Ministernotomy versus full sternotomy aortic valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis: a multicenter study

Surgical Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of 75 Comparative Studies

OBJECTIVE

Whether minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) offers an advantage over conventional AVR (CAVR) remains a matter of debate. Although some studies have suggested better postoperative outcomes with MIAVR, technical challenges and longer operative times remain major obstacles to the adoption of these techniques. In this meta-analysis, we compare the reported immediate postoperative outcomes of both approaches.

METHODS

Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase® databases were searched from inception until January 2022 for studies reporting immediate postoperative outcomes of MIAVR and CAVR. Studies were excluded if they reported on concomitant procedures or enrolled pediatric patients. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator with Hartung-Knapp adjustment.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 3,921 articles, of which 75 were included in this meta-analysis. The most common techniques were ministernotomy and minithoracotomy. MIAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality than CAVR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 0.78, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001). The length of stay (LOS) in the hospital (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.44, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.26, P < 0.001) and in the intensive care unit (SMD = -0.36, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.15, P < 0.001) were shorter for MIAVR. Individual comparisons of ministernotomy and minithoracotomy to CAVR also yielded similar results. However, aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer for MIAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that minimally invasive approaches to AVR may provide advantages beyond cosmesis. Despite longer operative times, MIAVR was associated with earlier recovery and shorter hospital LOS. These findings were consistent for both minithoracotomy and ministernotomy.

Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) has become an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment due to its advantages in reducing surgery time and improving outcomes. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of SUAVR vs. CAVR treatment for patients with moderate to severe AS in Thailand.

METHODS

A two-part constructed model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from both societal and healthcare perspectives. Data on short-term mortality, complications, cost, and utility data were obtained from the Thai population. Long-term clinical data were derived from clinical studies. Costs and QALYs were discounted annually at 3% and presented as 2022 values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine additional cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SUAVR treatment incurred higher costs compared with CAVR treatment from both societal (THB 1,733,355 [USD 147,897] vs THB 1,220,643 [USD 104,150]) and healthcare provider perspectives (THB 1,594,174 [USD 136,022] vs THB 1,065,460 [USD 90,910]). In addition, SUAVR treatment resulted in lower health outcomes, with 6.20 life-years (LYs) and 4.95 QALYs, while CAVR treatment achieved 6.29 LYs and 5.08 QALYs. SUAVR treatment was considered as a dominated treatment strategy using both perspectives. Sensitivity analyses indicated the significant impact of changes in utilities and long-term mortality on the model.

CONCLUSION

SUAVR treatment is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with CAVR treatment for patients with moderate-severe AS in Thailand, as it leads to higher costs and inferior health outcomes. Other important issues related to specific patients such as those with minimally invasive surgery, those undergoing AVR with concomitant procedures, and those with calcified and small aortic root should be taken into account.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum ('median sternotomy') and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is well tolerated, but as less invasive options become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access have raised safety concerns with regard to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017, with seven new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to August 2021, with no language limitations. We also searched two clinical trials registries and manufacturers' websites. We reviewed references of primary studies to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, transapical, transfemoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. We determined the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology and summarised results of patient-relevant outcomes in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 trials with 1395 participants. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. We analysed 14 outcomes investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy. Upper hemi-sternotomy may have little to no effect on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.94; 10 studies, 985 participants; low-certainty evidence). Upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement may increase cardiopulmonary bypass time slightly, although the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 10.63 minutes, 95% CI 3.39 to 17.88; 10 studies, 1043 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may increase aortic cross-clamp time slightly (MD 6.07 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 11.35; 12 studies, 1235 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. Postoperative blood loss was probably lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -153 mL, 95% CI -246 to -60; 8 studies, 767 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; 5 studies, 649 participants). Upper hemi-sternotomy may result in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 0 to 0.06 higher; 4 studies, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies reporting index admission costs concluded that limited sternotomy may be more costly at index admission in the UK National Health Service (MD 1190 GBP more, 95% CI 420 GBP to 1970 GBP, 2 studies, 492 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of very low to moderate certainty. Sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in some outcomes. Clinical heterogeneity was also noted. Considering these limitations, there may be little to no effect on mortality. Differences in extracorporeal support times are uncertain, comparing upper hemi-sternotomy to full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from also performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality of life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.

