Midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve for aortic stenosis: TRANSFORM trial

Background

The use of rapid-deployment valves (RDVs) has been shown to reduce the operative time for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Long-term core laboratory-adjudicated data are scarce, however. Here we report final 7-year data on RDV use.

Methods

TRANSFORM was a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, single-arm trial implanting a stented bovine pericardial valve with an incorporated balloon-expandable sealing frame. A prior published 1-year analysis included 839 patients from 29 centers. An additional 46 patients were enrolled and implanted, for a total of 885 patients. Annual clinical and core laboratory-adjudicated echocardiographic outcomes were collected through 8 years. Primary endpoints were structural valve deterioration (SVD), all-cause reintervention, all-cause valve explantation, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic performance assessed by echocardiography. The mean duration of follow-up was 5.0 ± 2.0 years.

Results

The mean patient age was 73.3 ± 8.2 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 62.1% of the patients, and AVR with concomitant procedures was performed in 37.9%. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 7 years was 76.0% for isolated AVR and 68.2% for concomitant AVR. Freedom from SVD, all-cause reintervention, and valve explantation at 7 years was 97.5%, 95.7%, and 97.8%, respectively. The mean gradient and effective orifice area at 7 years were 11.1 ± 5.3 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.3 cm2, respectively. Paravalvular leak at 7 years was none/trace in 88.6% and mild in 11.4%. In patients undergoing isolated AVR, the cumulative probability of pacemaker implantation was 13.9% at 30 days, 15.5% at 1 year, and 21.8% at 7 years.

Conclusions

AVR for aortic stenosis using an RDV is associated with low rates of late adverse events. This surgical pericardial tissue platform provides excellent and stable hemodynamic performance through 7 years.

Conventional vs. Sutureless Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis: Is Faster Better?

Purpose: The benefits of sutureless compared to conventional aortic valve prosthesis replacement remain controversial. Supposed advantages of sutureless aortic valve replacement include shortened cross-clamp and implantation time, as well as improved overall safety and good post-operative performance. We aimed to compare the early outcomes and performance of sutureless aortic valve replacement (su-AVR) with the sutureless Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) vs. the conventional AVR with a conventional counterpart, in this case, the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. Methods: We compared two types of aortic valve prostheses, the sutureless (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and the conventional valve Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP), implanted between August 2014 and May 2019 in our Department of Cardiac Surgery at RWTH Aachen University Hospital. Data were collected from 141 patients who received the Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and 138 who received the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. After matching the two groups considering STS mortality risk and pre-operative LDH levels, 201 patients were included in our final study cohort. Seventy-one patients (17 from the Perceval group and 54 from the Dokimos group) were excluded due to the lack of complete data, particularly standardized echocardiographic data (n = 71). Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and pacemaker implantation. Secondary endpoints were echocardiographic parameters, major adverse cardiovascular events, and prosthesis failure (grade II aortic regurgitation, paravalvular leak with reintervention). Results: Bypass and cross-clamp time proved to be shorter in the Perceval group, while hospital stays were longer. The faster implantation had no effect on the 30-day mortality primary endpoint. Transvalvular gradients were significantly higher in the Perceval group, in addition to a smaller effective orifice area. The LDH values were remarkably higher post-operatively in the Perceval group. Conclusions: Regarding the clinical outcomes, Perceval was equivalent and not superior to the Dokimus bioprosthesis. The suitability of a Perceval prosthesis implantation must be determined on a case-by-case basis and reserved for elderly patients with increased comorbidity.

Sutureless valves versus aortic root enlargement for aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus: A systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Very few studies provide direct comparisons between aortic root enlargement and sutureless valve implantation in patients with a small aortic annulus who underwent aortic valve replacement. This study aims to provide comparative outcomes between the two in such a subset of patients, through a systematic review and pool analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases were searched using the appropriate terms. The data from original articles mentioning aortic root enlargement and sutureless valves in a single or comparative study with another group of patients with a small aortic annulus were pooled and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Both cardiopulmonary bypass (68.4 vs. 125.03 min, p < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in the sutureless valve group, along with a concomitantly higher number of minimally invasive surgeries. The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (9.76% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.00001), patient prosthesis mis-match and paravalvular leak was significantly higher in the sutureless valve group. In comparison, the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding was higher in the aortic root enlargement group (5.27% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.02). The two groups had no differences in the duration of hospital stays or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless valves demonstrated a comparable hemodynamic outcome with aortic root enlargement in patients with a small aortic annulus. In addition to this, it greatly facilitated minimally invasive surgery. However, the high incidence of pacemaker implantation is still a concern for the widespread recommendation of sutureless valves, especially in young patients with a small aortic annulus.

