A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Sutureless aortic valves in isolated and combined procedures: Thirteen years of experience in 784 patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome and experience of the Perceval sutureless valve at our institution (UZ Leuven).

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2019, 784 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement using the Perceval valve (isolated or combined with other procedures). We performed a retrospective analysis of the postoperative and follow-up data.

RESULTS

Mean age was 78 years with a median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score of 4.2% (interquartile range, 2.6%-7.2%). Isolated aortic valve replacement accounted for 45% of cases; 30% of cases were aortic valve replacement in combination with coronary artery bypass grafting and the remaining 25% were other combined procedures. The median crossclamp times were 38 minutes in single aortic valve replacement, 70 minutes in cases with coronary artery bypass grafting, and 89 minutes in multiple valve cases. Device success was 99.1% and in-hospital mortality was 3.3%. Postoperative stroke or transient ischemic attack occurred in 1.9% of patients and 1% of patients had a new need for dialysis after surgery and median survival time was 7.0 years with a cumulative follow-up of 2797.8 patient-years. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year freedom from reintervention were 99%, 97%, and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These data represent the longest follow-up available, to our knowledge, for the Perceval sutureless valve. We observed favorable early outcomes, and low rates of early mortality, stroke, and other major complications. Valve durability is promising with low rates of valve degeneration and a limited need for reintervention.

The Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve: Evolution of Surgical Valve Technology

OBJECTIVE

The surgical treatment of aortic stenosis continues to evolve, and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) is an emerging technology. With the Perceval S (Corcym, London, UK) as the only true sutureless valve on the market, the objective of this review is to analyze the current literature on Perceval S. Focusing on valve design and deployment as well as applications of the technology for challenging pathology, clinical outcomes are assessed, including a comparison with transcatheter AVR (TAVR).

METHODS

PubMed and MEDLINE were searched by 3 authors for studies analyzing SUAVR from inception to May 19, 2023.

RESULTS

SUAVR facilitates minimally invasive surgery and offers an alternative strategy for patients with small aortic annuli. It also has a time-saving advantage for patients who require complex operations. SUAVR results in excellent long-term morbidity, mortality, durability, and hemodynamic function. In comparison with conventional surgical AVR (SAVR), SUAVR does have a greater risk of postoperative pacemaker implantation; however, increasing user experience and refinements in implantation technique have contributed to reductions in this outcome. SUAVR results in morbidity and mortality that is similar to rapid-deployment AVR. Midterm outcomes are superior to TAVR; however, further robust investigation into all of these comparisons is ultimately necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

SUAVR bridges the gap in technology between SAVR and TAVR. The application of this exciting technology will undoubtedly grow in the coming years, during which additional investigation is paramount to optimize preoperative planning, valve deployment, and reintervention strategies.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a single-centre cost analysis

AIMS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are both viable therapeutic interventions for aortic stenosis in elderly patients. Meta-analyses show similar all-cause mortality for both techniques albeit with a different pattern of adverse effects. This study means to compare costs and, to a lesser extent, clinical outcomes of both techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre analysis was performed for patients receiving SU-AVR or TAVI from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative clinical data were collected from patient files. Costs were assessed by a cost allocation tool. In an attempt to avoid confounding, propensity score matching was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 100) or SU-AVR (n = 268). After matching, there were 61 patients per treatment group. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SU-AVR group. Excluding device costs, total expenses for SU-AVR (median: €11,630) were significantly higher than TAVI (median: €9240). For both groups, these costs were mostly incurred on intensive care units, followed by nursing units. Non-medical staff was the largest contributor to expenses. Including device costs, SU-AVR (median: €14,683) was shown to be cost-saving compared to TAVI (median: €24,057).

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, we found SU-AVR to be cost-saving compared to TAVI, largely due to higher device costs associated with the latter. Excluding device costs, TAVI was associated with lower expenses and shorter length of stay. Non-medical staff was the largest source of costs, suggesting length of stay to be a major financial determinant.