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.

Converging rapid deployment prostheses with minimal access surgery: analysis of early outcomes

Background

Sutureless prostheses may have added benefit when combined with minimal access surgery, although this has not been fully assessed in the literature. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the Perceval valve comparing median sternotomy (MS) with mini-sternotomy (MIS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted for all isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), using the Perceval valve, for severe aortic stenosis cases in the period 2014 to 2019. Patients undergoing concomitant valve or revascularisation surgery were excluded.

Results

A total of 78 patients were included: MS group 41; MIS group 37. Operatively, bypass times were comparable between MS and MIS groups (mean 89.3 vs 83.4, p = 0.307), as were aortic cross clamp times (58.4 vs 55.9, p = 0.434). There were no operative deaths or new onset post-operative neurology. MIS was a predictor of reduced stay in the intensive care unit (coef − 3.25, 95% CI [− 4.93, − 0.59], p = 0.036) and hospital stay overall (p = 0.004). Blood transfusion units were comparable as were the incidence of heart block (n = 5 vs n = 3, p = 0.429) and new onset atrial fibrillation (n = 15 vs n = 9, p = 0.250). Follow-up echocardiography found a significant improvement in effective orifice area, left ventricular dimension and volume indices, and LVEF (p > 0.05) for all patients. Multivariate analysis found mini-sternotomy to be a predictor for reduced LV diastolic volume (coef − 0.35, 95% CI [− 1.02, − 0.05], p = 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of minimal access surgery and sutureless AVR may enhance patient recovery and provide early LV remodelling.

Comparing quality of life and postoperative pain after limited access and conventional aortic valve replacement: Design and rationale of the LImited access aortic valve replacement (LIAR) trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) via limited access approaches ('mini-AVR') have proven to be safe alternative for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease. However, it remains unclear whether these less invasive approaches are associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain when compared to conventional SAVR via full median sternotomy (FMS).

STUDY DESIGN

The LImited access Aortic valve Replacement (LIAR) trial is a single-center, single blind randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 2 arms of 80 patients undergoing limited access SAVR via J-shaped upper hemi-sternotomy (UHS) or conventional SAVR through FMS. In all randomized patients, the diseased native aortic valve is planned to be replaced with a rapid deployment stented bioprosthesis. Patients unwilling or unable to participate in the randomized trial will be treated conventionally via SAVR via FMS and with implantation of a sutured valve prosthesis. These patients will participate in a prospective registry.

STUDY METHODS

Primary outcome is improvement in cardiac-specific quality of life, measured by two domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire up to one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include, but are not limited to: generic quality of life measured with the Short Form-36, postoperative pain, perioperative (technical success rate, operating time) and postoperative outcomes (30-day and one-year mortality), complication rate and hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSION

The LIAR trial is designed to determine whether a limited access approach for SAVR ('mini-AVR') is associated with improved quality of life and/or reduced postoperative pain compared with conventional SAVR through FMS.The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04012060.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.

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.

Minimally Invasive Ozaki Procedure in Aortic Valve Disease: The Preliminary Results

OBJECTIVE

The Ozaki procedure for aortic valve reconstruction was reported in 2014 with low mortality, a highly reproducible rate and a good midterm result. However, the procedure still requires conventional sternotomy to be accomplished. The aim of the study was to start an initial evaluation for the feasibility of the minimally invasive approach in combination with the Ozaki technique.

METHODS

From January 06, 2017, to January 12, 2017, nine patients with severe aortic valve diseases underwent minimally invasive Ozaki procedure through an upper ministernotomy. The pericardium was harvested endoscopically using three trocars in different intercostal spaces. Then, a ministernotomy was performed and the Ozaki procedure was accomplished in a similar manner to the conventional technique. We analyzed the in-hospital mortality and complications of this group.

