Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves for Patients With a Small Aortic Root: A Single-Center Experience

Pathology-Independent Expansion of Indications for Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Midterm Outcomes

BACKGROUND

 This study evaluated the midterm outcomes of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) performed regardless of pathology for various aortic valve diseases at a single center.

METHODS

 Of the 344 patients who underwent RDAVR using Edwards INTUITY during the study period at our institution, 176 had bicuspid valve diseases (51.2%), 20 had pure aortic regurgitation (5.8%), and 4 had infective endocarditis (1.2%). Median follow-up duration was 28.6 months (maximum: 86.4 months). Midterm clinical outcomes were evaluated, and the changes of valve hemodynamics from early postoperative period to 5 years after surgery were also investigated.

RESULTS

 Mean age was 68.9 ± 9.8 years, and 46.2% of the patients were female. Isolated RDAVR was performed in 90 patients (26.2%), and concomitant procedures, including aortic surgery (48.8%), mitral valve surgery (20.3%), arrhythmia surgery (9.0%), tricuspid valve surgery (7.0%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (5.5%), were performed in 254 patients (73.8%). Operative mortality occurred in 11 patients (3.2%), and permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 5 patients (1.5%) in early postoperative period. Overall survival rate was 86.9% at 5 years, and cumulative incidence of cardiac death was 6.3% at 5 years. No deterioration of valve hemodynamics was observed at midterm echocardiographic evaluation in either the overall population or for each size of valve.

CONCLUSION

 Isolated or concomitant aortic valve replacement using rapid-deployment valves was performed for various aortic valve diseases regardless of the underlying pathology at our institution, and the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were excellent for up to 5 years.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

High Incidence of Transient Permanent Pacemaker Rate After Rapid Deployment Valve Replacement: Insights of a 9-Year Single-Centre Experience

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) remains debated. Expertise in this field has significantly increased over the last decade. This study aimed to investigate the need for PPI following implantation of a rapid deployment (RD) valve.

METHODS

Analysis of n=372 patients who underwent Edwards INTUITY (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n=251) and Perceval (Sorin/LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) (n=121) valve replacement at the current institution between May 2012 and August 2018 was performed. Coronary artery bypass graft procedures were additionally performed in patients with coronary artery disease. Baseline, preoperative and postoperative outcomes were examined regarding correctness and completeness of the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 23.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients (aged 75±6.3 yrs) with a high grade of aortic valve stenosis underwent either Edwards INTUITY (67%) or Perceval (33%) valve replacement. Seventy-six (76) patients (20%) presented with preoperative conduction disorders. Sixty (60) patients (16%) underwent PPI, which in most cases was performed during the first month after the initial operation. Follow-up was performed up to 9 years, presenting a persistent pacemaker dependency rate of 50% among all patients who underwent PPI. Twenty (20) (40%) PPI recipients showed no dependency on pacemaker, while 10 (10%) required temporary pacemaker support. Mean length of ICU stay was 4±5.1 days and in-hospital stay was 8.2±7.6 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPI after RD valve implantation still remains high compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. However, this study shows that this phenomenon appears to be transient in a significant proportion of the patients undergoing RD valve replacement. These findings might contribute to the scientific discussion and should be taken into consideration for the indication of RD valve replacement.

Pearls, pitfalls, and surgical indications of the Intuity TM heart valve: A rapid deployment bioprosthesis. A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To highlight short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the Intuity TM rapid deployment prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

We reviewed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, SciELO, LILACS, CCTR/CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for clinical trials, retrospective clinical studies, meta-analysis, and gray literature.