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.

Midterm Outcomes Following Sutureless and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless-surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been proposed as a surgical alternative for treating aortic stenosis, which facilitates a minimally invasive approach. While some studies have compared the early outcomes of SU-SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), most data were obtained in high-risk patients and/or limited to in-hospital outcomes. This study aimed to compare in-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes following SU-SAVR and TAVR in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 806 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II <4%) patients underwent TAVR or SU-SAVR between 2011 and 2020 in 2 centers. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed and identified 171 pairs with similar characteristics that were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2) were collected.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups, with a median EuroSCORE II of 1.9% (1.3%-2.5%) in both SU-SAVR and TAVR groups (P=0.85). There were no statistically significant differences regarding in-hospital mortality (SU-SAVR: 4.1%, TAVR: 1.8%, P=0.199) and stroke (SU-SAVR: 2.3%, TAVR: 2.9%, P=0.736), but SU-SAVR recipients exhibited higher rates of bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation, higher residual transvalvular gradients (P<0.001), and a lower rate of pacemaker implantation (P=0.011). After a median follow-up of 2 (1-3) years, there were no differences between groups in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.52-1.82], P=0.936) and stroke (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32-2.15], P=0.708), but SU-SAVR was associated with a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 5.38 [95% CI, 1.88-15.38], P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes (except for conduction disturbances) and valve hemodynamics, compared with SU-SAVR. Although similar mortality and stroke rates were observed at 2-year follow-up, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher among SU-SAVR patients. These results may contribute to reinforce TAVR over SU-SAVR for the majority of such patients. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 320 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n=254) or SU-AVR (n=66) at Severance Cardiovascular Hospital between July 2011 and September 2019 were included for analysis. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighted adjustment were performed to adjust for confounding baseline characteristics. Outcomes defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 in 62 patients pairs were compared.

RESULTS

Device success (79.0% vs. 79.0%, p>0.999) and 30-day mortality (4.8% vs. 0.0%, p=0.244) did not differ between the TAVR and SU-AVR groups. The TAVR group developed more frequent mild or moderate paravalvular leakage (59.7% vs. 8.1%, p<0.001), whereas SU-AVR was associated with higher rates of major or life-threatening bleeding (9.7% vs. 22.6%, p=0.040), acute kidney injury (8.1% vs. 21.0%, p=0.041), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (4.8% vs. 32.3%. p<0.001) at 30 days, along with longer stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) (1.9±1.6 days vs. 5.9±9.2 days, p=0.009) and hospital (7.1±7.9 days vs. 13.1±8.8 days, p<0.001). The TAVR group showed a trend towards a higher 1-year all-cause mortality, compared with the SU-AVR group (7.0% vs 1.7%, p=0.149). Cardiovascular mortality, however, did not differ significantly (1.6% vs 1.7%, p=0.960).

CONCLUSION

TAVR achieved a similar 1-year survival rate free from cardiovascular mortality as SU-AVR and was associated with a lower incidence of complications, except for paravalvular leakage, and shorter stays in the ICU and hospital.

Early conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement with the sutureless Perceval prosthesis

BACKGROUND

To determine the incidence of postoperative conduction disorders and need for pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement(AVR) with the Perceval prosthesis.

METHODS

From January 2007 to December 2017, 908 patients underwent AVR with Perceval S in 5 participating centers. Study endpoints focused on electrocardiographic changes after AVR and the incidence of new pacemaker(PM) implantation in 801 patients after exclusion of patients with previous PM(n=48) or patients undergoing tricuspid(n=28) and/or AF ablation(n=31) surgery. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors for PM need.