RESULTS

The mean age was 47.4 years and 55.6% patients were female. The predominant pathology was chronic rheumatic valve disease (66.7%) and other patients were diagnosed with a bicuspid aortic valve. The mean aortic cross-clamp time was 106.8 minutes, the mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 153.6 minutes, the mean ventilation time was 8.4 hours, and the mean intensive care unit time was 1.6 days. No mortality was recorded in our series, no conversion to full sternotomy was required, one patient experienced right hemothorax requiring drainage, and one patient required valve replacement. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography and predischarge transthoracic echocardiography showed five competent valves and three valves with trivial regurgitation, and no stenosis was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Ministernotomy combined with Ozaki procedure might be feasible, as well as an alternative to conventional sternotomy. This approach is associated with low mortality and morbidity and may be beneficial in younger populations.

Long-term outcomes of a rapid deployment aortic valve: data up to 5 years

OBJECTIVES

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been developed to facilitate minimally invasive approaches for cardiac surgery and shorten procedural times. TRITON is a prospectively designed study to assess safety and efficacy of rapid deployment AVR with Edwards INTUITY valve system. This report presents the 5-year outcomes of the TRITON trial.

METHODS

A total of 295 patients with aortic valve stenosis were enrolled in the TRITON trial and 287 patients received the study valve. Procedural, early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) outcomes were collected. Valve haemodynamic performance was evaluated at specified time points by an independent Echocardiography Core Laboratory and clinical events adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee.

RESULTS

Mean age was 75.3 ± 6.7 years. A total of 158 patients underwent isolated AVR and 129 patients underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The 5-year survival rates were 85.7 ± 3.4% and 75.2 ± 4.9% for isolated AVR and concomitant AVR, respectively. Overall, freedom from valve-related death at 5 years was 98.2 ± 0.8%. At 5 years, the valve effective orifice area was 1.6 ± 0.3 cm 2 , mean gradient was 10.5 ± 5.4 mmHg and peak gradient was 18.9 ± 9.3 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year outcomes of the TRITON trial demonstrate acceptable long-term safety and excellent haemodynamic performance of rapid deployment AVR with the Edwards INTUITY valve system.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT01445171.

The Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve: Review of Outcomes, Complications, and Future Direction

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented prosthesis has been the standard of care procedure for aortic stenosis. The Perceval (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) is a sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis currently implanted in more than 20,000 patients. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available after 9 years of clinical experience of the Perceval aortic valve. PubMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. A meta-analysis of summary statistics from individual studies was conducted. A total of 333 studies were identified and 84 studies were included. Thirty-day mortality and 5-year survival ranged from 0% to 4.9% and 71.3% to 85.5%, respectively. Compared with stented prosthesis, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) with Perceval (38.6 vs 63.3 and 61.4 vs 84.9, P < 0.00001, respectively). Compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with Perceval in paravalvular leakage (1.26% vs 14.31%) and early mortality (2.3% vs 6.9%). Favorable hemodynamics, acceptable valve durability, and ease of implantation in minimally invasive cases were reported as benefits. A trend toward increased rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and low postoperative platelet count were identified. Special use and off-label procedures described included bicuspid aortic valves, valve-in-valve for homograft and stentless prosthesis failure, concomitant valvular procedures, porcelain aorta, and endocarditis. The Perceval valve has shown safe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Outcomes support its continued usage and potential expansion.

Outcomes comparison of different surgical strategies for the management of severe aortic valve stenosis: study protocol of a prospective multicentre European registry (E-AVR registry)

INTRODUCTION

Traditional and transcatheter surgical treatments of severe aortic valve stenosis (SAVS) are increasing in parallel with the improved life expectancy. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported comparable or non-inferior mortality with transcatheter treatments compared with traditional surgery. However, RCTs have the limitation of being a mirror of the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, without reflecting the 'real clinical world'. Technological improvements have recently allowed the development of minimally invasive surgical accesses and the use of sutureless valves, but their impact on the clinical scenario is difficult to assess because of the monocentric design of published studies and limited sample size. A prospective multicentre registry including all patients referred for a surgical treatment of SAVS (traditional, through full sternotomy; minimally invasive; or transcatheter; with both 'sutured' and 'sutureless' valves) will provide a 'real-world' picture of available results of current surgical options and will help to clarify the 'grey zones' of current guidelines.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