Report of Accidental Anchoring of an Impella Device to a Perceval Bioprosthesis in a Patient

We herein report a case in which we encountered complications when placing an Impella CP ventricular assist device (catheter-based ventricular assist device) in a patient with a Perceval bioprosthetic valve (sutureless valve). Specifically, the catheter-based ventricular assist device became anchored to the sutureless valve and needed to be removed under cardiopulmonary bypass. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening after Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis implantation

Modern multi-slice computed tomography (CT) has increased the detection of hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening (HALT). Furthermore, HALT's impact on transcatheter or surgical biological aortic valve (AV) prostheses has attracted attention. However, few reports on HALT in sutureless bioprostheses exist. Herein, we report a case of early structural valve deterioration due to HALT after AV replacement (AVR) with a Perceval bioprosthesis, which improved after anticoagulation therapy. A 79-year-old man admitted to our hospital with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) during hemodialysis was also diagnosed with AV stenosis and, coronary artery disease, and PAF. He underwent AVR, coronary artery bypass grafting, and left atrial appendage resection. Although the postoperative course was uneventful with dual antiplatelet therapy, postoperative enhanced CT revealed HALT with reduced leaflet motion, and echocardiography showed an increased transvalvular pressure gradient. After using warfarin with target prothrombin time-international normalized ratio of 2-2.5 and/or heparin with target activated partial thromboplastin time of 45-60 s, the HALT disappeared with an improved transvalvular pressure gradient without any thromboembolic events.

Reoperative Aortic Valve Replacement After Bio-Bentall using a Double Sewing Ring Technique

We report an 89-year-old hemodialysis patient with a structural valve deterioration following a Bentall-de Bono operation with a tissue valve using the double sewing ring technique. The bioprosthesis was extracted easily, and the aortic valve replacement was performed without any complications in a high-risk patient. This procedure may be feasible given the prospects of reoperation.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Versus Sutured Aortic Valve Replacement: a Propensity Matched Comparison from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless (Perceval, Livanova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) aortic valve replacement (group 1) versus sutured aortic valve replacement (group 2).

METHODS

Patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement between 2014 and 2020 were analysed using data from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Patients in group 1 and group 2 were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 7708 patients were included in the study. After matching, 2 groups of 2643 each were created. Patients in group 1 were more likely to undergo minimally invasive approaches and were associated with shorter operative times when compared with group 2. Overall in-hospital mortality was similar between groups. While an increased risk of stroke was observed in group 1 in the first study period (2014-2016) (relative risk 3.76, p < 0.001), no difference was found in more recent year period (relative risk 1.66, p = 0.08)(p for heterogeneity 0.003). Group 1 was associated with reduced rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, atrial fibrillation and mild aortic regurgitation. New pacemaker implant was three-fold higher in group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed significant differences in procedural and clinical outcomes between the study groups. These results suggest that sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program. The knowledge of the respective post-aortic valve replacement benefits for different valve technologies may result in patient-tailored valve selection with improved clinical outcomes.

A rescue transcatheter solution for early sutureless basal ring infolding

We report the case of an 83-year-old woman treated with a "rescue" valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation because of an early basal ring partial collapse of a sutureless valve, probably due to septal hypertrophy.

Sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: results from a multicentric registry

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical and hemodynamic in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

We examined 4695 patients who underwent isolated or combined SURD-AVR. The "sutureless" Perceval valve was used in 3133 patients and the "rapid deployment" Intuity in 1562. Potential confounding factors were addressed by the use of propensity score matching. After matching, 2 well-balanced cohorts of 823 pairs (isolated SURD-AVR) and 467 pairs (combined SURD-AVR) were created.

RESULTS

Patients who received Perceval and Intuity valves showed similar in-hospital mortality and rate of major postoperative complications. Perceval was associated shorter cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. In the isolated SURD-AVR group, patients receiving Perceval were more likely to undergo anterior right thoracotomy incision. Postoperative transvalvular gradients were significantly lower for the Intuity valve compared to those of the Perceval valve, either in isolated and combined SURD-AVR. The Intuity valve was associated with a lower rate of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm the safety and efficacy of SURD-AVR regardless of the valve type. The Perceval valve was associated with reduced operative times and increased anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve showed superior hemodynamic outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

Extended hockey stick aortotomy for Perceval valve implantation: How to reshape the aortic root

The Perceval valve is a true sutureless aortic bioprosthesis. Overall, excellent performances have been demonstrated in terms of hemodynamic outcomes, safety, and versatility of use; furthermore, as a sutureless valve option, it has shown to reduce the surgical burden, shortening the operative times, and simplifying minimally invasive procedures. Since the valve has got a high frame profile, the recommended implantation technique requires a high and transverse aortotomy. In case of unplanned Perceval valve implantation, when an extended aortotomy is required, we have come up with a simple technique to reshape the aortic root before the valve is delivered in place: symmetry is pivotal to prevent folding issues and to improve the annular sealing. Although we discuss an out-of-recommendation use, in our experience that technique has shown to be safe and effective.