RESULTS

Mean age was 79.7±5.2 years, 476(59.4%) were females. Median logistic Euroscore II was 4.1%(IQR 2.6-6.0). Isolated AVR was performed in 441(55.1%) patients. Associated procedures were CABG(n=309, 38.6%) and mitral valve surgery(n=51, 6.4%). Overall 30d-mortality was 3.9%, and 2.8% for isolated AVR. Electrocardiographic changes included a significant increase of LBBB (7.4 to 23.7%, p<0.001) and development of complete AV block, requiring PM implantation in 9.5%. Multivariable analysis revealed independent of a learning period(OR 1.91, 95%CI 1.16-3.13, p=0.011), pre-existing RBBB(OR 2.77, 95%CI 1.40-5.48, p=0.003), intra-operative prosthesis repositioning(OR 6.70, 95%CI 1.89-24.40, p=0.003) and size XL(OR 6.81, 95%CI 1.55-29.96, p=0.011) as significant predictors of PM implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a challenging elderly population, use of the Perceval S for AVR provides low operative mortality, but at the risk of an increased PM implantation rate. Besides to pre-existing right-bundle branch block, the significant effect of size XL, an increased valve size/BSA ratio and need for intra-operative repositioning on PM rate are underscoring the reappraisal of the annular sizing policy.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes in 121 Patients Who Underwent Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation - Early Results From a Single Korean Institution

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of Perceval sutureless valves in the Korean population and to introduce a modified technique of guiding suture placement during valve deployment.Methods and Results:From December 2014 to April 2019, 121 patients (mean age: 74.7±6.2 years; 53.7% female) received a Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement. To prevent conduction system injury, the depth of guiding suture placement (1 mm below the nadir of the annulus) was modified. All patients underwent echocardiographic evaluation at discharge and 6-12 months postoperatively, with a mean follow up of 13.7±11.2 months. Concomitant surgeries, such as coronary artery bypass grafting, and other valvular surgeries, were performed in 45.5% of cases. The mean aortic cross-clamp times for isolated and minimal procedures were 32.8±7.9, and 41.2±8.0 min, respectively. The overall transvalvular mean gradients were 13.1±3.8 mmHg at discharge and 11.5±4.7 mmHg at the last follow up. After modifying the guiding suture placement, permanent pacemaker implantation risk decreased from 9.9% to 2.5%. Cardiac-related mortality was 0.8%, with no patient developing valvular or paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, or endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceval valve implantation provided a significant cardiac-related survival benefit with excellent early hemodynamic and clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to determine whether adjusting the implantation depth, such as modification of the guiding suture technique, can reduce the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation.

Fifty years of the pericardial valve: Long-term results in the aortic position

It is now 50 years since the development of the first pericardial valve in 1971. In this time significant progress has been made in refining valve design aimed at improving the longevity of the prostheses. This article reviews the current literature regarding the longevity of pericardial heart valves in the aortic position. Side by side comparisons of freedom from structural valve degeneration are made for the valves most commonly used in clinical practice today, including stented, stentless, and sutureless valves. Strategies to reduce structural valve degeneration are also discussed including methods of tissue fixation and anti-calcification, ways to minimise mechanical stress on the valve, and the role of patient prosthesis mismatch.

Surgical sutureless and sutured aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior to surgery in low surgical risk patients. We compared outcomes in patients treated with a sutured (stented or stentless) or sutureless surgical valve from the Evolut Low Risk Trial.

METHODS

The Evolut Low Risk Trial enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk. Patients were randomized to self-expanding TAVR or surgery. Use of sutureless or sutured valves was at the surgeons' discretion.

RESULTS

There were 680 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve implantation (205 sutureless, 475 sutured). The VARC-2 30-day safety composite endpoint was similar in the sutureless and sutured group (10.8% vs 11.0%, P=.93). All-cause mortality between groups was similar between groups at 30 days (0.5% vs 1.5%, P=.28) and 1 year (3.3% vs 2.6%, P=.74). Disabling stroke was also similar at 30 days (2.0% vs 1.5%, P=.65) and 1 year (2.6% vs 2.2%, P=.76). Permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was significantly higher in the sutureless compared with the sutured group (14.4% vs 2.9%, P<.001). AV-related hospitalizations occurred more often at 1 year with sutureless valves (9.1% vs 5.1%, P=.04). Mean gradients 1 year after sutureless and sutured AVR were 9.9±4.2 vs 11.7±4.7mm Hg (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk patients, sutureless versus sutured valve use did not demonstrate a benefit in terms of 30-day complications and produced marginally better hemodynamics, but with an increased rate of pacemaker implantation and valve-related hospitalizations.