European Aortic Valve Registry is a prospective observational open registry designed to collect all data from patients admitted for SAVS, with or without coronary artery disease, in 16 cardiac surgery centres located in six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK). Patients will be enrolled over a 2-year period and followed up for a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 10 years after enrolment. Outcome definitions are concordant with Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria and established guidelines. Primary outcome is 5-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes aim at establishing 'early' 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, as well as major morbidity, and 'late' cardiovascular mortality, major morbidity, structural and non-structural valve complications, quality of life and echocardiographic results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol is approved by local ethics committees. Any formal presentation or publication of data will be considered as a joint publication by the participating physician(s) and will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for authorship.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03143361; Pre-results.

Hemodynamic assessment of Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis by dobutamine stress echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis under high workload at mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with a Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were enrolled in this study. S size prosthesis was deployed in 10 patients (31.3%), M size in 9 (28.1%), L size in 8 (25%) and XL size in 5 (15.6%). Effective orifice area (EOA), EOA index (EOAi), and transvalvular gradients were assessed at rest and during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) a median of 19.5 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) significantly increased heart rate, stroke volume, ejection fraction, and transvalvular gradients (peak gradient, 24.0 ± 7.6 vs 38.7 ± 13.6 mm Hg, P < .001; mean gradient, 12.6 ± 4.2 vs 19.8 ± 8.3, P < .001). When compared to baseline, estimated valve areas significantly increased at follow-up (EOA, 1.48 ± 0.46 vs 2.06 ± 0.67, P < .001; EOAi, 0.84 ± 0.26 vs 1.17 ± 0.37, P < .001). Mean percentage increase in EOAi was 40.3% ± 28.0%. S size prostheses had the highest increase in EOA1, but the difference was not significant (S 46.0% ± 27.5% vs M 45.4% ± 34.5% vs L 32.7% ± 26.4% vs XL 32.1% ± 20.5%, P = .66). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (EOAi ≤ 0.65 cm² /m² ) was present at rest in 8 patients (25%), but only in one patient (3.1%) during DSE.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis demonstrated good hemodynamics at rest and under high workload. The significant increase in EOAi during DSE suggests the potential advantages of Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in case of small aortic annulus or when patient-prosthesis mismatch is anticipated.

International Expert Consensus on Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves in Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive Approaches

Objective

To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach.

Results

No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed tomographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs.

Conclusions

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.

