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent both in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable treatment of isolated aortic valve disease, and now also in patients needing concomitant procedures.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.