Comparison of Self-Expanding RDV Perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF

BACKGROUND

 Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have emerged as increasingly used alternatives to conventional aortic valve replacement to treat patients at higher surgical risk. Therefore, in this single-center study, we retrospectively compared clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of two self-expanding biological prostheses, the sutureless and rapid deployment valve (RDV) Perceval-S (PER) and the transcatheter heart valve (THV) ACURATE neo/TF (NEO) in a 1:1 propensity-score-matching (PSM) patient cohort.

METHODS

 A total of 332 consecutive patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent either singular RDAVR with PER (119) or TAVI with NEO (213) at our institutions between 2012 and 2017. To compare the unequal patient groups, a 1:1 PSM for preoperative data and comorbidities was conducted. Afterward, 59 patient pairs were compared with regard to relevant hemodynamic parameter, relevant paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent postoperative pacemaker (PPM) implantation rate, and clinical postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

 Postoperative clinical short-term outcomes presented with slightly higher rates for 30-day all-cause mortality (PER = 5.1% vs. NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.619) and major adverse cardiocerebral event in PER due to cerebrovascular events (transient ischemic attack [TIA]-PER = 3.4% vs. TIA-NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.496 and Stroke-PER = 1.7% vs. Stroke-NEO = 0.0%, p = 1). Moreover, we show comparable PPM rates (PER = 10.2% vs. NEO = 8.5%, p = 0.752). However, higher numbers of PVL (mild-PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 55.9%, p = 0.001; moderate or higher-PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 6.8%, p = 0.119) after TAVI with NEO were observed.

CONCLUSION

 Both self-expanding bioprostheses, the RDV-PER and THV-NEO provide a feasible option in elderly and patients with elevated perioperative risk. However, the discussed PER collective showed more postoperative short-term complications with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality and cerebrovascular events, whereas the NEO showed higher rates of PVL.

Early and late outcomes after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in obese patients

INTRODUCTION

Data on the early and late outcome following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in obese patients are limited. We investigated whether TAVI may be superior to SAVR in obese patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) who underwent either SAVR or TAVI were identified from the nationwide OBSERVANT registry, and their in-hospital and long-term outcomes were analysed. Propensity score matching was employed to identify two cohorts with similar baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

The propensity score matching provided 142 pairs balanced in terms of baseline risk factors. In-hospital and 30-day mortality did not differ between SAVR and TAVI obese patients (4.6% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.56, and 5.2% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.41, respectively). Obese SAVR patients experienced a higher rate of renal failure (12.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0105) and blood transfusion requirement (60.3% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.0001) in comparison with TAVI patients. A higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.0018), and major vascular injuries (7.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.0044) occurred in the TAVI group. Five-year survival was higher in the SAVR group compared to the TAVI patient cohort (p = 0.0046), with survival estimates at 1, 3 and 5 years of 88.0%, 80.3%, 71.8% for patients undergoing SAVR, and 85.2%, 69.0%, 52.8% for those subjected to TAVI procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients, both SAVR and TAVI are valid treatment options, although in the long term SAVR exhibited higher survival rates.

Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Objective

Patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a poor prognosis compared with patients with preserved LVEF. To evaluate the impact of sutureless Perceval (LivaNova, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis on LVEF and clinical outcomes in patients with baseline left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

Between March 2011 and August 2017, 803 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Fifty-two isolated AVR had preoperative LVEF ≤45%. Mean age of these patients was 77 ± 6 years, 24 patients were female (46%), and mean EuroSCORE II was 9.4% ± 4.8%. Perceval bioprosthesis was implanted in 9 REDO operations. In 43 patients (83%), AVR was performed in minimally invasive surgery with an upper ministernotomy ( n = 13) or right anterior minithoracotomy ( n = 30).

