Aortic Valve Replacement With the Stentless Freedom SOLO Bioprosthesis: A Systematic Review

A case of a transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation using balloon expandable valve for failed SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve

A 74-year-old man who had undergone surgical aortic valve replacement with the SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve 25 mm (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) and mitral valve replacement with MOSAIC 29 mm (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) 4 years previously was diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and transferred to our hospital. Echocardiography revealed severe aortic regurgitation caused by degraded bioprosthetic valve. He required continuous dobutamine administration to maintain hemodynamics. As a result of heart team discussion, we decided to perform transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) using balloon expandable valve (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA). Since SOLO SMART stentless valve was placed to Valsalva sinus at the supra-annular level with continuous sutures, we planned to anchor TAVI valve 4 mm to the left ventricular side from the bottom of the failed stentless valve. Two pigtail catheters were placed at the bottom of the failed stentless valve leaflet to mark the nadir of stentless valve. After ViV-TAVI, the patient no longer required catecholamine administration and was discharged home one month later. This is the first case of ViV-TAVI using balloon expandable valve for failed SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve in a Japanese patient.

Learning objective

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) for stentless valves is known to be technically challenging due to poor fluoroscopic visibility. Because the SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve is sutured to the wall of the sinus of Valsalva above the annulus, the landing point of transcatheter heart valve is at a native annulus which is lower than the bottom of the SOLO SMART leaflet. We describe the first Japanese case of ViV-TAVI with balloon expandable valve for the SOLO SMART stentless bioprosthetic valve.

Does Pacemaker Implantation After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Impact Long-Term Morbidity and Mortality? A Focused Review

Permanent pacing remains a serious complication that can occur in the postoperative period of surgical aortic valve replacement. The reported incidence is variable, and there are many perioperative factors that have been linked with a greater need for permanent pacing. Permanent pacing can also be associated with late lead-related and cardiac complications that can affect late outcome. However, the degree of late dependence on pacemakers is varied, and some studies have shown that a substantial proportion of patients do not need long-term pacing. Some groups have found that permanent pacing was associated with a negative impact on long-term survival in these patients. A common finding among these studies is that the groups of patients with pacemakers had higher preoperative surgical risk and comorbidity status. This makes it difficult to establish whether permanent pacing on its own represents a risk factor for late mortality or whether it is simply a marker that reflects the higher complexity and comorbidities in this group of patients.

Hemodynamic and clinical performance of Solo stentless bioprosthetic aortic valves

OBJECTIVE

To report the hemodynamic profile and short- and medium-term outcomes of Freedom Solo and Solo Smart stentless aortic valves implanted at our center.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2015, all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement using Solo stentless valves at our center were enrolled. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was carried out six months postoperatively. Survival and major events, including structural valve deterioration and non-structural valve dysfunction, endocarditis, reoperation and stroke, were assessed through medical records or telephone interview with the referring cardiologist up to November 2015 (mean and maximum follow-up 39±22 and 78 months, respectively).

RESULTS

Patients' (n=345) mean age was 72±8 years, 52% were female and median euroSCORE II was 2.7 (1.5-4.7). There was no intraoperative mortality and in-hospital mortality was 2.6%. Postoperatively, mean transvalvular gradient was 11.9±4.5 mmHg and effective orifice area was 1.9±0.5 cm². Patient-prosthesis mismatch occurred in 14% but was severe in only one patient. Cumulative survival at six years was 72%. Six patients were reoperated: three due to endocarditis, two for structural prosthesis deterioration and one because of periprosthetic fistula. Five patients suffered stroke, three had medically-treated endocarditis and one had structural valve deterioration but was not considered suitable for reoperation. None of the remainder had structural valve deterioration or non-structural valve dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Solo stentless aortic valves are safe to implant, with promising clinical outcomes in short- and medium-term assessment. Moreover, they show an excellent hemodynamic performance: low transvalvular gradients, large effective orifice areas and low incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Early hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of isolated aortic valve replacement with stentless or transcatheter valve in intermediate-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

Stentless aortic valves have been developed to overcome obstructive limitations associated with stented bioprostheses. The aim of the current multi-institutional study was to compare hemodynamics of transcatheter (TAVR) and the Freedom SOLO Stentless (FS) valve in an intermediate risk population undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2014, 420 consecutive patients underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement with FS and 375 patients underwent TAVR. Only patients with intermediate operative risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4-10) and small aortic annulus (≤23 mm) were included. After a propensity matched analysis 142 patients in each group were selected. Thirty-day postoperative clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean prosthesis diameter was 22.2 ± 0.9 mm for FS and 22.4 ± 1.0 mm for TAVR. In-hospital mortality was 2.1% for FS and 6.3% for TAVR (P = .02). Postoperative FS peak gradients were 19.1 ± 9.6 mm Hg (mean 10.8 ± 5.9 mm Hg); TAVR peak gradients were 20.2 ± 9.5 mm Hg (mean 10.7 ± 6.9 mm Hg) P = .57 (P = .88). Postoperative effective orifice area was 1.93 ± 0.52 cm² for FS and 1.83 ± 0.3 cm² for TAVR (P = .65). There was no prostheses-patient mismatch in either group. Postoperative grade 2-3 paravalvular leak was present in 3.5% for TAVR and 0.7% for FS. Postoperative permanent pacemaker implant rate was 12% for TAVR and only 1 case (0.7%) in the FS group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with small aortic annulus and intermediate risk, both FS and TAVR demonstrated similar excellent hemodynamic performance. TAVR demonstrated greater mortality and rates of pacemaker insertion. Further studies are warranted to validate TAVR indications in this subset of patients.