Successful Reoperation in 3 Cases of Failed Sorin Freedom Stentless Aortic Valve Using the LivaNova Perceval Sutureless Prosthesis

Reoperations for deteriorated stentless bioprostheses are quite challenging procedures. Calcification of the aortic annulus and of the subcoronary root makes often impossible the removal of the failed valve, living a complex Bentall operation or a high-risk transcatheter aortic valve implantation valve-in-valve procedure as the only options, particularly in cases of small-size prostheses. The Perceval sutureless prosthesis (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) can be a valid alternative for failed stentless valve replacement. We report our experience with 3 complex cases of degenerated Sorin Pericarbon Freedom prosthesis treated successfully by means of Perceval sutureless implantation and demonstrating the reproducibility and the safety of this surgical approach.

Sutureless valve and rapid deployment valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Background

The treatment of aortic valve disease is the most common valvular surgery in industrialized nations, with 3-9% of the population over the age of eighty having at least moderate aortic stenosis. As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become more established, newer surgical prostheses have been developed with a variety of anchoring systems that do not rely solely on sutures to hold the valve in an appropriate position. The Edwards Intuity valve is a bovine pericardial prosthesis that is modelled on the widely implanted Perimount MagnaEase aortic prosthesis. The Perceval valve is a bovine pericardial valve attached to a self-expanding nitinol stent, which uses the radial force exerted on the patient's aortic annulus and aortic root by the stent portion to hold the valve in position. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of comparative studies of these two valve systems.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the outcomes of rapid deployment valves (RDV) and sutureless valves (SURD) and was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations and guidance. The search strategy interrogated six electronic databases. Outcomes measured included all-cause mortality at latest follow up, stroke, cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, pacemaker implantation rates, paravalvular leak and post-operative transvalvular gradient.

Results

The search strategy identified 407 unique papers for initial assessment with seven studies qualifying for inclusion in the analysis. The outcomes of 4,076 patients (1,650 RDV, 2,426 SURD) were included. There was no difference in mortality, stroke or moderate or worse paravalvular regurgitation between the two groups. SURD had significantly shorter CPB time by 15.7 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.2-27.1; P=0.007] and a shorter cross-clamp time by 11.3 minutes (95% CI: 6.3-16.3; P<0.001) compared to RDV. RDV had a lower post-operative transvalvular gradient by 2.5 mmHg (95% CI: 1.2-3.8; P<0.001) and a lower rate of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR 2.51; 95% CI: 1.435-4.768; P=0.004).

Conclusions

Both valve types have an adequate safety profile and are comparable to conventional sutured prostheses. There was a significant reduction in cross-clamp and CPB times associated with SURD. This may be of benefit for patients requiring multiple concomitant procedures and increases the utility of minimally invasive valve replacement. However, SURD was associated with higher post-operative transvalvular gradients and a higher incidence of paravalvular regurgitation.

Oversizing Increases Pacemaker Implantation Rate After Sutureless Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

Cardiac conduction system disturbances potentially leading to permanent pacemaker implantation are significant postoperative complications after aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of sutureless prosthetic valve oversizing on permanent pacemaker implantation rate.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 306 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve. Oversizing was determined by the implanted valve size indexed to body surface area. Data were analyzed with a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

This study confirmed excellent postoperative results for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with right anterior minithoracotomy approach and rapid deployment sutureless valves. Mortality rate was 1%. Eighteen (5.9%) patients received a new permanent pacemaker. Multivariable logistic regression model (P = 0.05) found oversizing as significant risk factor (P = 0.017) for permanent postoperative pacemaker implantation independent of patient age. There was a significant negative correlation between the indexed implanted valve size and the mean and peak postoperative transvalvular gradients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oversizing of sutureless prosthetic aortic valves is a risk factor for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation. Proper sizing of Perceval is important to avoid complications and ensure optimal valve performance.

Initial experience with the Perceval S sutureless aortic valve

Introduction

Surgical treatment of the aortic valve represents the gold standard, and thus aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most commonly performed cardiac operations.

Aim

To evaluate the early outcome of aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S sutureless aortic bioprosthesis.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective analysis of 24 patients (mean age: 71 ±5 years), who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval S valve. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was performed in 9 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at hospital discharge, and once during follow-up.

Results

A total of 15 of 24 patients underwent isolated sutureless aortic valve replacement (mean aortic cross-clamp time: 60 ±14 minutes; mean bypass time: 90 ±23 minutes). Coronary bypass grafting was performed in 9 patients (mean aortic cross-clamp time: 78 ±23 minutes; mean bypass time: 111 ±31 minutes). Hospital mortality was nil. Mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients were 10 ±2 mm Hg and 21 ±3 mm Hg at follow-up, respectively. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation did not develop in any patients during the follow-up period. No valve thrombosis, thromboembolic events, or structural valve deterioration were observed.