RESULTS

Fourty-five clinical studies with 12.714 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-day mortality ranged from 3.8% for Intuity and 3.9% for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 2.17%), permanent pacemaker implantation (Intuity 11.11% and TAVR 12.5%), stroke (Intuity 2.2% and TAVR 2.6%), myocardial infarction (MI) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 1%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other sutured bioprosthesis (SB), mortality ranged from 0% to 3.9% for Intuity and 0%-6.9% for SB. Long-term cardiac mortality ranged from 0.9% to 1.55% for Intuity and 1.4%-3.3% for the Perceval valve. The incidence of PVL (Intuity 0.24%-0.7% and Perceval 0%-1%), endocarditis (Intuity 0.2%-0.7% and Perceval 1.6%-6.6%), stroke (Intuity 0.36%-1.4% and Perceval 0%-0.8%), MI (Intuity 0.07%-0.26%), and SVD (Intuity 0.12%-0.7% and Perceval 0%) were comparable. Compared to standard full sternotomy (SFS), minimally invasive surgery (MINV) mortality ranged from 0% to 4.3% for MINV and 0%-2.1% for SFS. Hospital costs outcomes ranged from $37,187-$44,368 for the Intuity, $69,389 for TAVR, and $13,543 for SB. Intuity short-term mortality ranged between 0.9% and 12.4% while long-term mortality ranged between 2.6% and 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript provides a 360° overview of the current rapid deployments, sutureless, and TAVR prosthesis.

Long-term durability after surgical aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta and the Intuity valve-a comparative analysis

OBJECTIVES

Long-term durability of surgical bio-prostheses is a key factor, especially in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We compared the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD) between patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the Trifecta (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) or the Intuity valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA).

METHODS

Between April 2010 and May 2020, 1118 patients underwent SAVR with the Trifecta (n = 346) and the Intuity (n = 772) valve at a single centre. A total of 1070 patients (Trifecta n = 298, Intuity n = 772) were analysed after the exclusion of patients with pure regurgitation and endocarditis. Retro- and prospective echocardiographic and clinical follow-up was performed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to identify prognostic factors for SVD, aortic re-interventions and mortality.

RESULTS

With 27 cases (Trifecta n = 23, Intuity n = 4) of SVD observed, cumulative incidence of SVD was significantly higher in the Trifecta cohort (P < 0.001). Implantation of a Trifecta valve [hazard ratio (HR) 11.20; 95% confidence interval 3.79-33.09], log-transformed preoperative creatinine (HR 2.47; 1.37-4.44) and sex (male HR 0.42; 0.19-0.92) emerged as prognostic factors of SVD. A significantly higher cumulative incidence of re-interventions was observed in the Trifecta cohort (P = 0.004) and valve type was an independent time-varying risk factor (HR at 12 months 2.78; 95% confidence interval 1.42-5.45). Overall, no significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed between the groups (log-rank test: P = 0.052).

CONCLUSIONS

SVD was significantly more frequent in patients receiving a Trifecta valve and its implantation was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of SVD and aortic valve re-interventions. This comparative analysis of 2 low-gradient bioprosthesis put the long-term durability of the Trifecta valve in question and need to be taken into consideration when performing bioprosthetic SAVR.

Effect of conventional and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement on the distance from the aortic annulus to coronary arteries

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) on coronary height in patients undergoing SAVR with rapid-deployment or SAVR with several standard sutured bioprostheses. This study may identify patients at higher risk of coronary obstruction during valve-in-valve procedures.

METHODS

We analysed 112 patients [mean age 71 (9 SD) years] who underwent SAVR with either a rapid-deployment aortic bioprosthesis (EDWARDS INTUITY Elite Valve) or other standard sutured biological valves. The coronary heights were assessed by computed tomography scan with the Philips 3D HeartNavigator system.

RESULTS

Two groups of patients were analysed: 51 (45.5%) patients implanted with an RD-AVR, which is a supra-annular valve that requires 3 anchoring sutures without the use of pledgets, and 61 (54.5%) patients implanted with a conventional supra-annular sutured bioprosthesis. The mean right and left coronary artery-to-annulus (RCAA and LCAA) heights at baseline were 16.9 (4.6 SD) and 14.2 (4.0 SD) mm in the standard sutured group and 16.3 (3.5 SD) and 12.8 (2.9 SD) mm in the RD-AVR group, respectively; a significantly shorter distance was observed for the left coronary artery in the rapid-deployment group (P = 0.420 for RCAA height and P = 0.044 for LCAA). Postoperatively, the mean RCAA and LCAA heights were significantly decreased in both groups compared to baseline. A mean of 11.5 (4.8 SD) mm for the RCAA and 7.9 (4.3 SD) mm for the LCAA in the standard sutured group as well as 14.4 (3.9 SD) mm for the RCAA and 9.0 (3.1 SD) mm for the LCAA in the RD-AVR group were observed (P < 0.001 for RCAA and LCAA in both the sutured and rapid-deployment groups). Despite the significant difference in the mean distance from the left coronary artery to annulus between the groups at baseline, the postoperative mean distance of the LCAA to the sewing ring was still higher in the RD-AVR group.

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly shorter coronary artery-to-aortic annulus distance for both the right and left main coronary arteries was observed after AVR with different conventional sutured supra-annular bioprostheses compared to AVR with rapid-deployment valves. These findings might be relevant for bioprosthesis selection, especially for young patients.

Peri-procedural Trans-esophageal Echocardiographic Sizing of the Native Left Ventricular Outflow Tract During Edwards INTUITY Valve Implantation

Background: The Edwards INTUITY rapid deployment valve was anchored on the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) by radial force akin to transcatheter balloon-expandable valves. This design feature facilitates minimally invasive and complex procedures but comes at the price of compressing the atrioventricular conduction bundle and potential requirement for pacemaker implantation.

Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 30 consecutive patients who received the INTUITY valve at our institution from August 2018 to January 2021. Demographical, clinical, and echocardiographic parameters were collected for 90 days post-operatively. The diameter of the native LVOT at the landing site of the sub-annular stent was retrospectively measured using archived trans-esophageal echocardiographic images. A line was drawn from the inner edge of the septal endocardium to the inner edge of the anterior mitral leaflet in mid-systole, parallel to the aortic annulus, 6–8 mm apical to the aortic annulus depending on the valve size and the corresponding stent length. Risk factors associated with new onset conduction disturbances, defined as the occurrence of bundle branch block or complete heart block, were analyzed.

Results: Operative mortality was 3.3%. Pre-operatively, permanent pacemakers were required for two patients who were excluded from the subsequent analysis. New onset conduction disturbances occurred in four of the remaining 28 patients (14.3%). This included two incidences of persistent left bundle branch block and two incidences of permanent pacemaker implantation due to complete heart block. Univariate analysis identified over-sizing of the native LVOT by 5 mm or more as a significant risk factor associated with conduction disturbance.

Conclusion: During INTUITY vale implantation, in addition to the aortic annulus, the landing site of the sub-annular stent within the native LVOT should also be sized pre-bypass. Over-sizing the native LVOT by 5 mm or more was associated with an increased risk of new onset conduction disturbances and should be avoided.

Mid-term outcomes of rapid deployment aortic prostheses in patients with small aortic annulus

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards Intuity valve is a rapid deployment aortic prosthesis that favours less invasive approaches. However, evidence about the clinical behaviour of their smaller sizes is scarce. Herein, we studied haemodynamic behaviours and clinical outcomes of small Intuity prostheses (19-21 mm) in comparison to larger Intuity prostheses (>21 mm).

METHODS

This is an observational study including patients implanted with an Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis. Patients with prosthesis sizes 19-21 and >21 mm were included. Baseline and perioperative variables, as well as adverse events during the follow-up were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients (37% female, mean age 75 ± 4.5 years) were included, of whom 54 (45%) were implanted with a small prosthesis and 68 (55%) with a prosthesis >21 mm. There were no significant differences between patients with small Intuity prostheses and patients with larger prostheses regarding in-hospital mortality (2% vs 4%, P = 0.43) or mortality during the follow-up (3.41 vs 2.45 per 100 patients-years; P = 0.58). Survival in the small Intuity valve group was 95% at 1 year and 83% at 6 years, whereas in the larger Intuity valve group was 96% at 1 year and 78% at 6 years. The presence of a small prosthesis did not influence mid-term survival (log-rank P-value = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed good clinical performance of Intuity aortic prostheses with appropriate mid-term survival in patients with the small aortic annulus. Thus, the Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis may be considered as a potential option in patients with the small aortic annulus.

Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes of Rapid-Deployment Aortic Bioprostheses

Aim of this retrospective, multicenter study was to evaluate early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with Intuity rapid-deployment bioprostheses (RDB) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). We analyzed data from the Italian Registry of Intuity Valve (INTU-ITA registry) that is a national, real-world and independent from the industry registry. Preoperative variables were defined according to EuroSCORE and postoperative outcomes according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC). Survival distribution was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier approach. A Cox-Proportional Hazard Model was employed to assess the effect of the covariates on patients' survival. The registry included 1687 patients from 23 centers (June 2012-September 2019). Aortic cross clamp time for isolated SAVR was 55 minutes (IQR: 45-70 minute). Postoperative pace-maker rate was 6.3%. At discharge transaortic peak and mean gradients were: 18 mm Hg (IQR: 14-23 mm Hg) and 10 mmHg (IQR: 8-13 mm Hg), respectively. Indexed effective orifice area was 1.10 cm²/m² (IQR: 0.91-1.31 cm²/m²) and the incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was 0.6%. Hemodynamic data for all valve sizes remained stable during follow-up. Thirty-day overall mortality was 1.8% (30 patients), and at follow-up it was 5.3% (89 patients). Kaplan-Meier overall survival was 95.5% (94.3-96.7%); 90.7% (88.3-93.1%); 86.4% (82.6-90.4%) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Serum creatinine (HR: 1.36; 95%CI: 1.04-1.81; p = 0.0397) and cross-clamp time (HR: 1.01; 95%CI: 1.002-1.017; p = 0.0077) were identified as independent predictors of mortality. According to our data from the INTU-ITA registry, SAVR with RDB provides good early clinical and hemodynamic results that are confirmed at follow-up.

Implantation of a Sutureless Valve Into a Surgically Enlarged Aortic Root: A Bailout Option

Sutureless bioprostheses such as the Sorin Perceval Valve (SPV; Sorin Group, Srl, Saluggia, Italy) have been proposed for replacing stenotic native valves within small aortic roots of geriatric patients with significant comorbidity. Their use seems as safe as that of stented bioprostheses and enables significantly reduced length of surgery. Low transprosthetic pressure gradients have been measured. Because of the radial force of its self-expandable nitinol stent, aortic annulus interruption could be a relative contraindication to SPV use. Off-label implantation of the SPV into a surgically enlarged ascending aorta was first reported in this study, as a bailout option in the presence of a tiny aortic root.

Outcome of rapid deployment aortic valves: long-term experience after 700 implants

Background

The Edwards Intuity Valve System is a bioprosthesis with a balloon-expandable stent frame which enables rapid-deployment (RD). We aimed to analyze our single-center long-term experience with a follow-up until 9 years after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with this bioprosthesis.

Methods

Between May 2010 and May 2019, 700 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis or combined aortic valve disease, implanted with a RD valve at our institution, were included in a prospective database. Median follow-up was 19 months and the total accumulated follow-up was 2,140 patient-years. Pre-operative characteristics, operative parameters, survival rates, valve-related adverse events and valve hemodynamics were assessed.

Results

Mean age was 74±8 years, 45% female. Concomitant procedures were performed in 339 (48.4%) patients. In case of isolated AVR (361/700), a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach was conducted in 283 patients (78.4%). Cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times for isolated AVR were 107.7±28.2 and 73.8±21.3 minutes for MIS approaches and 92.8±28.8 and 57.5±20.6 minutes for full sternotomy (P<0.001), respectively. Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13±5, 11±4, 12±5 and 13±8 mmHg. New early pacemaker implantation was required in 8.9% of patients. Re-intervention or re-operation with valve explantation for structural degeneration, non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis, occurred in 21 cases (3%). Thirty-day mortality was 0.7% (5/700) and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 98%, 91% and 76%.

Conclusions

We report excellent long-term results in this updated single center experience for RD aortic valves regarding durability, safety and hemodynamic performance.