Results

One patient died in hospital. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 85.5 ± 26 minutes and 55.5 ± 19 minutes, respectively. At mean follow-up of 33 ± 20 months (range: 1 to 75 months), survival was 90%, freedom from reoperation was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 11 ± 5 mmHg. LVEF improved from 37% ± 7% preoperatively to 43% ± 8% at discharge ( P < 0.01) and further increased to 47% ± 9% at follow-up ( P = 0.06), LV mass decreased from 149.8 ± 16.9 g/m2 preoperatively to 115.3 ± 11.6 g/m2 at follow-up ( P < 0.001), and moderate paravalvular leakage occurred in 1 patient without hemolysis not requiring any treatment.

Conclusions

AVR with sutureless aortic bioprosthesis implantation in patients with preoperative LV dysfunction demonstrated a significant immediate and early improvement in LVEF.

Sutureless and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: When Rivals Become Allies

In recent years, sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have emerged as viable alternatives to standard surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in higher risk patients. We report 7 cases in which SU-AVR and TAVR were used as bailout procedures for each other. Between June 2011 and August 2018, 626 patients underwent SU-AVR with the Perceval S prosthesis, and 588 patients underwent TAVR at the Montreal Heart Institute. Herein, we report the cases of 7 patients who underwent both procedures within a short time frame: 3 patients who underwent SU-AVR with a Perceval prosthesis after a failed TAVR procedure, 3 patients who underwent TAVR after degeneration of a surgically implanted Perceval sutureless prosthesis, and 1 patient who was scheduled for multiple percutaneous interventions-including TAVR, right coronary angioplasty, atrial fibrillation ablation with left atrial appendage occlusion-who suffered a periprocedural complication requiring an emergent surgery, during which a Perceval sutureless prosthesis was deployed. All patients were discharged home alive. Two patients suffered a complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. We demonstrate that SU-AVR with the Perceval S prosthesis and TAVR are complementary procedures within the therapeutic armamentarium to treat aortic valve disease in higher risk patients. Specifically, valve-in-valve TAVR is an attractive option in the setting of Perceval prosthesis degeneration, whereas SU-AVR is a useful bailout option in the context of periprocedural failure of a TAVR.

Long-term Survival in Korean Elderly Patients with Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Refused Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the treatment of choice in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) patients. However, a substantial number of elderly patients refuse AVR and treated medically. We investigated their long-term prognosis.

METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2016, we analyzed elderly patients with severe symptomatic AS who refused to have AVR.

RESULTS

After screening of total 534 patients, we analyzed total 180 severe symptomatic AS patients (78±7 years old, 96 males). Hypertension was the most common cardiovascular risk factor (72%) and the most common symptom was dyspnea (66%). Calculated aortic stenosis area was 0.73±0.20 cm² and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 57.8±12.2%. Total 102 patients died during follow-up period (39.1±31.0 months). One-, 3-, and 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 21.1±3.0%, 43.1±3.8%, and 56.5±4.2%, respectively. Of them, 87 died from cardiac causes, and 1-, 3-, and 5-year cardiac mortality rate was 18.0±2.9%, 38.2±3.8%, and 50.7±4.3%, respectively. Their all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality were significantly higher than those of controls. Univariate analysis showed that age, anemia, LVEF, and Log N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were significant parameters in all-cause mortality (p<0.001, p=0.001, p=0.039, and p=0.047, respectively) and in cardiac mortality (p<0.001, p<0.001, p=0.046, and p=0.026, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that age and anemia were significant prognostic factors for cardiac and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly severe symptomatic AS patients who treated medically, their 1-, 3- and 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 21.1±3.0%, 43.1±3.8%, and 56.5±4.2%, respectively. Age and anemia were significant prognostic factors for cardiac and all-cause mortality.