Rapid deployment valve system shortens operative times for aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence from the literature that right anterior minithoracotomy aortic valve replacement (RAT-AVR) improves clinical outcome. However, increased cross clamp time is the strongest argument for surgeons not performing RAT-AVR. Rapid deployment aortic valve systems have the potential to decrease cross-clamp time and ease this procedure. We assessed clinical outcome of rapid deployment and conventional valves through RAT.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients (mean age 76 ± 6 years, 32% females) underwent RAT-AVR between 9/2013 and 7/2015. According to the valve type implanted the patients were divided into two groups. In 43 patients (R-group; mean age 74.1 ± 6.6 years) a rapid deployment valve system (Edwards Intuity, Edwards Lifesciences Corp; Irvine, Calif) and in 25 patients (C-group; mean age 74.2 ± 6.6 years) a conventional stented biological aortic valve was implanted.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp (42.1 ± 12 min vs. 68.3 ± 20.3 min; p < 0.001) and bypass time (80.4 ± 39.3 min vs. 106.6 ± 23.2 min; p = 0.001) were shorter in the rapid deployment group (R-group). We observed no differences in clinical outcome. Postoperative gradients (R-group: max gradient, 14.3 ± 8 mmHg vs. 15.5 ± 5 mmHg (C-group), mean gradient, 9.2 ± 1.7 mmHg (R-group) vs. 9.1 ± 2.3 mmHg (C-group) revealed no differences. However, larger prostheses were implanted in C-group (25 mm; IQR 23-27 mm vs. 23 mm; IQR 21-25; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the rapid deployment aortic valve system reduced cross clamp and bypass time in patients undergoing RAT-AVR with similar hemodynamics as with larger size stented prosthesis. However, larger studies and long-term follow-up are mandatory to confirm our findings.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition that is easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum longitudinally down the centre ("median sternotomy") and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is generally well tolerated, but as less invasive options have become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access has raised safety concerns with regards to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, and manufacturers' websites from inception to July 2016, with no language limitations. We reviewed references of identified papers to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, trans-apical, trans-femoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. The quality of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology and results of patient-relevant outcomes were summarised in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven trials with 511 participants. These included adults from centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Egypt. We performed 12 comparisons investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy.There was no evidence of any effect of upper hemi-sternotomy on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.82; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no evidence of an increase in cardiopulmonary bypass time with aortic valve replacement performed via an upper hemi-sternotomy (mean difference (MD) 3.02 minutes, 95% CI -4.10 to 10.14; participants = 311; studies = 5; low quality). There was no evidence of an increase in aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.95 minutes, 95% CI -3.45 to 5.35; participants = 391; studies = 6; low quality). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite end point.There was no evidence of an effect on length of hospital stay through limited hemi-sternotomy (MD -1.31 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.01; participants = 297; studies = 5; I2 = 89%; very low quality). Postoperative blood loss was lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -158.00 mL, 95% CI -303.24 to -12.76; participants = 297; studies = 5; moderate quality). The evidence did not support a reduction in deep sternal wound infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.30; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality) or re-exploration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.13; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; participants = 197; studies = 3; I2 = 70%; very low quality), but there was a small increase in postoperative pulmonary function tests with minimally invasive limited sternotomy (MD 1.98 % predicted FEV1, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.33; participants = 257; studies = 4; I2 = 28%; low quality). There was a small reduction in length of intensive care unit stays as a result of the minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy (MD -0.57 days, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.20; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was not reduced with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through limited compared to full sternotomy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.89; participants = 240; studies = 3; moderate quality), neither were postoperative ventilation times (MD -1.12 hours, 95% CI -3.43 to 1.19; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). None of the included studies reported cost analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.Considering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.There appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality-of-life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.

Sutureless Aortic Valves: Combining the Best or the Worst?

Aortic valve replacement is a life saving intervention. Significant progress has been made toward reducing surgical trauma through minimally invasive surgery and transcatheter techniques. Each of these approaches has its advantages and limitations. Sutureless aortic valves have been proposed to overcome these limitations and have been in use in Europe. It is however less than clear whether these valves will prove advantageous and whether they will have a role in the future. We review the published literature for sutureless aortic valves and their performance against standard and transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

Sutureless Sorin Perceval Aortic Valve Implantation

The sutureless Perceval aortic valve (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy) is a device increasingly used in many European cardiac surgery centers. Since the first reports evaluating implantation feasibility and valve safety in humans in 2007, an increasing amount of data have become available, including premarketing clinical results and experience in particular conditions. Overall, excellent performances have been demonstrated in hemodynamic outcomes, safety, and versatility of use. However, several questions remain unanswered, especially regarding long-term durability, risk for endocarditis, and the need for postoperative pacemaker implantation. In this article, the most important studies published until now in the literature will be described, providing a state-of-the-art overview of current knowledge as well as future directions and indications for the use of the Perceval valve based on preliminary results of ongoing studies.

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

 Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.

METHODS

 Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

 In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).

CONCLUSION

 Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.

Non-sutureless minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: mini-sternotomy versus mini-thoracotomy: a series of 1130 patients

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement through conventional sternotomy still represents the gold-standard surgical approach for aortic valve disease. However, given the increasing number of patients with comorbidities, strategies that can improve operative results are always sought. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery, although related to a steep learning curve, might be associated with improved postoperative outcomes. The main aim of this study was to assess whether significant differences exist in terms of operative and early results between a mini-sternotomy and a right mini-thoracotomy approach for isolated aortic valve replacement without sutureless technologies.