Conclusions

In our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement, the surgical procedure is shown to be safe. The early haemodynamic performance seems favourable. By shortening the aortic cross-clamp and bypass times we can notice advantages, especially in high-risk patients. Minimally invasive access seems to be facilitated. Larger studies are needed to confirm our data and determine the long-term durability of the Perceval S sutureless bioprosthesis.

Aortic valve replacement with sutureless Perceval S valve: A case report of aortic root homograft failure in the setting of Streptococcus constellatus endocarditis

BACKGROUND

Surgery for failed homograft aortic root replacement with extensive calcification in the setting of endocarditis alone is very challenging.

CASE SUMMARY

We report the case of redo aortic valve replacement and mitral valve replacement, in a 39 years old presenting with a rare Streptococcus constellatus endocarditis of a previously implanted homograft root and native mitral valve, where conventional valve replacement proved nonfeasible. S. constellatus had caused severe tissue destruction and the extensive calcification in the homograft prevented conventional valve replacement with sutures. In this case, a sutureless valve provided a useful alternative surgical strategy.

DISCUSSION

We consider heavily calcified failed homografts to be a good indication for sutureless (rapid deployment) valves.

Attempt at off-label balloon valvuloplasty post-dilation for intuity sutureless valve

Alternatives to traditional aortic valve replacement now form part of the valve surgeon's armamentarium. Sutureless valves offer decreased bypass and crossclamp times, excellent maneuverability, and promising outcomes. We present a case of a sutureless aortic valve replacement for a late failed David procedure, complicated by postoperative development of severe paravalvular regurgitation. We attempted off-label balloon post-dilation to improve expansion of the valve, however paravalvular regurgitation persisted. The patient underwent subsequent aortic valve replacement using a mechanical valve and experienced no further paravalvular leak.

Rapid Deployment Versus Conventional Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement using conventional biological valves (CBVs) is the standard of care for treatment of old patients with aortic valve disease. Recently, rapid deployment valves (RDVs) have been introduced.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to report the nationwide German experience concerning RDVs for treatment of aortic valve stenosis and provide a head-to-head comparison with CBVs.

METHODS

A total of 22,062 patients who underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement using CBV or RDV between 2011 and 2015 were enrolled into the German Aortic Valve Registry. Baseline, procedural, and in-hospital outcome parameters were analyzed for CBVs and RDVs using 1:1 propensity score matching. Furthermore, 3 RDVs were compared with each other.

RESULTS

A total of 20,937 patients received a CBV, whereas 1,125 patients were treated with an RDV. Patients treated with an RDV presented with significantly reduced procedure (160 min [25th to 75th percentile: 135 to 195 min] vs. 150 min [25th to 75th percentile: 127 to 179 min]; p < 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass (83 min [25th to 75th percentile: 68 to 104 min] vs. 70 min [25th to 75th percentile: 56 to 87 min]; p < 0.001), and aortic cross clamp times (60 min [25th to 75th percentile: 48 to 75 min] vs. 44 min [25th to 75th percentile: 35 to 57 min]; p < 0.001), but showed significantly elevated rates of pacemaker implantation (3.7% vs. 8.8%; p < 0.001) and disabling stroke (0.9% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001), whereas in-hospital mortality was similar (1.7% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.22). These findings persisted after 1:1 propensity score matching. Comparison of the 3 RDVs revealed statistically nonsignificant different pacemaker rates and significantly different post-operative transvalvular gradients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, all-comers database, the incidence of pacemaker implantation and disabling stroke was higher with RDVs, whereas no beneficial effect on in-hospital mortality was seen. The 3 RDVs presented different complication profiles with regard to pacemaker implantation and transvalvular gradients. (German Aortic Valve Registry [GARY]; NCT01165827).

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.

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is defined as an aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedure that involves a small chest wall incision as opposed to conventional full sternotomy (FS). The MIAVR approach is increasingly being used with the aim of reducing the "invasiveness" of the surgical procedure, while maintaining the same efficacy, quality and safety of a conventional approach. The most common MIAVR techniques are ministernotomy (MS) and right anterior minithoracotomy (RT) approaches. Compared with conventional surgery, MIAVR has been shown to reduce postoperative mortality and morbidity, providing faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and better cosmetics results, requires less rehabilitations resources and consequently cost reduction. Despite these advantages, MIAVR is limited by the longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, which have raised some concerns in fragile and high risk patients. However, with the introduction of sutureless and fast deployment valves, operative times have dramatically reduced by 35-40%, standardizing this procedure. According to these results, the MIAVR approach using sutureless valves may be the "real alternative" to the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures in high risk patients "operable" patients. Prospective randomized trials are required to confirm this hypothesis.