Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement: First 50 Cases

Current Landscape in the Management of Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) poses significant risks to patient survival and quality of life. The management of AS extends beyond restoring valve function to encompass lifelong disease management. While curative treatments exist, advancements in therapeutic approaches and prosthetic valve technology continue to evolve. This review synthesizes recent developments in AS treatment modalities, prosthetic valve innovations, and their clinical implications, delineating the current therapeutic landscape.

Improved robotic-assisted cardiac surgery outcomes with greater hospital volume: a national representative cohort analysis of 10,543 cardiac surgery surgeries

Robot-assisted surgical techniques have enhanced surgical precision, control, stability, and vision, particularly in cardiac interventions. However, the relationship between hospital volume and the clinical and readmission outcomes of robot-assisted cardiac surgery remains undefined. This retrospective cohort study analyzed Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) data from 2010 to 2020. Patients who underwent various cardiac procedures were categorized into three groups based on hospital volume of robot-assisted cardiac surgery: low-volume centers (LVCs), medium-volume centers (MVCs), and high-volume centers (HVCs). Our primary outcome variables of interest were the incidence of perioperative complications, 30-day readmission, and in-hospital mortality. 10,543 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with those treated in LVCs, the adjusted OR of 30-day readmission [OR, 0.70; (95% CI 0.53-0.92), P = 0.014] was lower in HVCs. However, higher perioperative bleeding rates were observed in MVCs (OR, 1.38; (95% CI 1.14-1.66), P = 0.001) and HVCs (OR, 1.84; (95% CI 1.52-2.21), P = 0.001). No significant differences were found in in-hospital mortality. Our research demonstrated that higher hospital surgical volume was associated with better outcomes in robot-assisted cardiac surgery, despite higher perioperative bleeding rates.

Robotic-Assisted Aortic Valve Replacement and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

PURPOSE

Left chest robotic left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to left anterior descending (LAD) coronary revascularization has been established. We describe robotic aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting through a right lateral approach.

DESCRIPTION

A 73-year-old woman with severe aortic insufficiency, 70% LAD stenosis, and ejection fraction of 0.35 presented with recalcitrant symptoms. She sustained a stroke 1 year before surgery. She was frail, with a body mass index of 17 kg/m2. Her Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 10%. Given minimal leaflet calcium, transcatheter options were declined, and she was referred for high-risk nonsternotomy surgical consideration.

EVALUATION

After informed consent, a single-incision 4-cm right lateral working incision facilitated on-pump arrested fully robotic 23-mm bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and LITA-LAD grafting. The LITA harvest time was 43 minutes, and LAD anastomosis was 27 minutes. This frail patient recovered expectantly and was discharged home.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting is feasible and may represent a viable future option for patients with concomitant aortic valve and coronary disease.

Longitudinal outcomes following international multicentre experience with robotic aortic valve replacement†

OBJECTIVES

In an effort to maintain the technical aspects of traditional prosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) while reducing invasiveness and facilitate options for concomitant operations, transaxillary lateral mini-thoracotomy endoscopic robotic-assisted aortic valve replacement (RAVR) has been introduced. The present data highlight the contemporary international collaborative experience.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing standardized RAVR across 10 international sites (1/2020-7/2024) were evaluated using a central database with 1 year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were analysed with a median predicted risk of 1.6% with aortic stenosis in 85.7%, nearly half with bicuspid valves. Biological prostheses were implanted in 220 (73.3%) with a median valve size 23 mm, 10% receiving aortic root enlargement, with 17% of all patients undergoing concomitant procedures. Median cross-clamp 120 min with no conversions to sternotomy. Median length of stay was 5 days, 4.3% with prolonged ventilation, 1.7% renal failure, 1.0% stroke and 8.3% required re-thoracotomy for evacuation of haemothorax. There were two 30-day operative mortalities (0.7%). The new permanent pacemaker rate for the full cohort was 2.6%. Of 163 patients with complete 1-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up, mean aortic valve gradient was 10 mmHg and all but 2 patients (1.2%) had trace to no prosthetic or paravalvular insufficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

RAVR is safe and effective, providing the reproducible benefits of surgical AVR while affording a less invasive approach that permits the opportunity for concomitant procedures. For low and intermediate risk patients with aortic valve disease, RAVR is a potential reproducible alternative for patients and heart teams.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk Medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

Recent approval of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients at low surgical risk has resulted in a rapid real-world expansion of TAVR in patients not otherwise examined in recent low-risk trials. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus TAVR in low-risk Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

Using the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims database, we evaluated all beneficiaries undergoing isolated SAVR (n = 33,210) or TAVR (n = 77,885) (2018-2020). International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes were used to define variables and frailty was defined by the validated Kim index. Doubly robust risk adjustment was performed with inverse probability weighting and multilevel regression models, as well as competing-risk time to event analysis. A low-risk cohort was identified to simulate recent low-risk trials.

RESULTS

A total of 15,749 low-risk patients (8144 SAVR and 7605 TAVR) were identified. Comparison was performed with doubly robust risk adjustment accounting for all factors. TAVR was associated with lower perioperative stroke (odds ratio, 0.62; P < .001) and hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.16; P < .001) compared with SAVR. However, risk-adjusted longitudinal analysis demonstrated TAVR was associated with higher late risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.65; P < .001), readmission for valve reintervention (hazard ratio, 1.88; P < .001), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54; P < .001) compared with SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk Medicare beneficiaries younger than age 75 years undergoing isolated AVR, SAVR was associated with higher index morbidity and mortality but improved 3-year risk-adjusted stroke, valve reintervention, and survival compared with TAVR.

Developing Proficiency in Robotic Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this review is to provide recommendations for cardiac surgeons interested in adopting a robotic platform into their programs.

METHODS

The recommendations are based on the experience of the authors and cover a diverse array of cardiac surgical procedures that are currently performed with robotic assistance. The focus, as with any innovative surgical approach, is to ensure patient safety, maximize quality and efficacy, and set realistic expectations about what is required to achieve proficiency in robotic cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

Even though there may be steady growth in robotic cardiac procedures, it is possible that these procedures will be concentrated in higher-volume programs that already offer expertise in mitral valve or coronary surgery. Once success and proficiency with robotic cardiac approaches to coronary or valvular heart disease is achieved, as outlined in this review, surgeons may wish to embark on more complex robotic procedures, such as reoperative mitral valve surgery, totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass, or aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining the same principles and techniques for coronary surgery or intracardiac procedures and maintaining the fundamentals of myocardial protection and cardiopulmonary bypass are essential to ensure excellent technical and clinical outcomes and to optimize patient safety.

Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Current evidence supports equipoise between surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter AVR (TAVR) for the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The optimal interventional management for lower-risk patients is controversial. Minimally invasive robotic AVR (RAVR) was developed as a potential option.

METHODS

A total of 605 consecutive patients (2017-2023) managed by the identical structural heart team, 174 RAVR and 431 TAVR, were propensity matched and evaluated for in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 288 low- to intermediate-risk (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality <8%) patients matched in 2 well-balanced groups (144 RAVR vs 144 TAVR). In-hospital and 30-day mortality were similar. There were 2 conversions to sternotomy in the TAVR group (cardiac arrest and coronary occlusion) and none in the RAVR group. Eight RAVR patients (5.6%) required reoperation for hemothorax evacuation. TAVR was associated with higher new pacemaker (11 vs 3, P = .028) and major vascular complications (13 vs 0, P < .0001), and a higher postprocedural stroke trend (6 vs 1, P = .056). There was no difference in 30-day transfusions, atrial fibrillation, or 1-year mean valve gradients. However, 1-year mortality (12.5% vs 1.4%, P < .0001) and paravalvular leak greater than mild (32.6% vs 2.3%, P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

These data highlight lower pacemaker and vascular complications, as well as less 1-year paravalvular leak and mortality with RAVR compared with TAVR. RAVR may provide a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to TAVR for low- and intermediate-risk patients presenting with severe symptomatic AS.

Cardiac Surgery After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Trends and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Reports of cardiac operations after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and early TAVR explantation are increasing. The purpose of this report is to document trends and outcomes of cardiac surgery after initial TAVR.

METHODS

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database was queried for all adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery after a previously placed TAVR between January 2012 and March 2023. This identified an overall cohort and 2 subcohorts: nonaortic valve operations and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after previous TAVR. Cohorts were examined with descriptive statistics, trend analyses, and 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 5457 patients who were identified, 2485 (45.5%) underwent non-SAVR cardiac surgery, and 2972 (54.5%) underwent SAVR. The frequency of cardiac surgery after TAVR increased 4235.3% overall and 144.6% per year throughout the study period. The incidence of operative mortality and stroke were 15.5% and 4.5%, respectively. Existing The Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk models performed poorly, because observed-to-expected mortality ratios were significantly >1.0. Among those undergoing SAVR after TAVR, increasing preoperative surgical urgency, age, dialysis, need for SAVR, and concomitant procedures were associated with increased mortality, whereas type of TAVR explant was not.

CONCLUSIONS

The need for cardiac surgery, including redo SAVR after TAVR, is increasing rapidly. Risks are higher, and outcomes are worse than predicted. These data should closely inform heart team decisions if TAVR is considered at lowering age and risk profiles in the absence of longitudinal evidence.

Survival After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: A Contemporary Trial Benchmark

BACKGROUND

The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in low-risk patients necessitates an evaluation of contemporary long-term, real-world outcomes of similar patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a national cohort.

METHODS

All patients undergoing primary, isolated SAVR in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database between 2011 and 2019 were examined. The study population of 42,586 adhered to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials. Patients were further stratified by STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM), age, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The primary end-point was all-cause National Death Index mortality. Unadjusted survival to 8 years was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Mean age was 74.3 ± 5.7 years and mean STS PROM was 1.9% ± 0.8%. The overall Kaplan-Meier time to event analysis for all-cause mortality at 1, 3, 5, and 8 years was 2.6%, 4.5%, 7.1%, and 12.4%, respectively. In subset analyses, survival was significantly better for (1) lower STS PROM (P < .001), (2) younger vs older age (P < .001), and (3) higher vs lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P < .001). When STS PROM was below 1% or the patient age was below age 75 years, the 8-year survival after SAVR was 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this national study confirm that long-term survival after SAVR remains excellent, at 92.9% at 5 years. These contemporary longitudinal data serve to aid in the balanced interpretation of current and future trials comparing SAVR and transcatheter aortic valve replacement and may assist in the clinical decision-making process for patients of lower surgical risk.

Semiautonomous Robotic Manipulator for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

Aortic valve surgery is the preferred procedure for replacing a damaged valve with an artificial one. The ValveTech robotic platform comprises a flexible articulated manipulator and surgical interface supporting the effective delivery of an artificial valve by teleoperation and endoscopic vision. This article presents our recent work on force-perceptive, safe, semiautonomous navigation of the ValveTech platform prior to valve implantation. First, we present a force observer that transfers forces from the manipulator body and tip to a haptic interface. Second, we demonstrate how hybrid forward/inverse mechanics, together with endoscopic visual servoing, lead to autonomous valve positioning. Benchtop experiments and an artificial phantom quantify the performance of the developed robot controller and navigator. Valves can be autonomously delivered with a 2.0±0.5 mm position error and a minimal misalignment of 3.4±0.9°. The hybrid force/shape observer (FSO) algorithm was able to predict distributed external forces on the articulated manipulator body with an average error of 0.09 N. FSO can also estimate loads on the tip with an average accuracy of 3.3%. The presented system can lead to better patient care, delivery outcome, and surgeon comfort during aortic valve surgery, without requiring sensorization of the robot tip, and therefore obviating miniaturization constraints.

Endoscopic Aortic Valve Replacement: Initial Outcomes of Isolated and Concomitant Surgery

BACKGROUND

The applicability of totally endoscopic surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in multivalve operations is unknown. This study describes an approach and perioperative outcomes of totally endoscopic isolated and concomitant AVR using various valve types.

METHODS

A total of 216 patients (114 male; mean age, 71.3 ± 11.3 years) underwent totally endoscopic AVR from May 2017 to October 2022 in a tertiary care center. The 3-port technique was used: a 3- to 4-cm main port without rib spreading, a 10-mm 3-dimensional endoscopic port, and a 5-mm left-hand port with femoral cannulations. Sutures were hand tied with a knot pusher. Descriptive analyses compared perioperative outcomes between patients with or without concomitant procedures.

RESULTS

Of 216 patients, concomitant surgery was performed in 33 (15.2%) patients. Of the 33, 21 (63.6%) had a concomitant mitral procedure. A stented bioprosthesis was implanted in 165 (76.3%) patients, a mechanical valve in 22 (10.2%) patients, and a rapid deployment or sutureless valve in 29 (13.4%) patients. Median operation time and aortic cross-clamp time were 175 minutes (interquartile range; 150-194 minutes) and 78 minutes (interquartile range; 67-92 minutes) for isolated AVR, respectively. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 1 patient (0.5%). Two patients (0.9%) had conversion to sternotomy. Major neurologic events occurred in 3 patients (1.4%). The major adverse event rate was similar between patients with or without concomitant procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic AVR can safely address concomitant valve diseases.

Robotic-Assisted Solutions for Invasive Cardiology, Cardiac Surgery and Routine On-Ward Tasks: A Narrative Review

Robots are defined as programmable machines that can perform specified tasks. Medical robots are emerging solutions in the field of cardiology leveraging recent technological innovations of control systems, sensors, actuators, and imaging modalities. Robotic platforms are successfully applied for percutaneous coronary intervention, invasive cardiac electrophysiology procedures as well as surgical operations including minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass procedures, and structural heart diseases. Furthermore, machines are used as staff-assisting tools to support nurses with repetitive clinical duties i.e., food delivery. High precision and resolution allow for excellent maneuverability, enabling the performance of medical procedures in challenging anatomies that are difficult or impossible using conventional approaches. Moreover, robot-assisted techniques protect operators from occupational hazards, reducing exposure to ionizing radiation, and limiting risk of orthopedic injuries. Novel automatic systems provide advantages for patients, ensuring device stability with optimized utilization of fluoroscopy. The acceptance of robotic technology among healthcare providers as well as patients paves the way for widespread clinical application in the field of cardiovascular medicine. However, incorporation of robotic systems is associated with some disadvantages including high costs of installation and expensive disposable instrumentations, the need for large operating room space, and the necessity of dedicated training for operators due to the challenging learning curve of robotic-assisted interventional systems.

Robot-Assisted Aortic Valve Replacement - First Clinical Report in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted valve surgery represents the latest development in the field of minimally invasive approaches. Robotic assistance may provide greater visualization, enhanced dexterity, and greater precision than traditional mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Aortic valve replacement operations using the da Vinci Xi Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) were performed on 2 patients, 1 with severe aortic insufficiency and the other with aortic stenosis. Both patients had an uneventful postoperative course and were discharged without any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted assisted aortic valve replacement appears feasible and safe in limited cases.

Isolated surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis

Background

The debate about the optimal approach for aortic valve replacement continues. We compared the hospital and long-term outcomes (survival, aortic valve reintervention, heart failure readmissions, and stroke) between transcatheter vs. surgical (TAVR vs. SAVR) aortic valve replacement. The study included 789 patients; 293 had isolated SAVR, and 496 had isolated TAVR. Patients with concomitant procedures were excluded. Propensity score matching identified 53 matched pairs.

Results

Patients who had TAVR were significantly older (P ˂ 0.001) and had significantly higher EuroSCORE II (P ˂ 0.001), NYHA class (P ˂ 0.001), and more prevalence of diabetes mellitus (P ˂ 0.001), hypertension (P ˂ 0.001), chronic lung disease (P = 0.001), recent myocardial infarction (P = 0.002), and heart failure (P ˂ 0.001), stroke (P = 0.02), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.004), and previous percutaneous coronary interventions (P ˂ 0.001) than SAVR patients. In the matched cohort, atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently after SAVR (P = 0.01), and hospital stay was significantly longer in SAVR patients (P ˂ 0.001). There were no differences in hospital mortality between groups (P ˃ 0.99). Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97%, 95%, and 94% for SAVR and 91%, 79%, and 58% for TAVR patients. Survival was lower in TAVR patients before matching (P ˂ 0.001) and after matching (P = 0.045). Freedom from the composite endpoint of stroke, aortic valve reintervention, and heart failure readmission at 1, 3, and 5 years was 98.9%, 96%, and 94% for SAVR and 94%, 86%, and 75% for TAVR. The composite endpoint was significantly higher in the TAVR group than in SVR before matching (P ˂ 0.001), while there was no difference after matching (P = 0.07). There was no significant difference in the change in ejection fraction between groups (β: −0.88 (95% CI: −2.20–0.43), P = 0.19), and the reduction of the aortic valve peak gradient was significantly higher with TAVR (β: −7.80 (95% CI: −10.70 to −4.91); P ˂ 0.001).

Conclusions

TAVR could reduce postoperative atrial fibrillation and hospital stay. SAVR could have long-term survival benefits over TAVR with comparable long-term stroke, heart failure readmission, and aortic valve reinterventions between SAVR and TAVR.

Historical evolution of robot-assisted cardiac surgery: a 25-year journey

Many patients and surgeons today favor the least invasive access to an operative site. The adoption of robot-assisted cardiac surgery has been slow, but now has come to fruition. The development of modern surgical robots took surgeons close collaboration with mechanical, electrical, and optical engineers. Moreover, the necessary project funding required entrepreneurs, federal grants, and venture capital. Non-robotic minimally invasive cardiac surgery paved the way to the application of surgical robots by making changes in operative approaches, instruments, visioning modalities, cardiopulmonary perfusion techniques, and especially surgeons' attitudes. In this article, the serial development of robot-assisted cardiac surgery is detailed from the beginning and through clinical application. Included are references to the historical and most recent clinical series that have given us the evidence that robot-assisted cardiac surgery is safe and provides excellent outcomes. To this end, in many institutions these procedures now have become a new standard of care. This evolution reflects Sir Isaac Newton's famous 1676 quote when referring to Rene Descartes, "If have seen further [sic] than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Intuity Bioprosthesis Through a Right Lateral Approach

Robotic technology offers excellent visualization and surgical precision but has not been established for aortic valve surgery. We present the first 2 cases of patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent successful robotic aortic valve replacement using a lateral approach and the Edwards Intuity® rapid-deployment bioprosthesis. Postoperative recovery was excellent, and both patients were discharged home on the fourth postoperative day. We believe this approach is valuable for robotic aortic valve replacement and may help to finally bridge the gap into routine clinical use, becoming a valuable option for the surgical treatment of the aortic valve in selected patients.