METHODS

This is an observational retrospective multicentre study from nine Italian cardiac centres that analyses prospectively collected data of patients who underwent isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between January 2010 and December 2014. Two approaches are considered (mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy) and compared in terms of operative and early outcomes.

RESULTS

After interrogation of the centralized database, a total of 1130 patients were retrieved (854 mini-sternotomy and 276 mini-thoracotomy). Patients in the mini-sternotomy group had a higher risk profile. There was no difference in terms of early mortality; cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time did not differ significantly between the groups; and a significantly higher number of reoperations for bleeding was observed in the right mini-thoracotomy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy could be performed safely, with low mortality and postoperative morbidity. The mini-thoracotomy approach was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperation for bleeding. Uptake among cardiac centres was low. Sutureless technologies could potentially increase surgical volume by simplifying the mini-thoracotomy procedure.

Early outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment aortic valve

OBJECTIVE

Minimal access aortic valve replacement is associated with favorable clinical outcomes; however, several meta-analyses have reported significantly longer crossclamp times compared with a full sternotomy. We examined the procedural and early safety outcomes after isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement by surgical approach in patients enrolled in the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial.

METHODS

The Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, with successful implants in 287 patients with aortic valve stenosis who underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement using the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif). Patients were evaluated perioperatively for procedural times and technical success rates; at discharge, for hospital length of stay; and, at 30 days, for early adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (n = 71), upper hemisternotomy (n = 77), or right anterior thoracotomy (n = 10). Mean age at baseline was 75.7 ± 7.2 years. Mean aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) were similar for full sternotomy and upper hemisternotomy, 43.5 ± 32.5/71.6 ± 41.8 and 43.1 ± 13.1/69.6 ± 19.1, respectively, and significantly longer for right anterior thoracotomy, 88.3 ± 18.6/122.2 ± 22.1 (P < .000). Early adverse event rates were similar, and in-hospital mortality rates were low regardless of surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through an upper hemisternotomy can lead to shorter crossclamp times than has been reported historically in the literature. This may facilitate minimal access aortic valve replacement by eliminating the issue of prolonged crossclamp times. Further, low in-hospital mortality and new permanent pacemaker implant rates were observed regardless of surgical approach.

Cardiac surgery 2014 reviewed

For the year 2014, more than 17,000 published references can be found in Pubmed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". The last year has been characterized by a vivid discussion in the fields where classic cardiac surgery and modern interventional techniques overlap. Specifically, there have been important contributions in the field of coronary revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery as well as in the fields of interventional valve therapy. Here, the US core valve trial with the first demonstration of a survival advantage at 1 year with transcatheter valves compared to surgical aortic valve replacement or the 5-year outcome of the SYNTAX trial with significant advantages for bypass surgery has been the landmark. However, in addition to these most visible publications, there have been several highly relevant and interesting contributions. This review article will summarize the most pertinent publications in the fields of coronary revascularization, surgical treatment of valve disease, heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices) and aortic surgery. This condensed summary will provide the reader with "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.

Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyse early postoperative outcomes and 2-year survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) through a ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis implantation compared with a full sternotomy with implantation of a stented bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary isolated non-emergent AVR at six European centres were included in the study. Of these, 182 (32%) underwent a ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis (ministernotomy sutureless group) and 383 (68%) a full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis (full sternotomy stented group). Propensity score matching was used to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

In the overall cohort, 30-day mortality was 1.6 and 2.1%, and 2-year survival was 92 and 92% in the ministernotomy sutureless group and in the full sternotomy stented group, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs with similar characteristics and operative risk. Aortic cross-clamp (40 vs 65 min, P < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (69 vs 87 min, P < 0.001) were shorter in the ministernotomy sutureless group. Patients undergoing ministernotomy received less packed red blood cells but the risk for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation was higher. There were no differences regarding 30-day mortality or 2-year survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

AVR through a ministernotomy with implantation of a sutureless bioprosthesis was associated with shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time and less transfusion of packed red blood cells, but a higher risk for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation compared with a full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis.