Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: A Canadian Multicentre Study

Baseline CT-Based Risk Factors for Atrioventricular Block after Surgical AVR

BACKGROUND

 We aimed to evaluate the impact of membranous interventricular septum (MIS) length and calcifications of the native aortic valve (AV), via preoperative multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scan, on postoperative atrioventricular block III (AVB/AVB III) and permanent pacemaker implantation in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

 We retrospectively analyzed preoperative contrast-enhanced MDCT scans and procedural outcomes of patients affected by AV stenosis who underwent SAVR at our center (June 2016-December 2019). The study population was divided into two groups (AVB and non-AVB), and variables were compared with a Mann-Whitney's U-test or chi-square test. Data were further analyzed using point biserial correlation and logistic regression.

RESULTS

 A total of 155 (38% female) patients (mean age of 71.2 ± 6 years) were enrolled in our study: conventional stented bioprosthesis (N = 99) and sutureless prosthesis (N = 56) were implanted. A postoperative AVB III was observed in 11 patients (7.1%). AVB patients had significant greater calcifications in left coronary cusp (LCC) -AV (non-AVB = 181.0 mm3 [82.7-316.9] vs. AVB = 424.8 mm3 [115.9-563.2], p = 0.044), LCC left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) (non-AVB = 2.1 mm3 [0-20.1] vs. AVB = 26.0 mm3 [0.1-138.0], p = 0.048), right coronary cusp (RCC) -LVOT (non-AVB = 0 mm3 [0-3.5] vs. AVB = 2.8 mm3 [0-29.0], p = 0.039), and consequently in total LVOT (non-AVB = 2.1 mm3 [0-20.1] vs. AVB = 26.0 mm3 [0.1-138.0], p = 0.02), while their MIS was significantly shorter than in non-AVB patients (non-AVB = 11.3 mm [9.9-13.4] vs. AVB = 9.44 mm [6.98-10.5]; p=0.014)). Partially, these group differences correlated positively (LCC -AV, r = 0.201, p = 0.012; RCC -LVOT, r = 0.283, p ≤ 0.001) or negatively (MIS length, r = -0.202, p = 0.008) with new-onset AVB III.

CONCLUSION

 We recommend including an MDCT in preoperative diagnostic testing for all patients undergoing surgical AVR for further risk stratification.

Sutureless Valves, a "Wireless" Option for Patients With Aortic Valve Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter technologies triggered the recent revision of the guidelines that progressively widened the indications for the treatment of aortic stenosis. On the surgical realm, a technology avoiding the need for sutures to anchor the prosthesis to the aortic annulus has been developed with the aim to reduce the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and simplify the process of valve implantation. In addition to a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-like stent that exerts a radial force, these so-called "rapid deployment valves" or "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement also have cuffs to improve sealing and reduce the risk of paravalvular leak. Despite promising, the actual advantage of sutureless valves over traditional surgical procedures (surgical aortic valve replacement) or TAVR is still debated. This review summarizes the current comparative evidence reporting outcomes of "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement to TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

Thrombocytopenia Following Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the safety and performance of the Perceval valve for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at 1 year after undergoing aortic stenosis (AS) treatment, and its effect on significant declines in the platelet count during the immediate postoperative period.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were collected retrospectively for the initial 121 patients (median age 77 years; 47.1% females) who underwent Perceval sutureless AVR between May 2019 and July 2022. Implantation was successful in all (100%), with median cross-clamp and CPB times of 59 and 100 min, respectively. Postoperative thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50×103/μL) was noted in 80 (66.1%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed advanced age (>80 years), preoperative low platelet count (<200×103/μL), and a sternotomy approach as significant risk factors for postoperative thrombocytopenia. One (0.8%) patient died within 30 days after the procedure. The 2-year site-reported event rate was 14% (n=17) for all-cause mortality, 0.8% (n=1) for cardiac mortality, 4.1% (n=5) for stroke, and 1.7% (n=2) for endocarditis and valve-related reoperation; there were no instances of paravalvular leakage or structural valve deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombocytopenia was common after Perceval sutureless AVR, although its impact was not significant. Although Perceval sutureless AVR was found to be a safe and effective option, preoperative assessment of potential bleeding should be performed and the Perceval valve should not be used for patients with a high bleeding risk.

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.

The Northern New England Rapid Deployment Valve Experience: Survival and Procedural Outcomes From 2015 to 2021

OBJECTIVE

The optimal approach and choice of initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) is evolving in the growing era of transcatheter AVR. Further survival and hemodynamic data are needed to compare the emerging role of rapid deployment (rdAVR) versus stented (sAVR) valve options for AVR.

METHODS

The Northern New England Cardiovascular Database was queried for patients undergoing either isolated AVR or AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with rdAVR or sAVR aortic valves between 2015 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included endocarditis, mechanical valves, dissection, emergency case status, and prior sternotomy. This resulted in a cohort including 1,616 sAVR and 538 rdAVR cases. After propensity weighting, procedural characteristics, hemodynamic variables, and survival outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

The breakdown of the overall cohort (2,154) included 1,164 isolated AVR (222 rdAVR, 942 sAVR) and 990 AVR + CABG (316 rdAVR, 674 sAVR). After inverse propensity weighting, cohorts were well matched, notable only for more patients <50 years in the sAVR group (4.0% vs 1.9%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.12). Cross-clamp (89 vs 64 min, SMD = -0.71) and cardiopulmonary bypass (121 vs 91 min, SMD = -0.68) times were considerably longer for sAVR versus rdAVR. Immediate postreplacement aortic gradient decreased with larger valve size but did not differ significantly between comparable sAVR and rdAVR valve sizes or overall (6.5 vs 6.7 mm Hg, SMD = 0.09). Implanted rdAVR tended to be larger with 51% either size L or XL versus 37.4% of sAVR ≥25 mm. Despite a temporal decrease in pacemaker rate within the rdAVR cohort, the overall pacemaker frequency was less in sAVR versus rdAVR (4.4% vs 7.4%, SMD = 0.12), and significantly higher rates were seen in size L (10.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.002) and XL (15% vs 5.6%, P < 0.004) rdAVR versus sAVR. No significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (4.6% vs 4.6%, SMD = 0.01), 30-day survival (1.5% vs 2.6%, SMD = 0.08), or long-term survival out to 4 years were seen between sAVR and rdAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment valves offer a safe alternative to sAVR with significantly decreased cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Despite larger implantation sizes, we did not appreciate a comparative difference in immediate postoperative gradients, and although pacemaker rates are improving, they remain higher in rdAVR compared with sAVR. Longer-term hemodynamic and survival follow-up are needed.

Risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to identify risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, 101 consecutive participants who underwent isolated AVR with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis were included. Primary endpoint was analysis of all-cause mortality. We performed a propensity-adjusted analysis of patients undergoing redo sutureless vs redo sutured AVR to understand the impact of sutureless valves in redo operations.

RESULTS

Pre-operative characteristics included a mean age of 71.2-years, mean EuroScore II of 3.51 (±4.48), mean body mass index of 30.2 (±6.8). Mean follow-up was 1.5 years. Intraoperatively, mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were 65 ± 29.6 and 47.3 ± 21.3 min, respectively. Valve redeployment was necessary in 9.9 % of cases and there was one intraoperative death. There were two hospital deaths (including the operative death) while only one was cardiac related. Postoperatively, mean ejection fraction was 55.5 % (±4.1 %), mean effective orifice was 1.5 (±0.3) cm2, and mean transvalvular gradient was 14.7 (±4) mmHg. At 7-years follow-up, 87.9 % of patients were alive. Risk predictors for all-cause death were female sex and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) grade ≥ 2. After matching, aortic cross-clamp time, inotrope use, blood product transfusions, respiratory failure, and post-operative arrhythmias were higher in the redo sutured group compared to the sutureless redo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve implantations have good clinical outcomes. Risk predictors for all-cause death included female sex and LVDD grade ≥ 2.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Sutureless bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: Surgical and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The aging population and the increase in comorbidities urge the development of safer alternatives to the current surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis has shown promising results, especially in complex procedures and in patients requiring concomitant surgeries.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the clinical and hemodynamic performance, safety, and durability of the Perceval® prosthetic valve.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data from all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval® prosthetic valve between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients included (mean age 77.20 ± 5.08 years; 45.4% female; mean EuroSCORE II 2.91 ± 2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 33.31 ± 14.09 min and 45.55 ± 19.04 min, respectively. Mean intensive care unit and hospital stay were 3.32 ± 3.24 days and 7.70 ± 5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 98.99%, as two explants occurred. Four valves were reimplanted due to intraoperative misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82 ± 3.62 mmHg. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, new-onset atrial fibrillation in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary for 3.1%. Early mortality was 2.0%. We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes, or endocarditis, and one successfully treated valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the excellent clinical and hemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, up to a 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable option for the treatment of isolated aortic valve disease.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in pure aortic regurgitation: expanding the indications

Background

In the era of transcatheter methods, patients presenting with a pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are not considered eligible for transcatheter treatment and therefore require another less invasive surgical option. We sought to review our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in patients presenting with symptomatic pure AR, which until now is a contraindication for implementation of sutureless valve prostheses in Europe.

Methods

Between April 2018 and June 2021, 80 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. We analyzed the outcomes and postoperative complications of 12 patients presenting with a pure severe AR undergoing SU-AVR using Perceval (Corcym).

Results

The mean age of the patients was 67 ± 9.1 years old. All patients presented with symptomatic pure AR. Patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the mean EuroSCORE-II of 3.6 ± 2.6%. Six patients (50%) underwent a concomitant CABG procedure. The mean operating- and cross clamp time was 127.25 ± 45.9 and 40.33 ± 17.3 min respectively. All isolated SU-AVR were performed via J-sternotomy or right anterolateral thoracotomy. There were no cases of device dislocation. No patients presented with a paravalvular leakage. We observed excellent mean postoperative pressure gradient at follow-up 5.7 ± 1.5 mmHg.

Conclusions

Our experience with SU-AVR shows the feasibility of sutureless technologies in the aortic valve surgery due to pure AR. Besides the great technical success and excellent hemodynamics, SU-AVR in severe AR offers a great opportunity of reducing the invasivity of the surgical procedure and potentially reducing hospital cost without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay.

Severe mitral valve insufficiency caused by standard surgical aortic valve implantation and its reparation using suture-less prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis is the most frequent cardiac valve pathology in the western world. Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard for the treatment of significant degenerative aortic valve diseases.

CASE PRESENTATION

This case report highlights an unexpected abnormal iatrogenic shortening of the aorto-mitral continuity and its deformity, during traditional AVR using sutured stented aortic prosthesis as the first choice, which caused significant mitral valve regurgitation. The suture-less prosthesis was a rescue choice to restore the geometry and eliminate the deformation of the aorto-mitral continuity.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement using suture-less prosthesis could be a valuable optional choice for lowering the risk of deformation of the aortic annulus and aorto-mitral continuity. It might provide better outcomes in combined procedures.

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.

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.

Impact of early (<7 days) pacemaker implantation after cardiac surgery on long-term pacemaker dependency

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate pacemaker dependency after at least 1 year in patients with early (<7 days) implantation, compared to those who received a pacemaker ≥7 days after cardiac surgery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay and in-hospital complications.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 108 consecutive patients who received a pacemaker after cardiac surgery between 06/2012 and 06/2018. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients with early (<7 days) and late (≥7 days) implantation. Patients were followed up with evaluation of pacemaker dependency between April and June 2019. We identified predictors of dependency by logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 63.9% were men, average age 71.9 ± 11.8 years; 32 (29.6%) had early implantation, and 76 (70.4%) late implantation. After a median 3.2 years [IQR 1.9, 4.5] of follow-up, 30 patients (27.8%) had died, and there was no difference in pacemaker dependency among survivors (66.7% vs. 46.5%, early vs. late respectively, p = .15). Patients in the early group had a shorter length of stay (11.5 [9.0, 14.0] vs. 15.0 [11.5, 20] days, p = .002) and less often had new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) post-surgery (22.7% vs. 47.8%, p = .05). The only significant predictor of dependency was aortic valve replacement surgery (OR = 4.70, 95% CI [1.36 to 16.24]).

CONCLUSION

Early implantation of a permanent pacemaker (<7 days after cardiac surgery) does not impact on the proportion of patients with long-term (>12 months) pacemaker dependency, but is associated with shorter length of stay and less frequent new-onset AF. These findings warrant prospective confirmation in randomized trials.

Perceval S valve empire: healing the Achilles' heel of sutureless aortic valves

Aortic valve replacement is the treatment of choice concerning aortic valve disease. Excellent short- and longterm clinical results are reported. Patients referred for aortic valve replacement are getting older and older, so bioprosthetic valves play a more central role worldwide. However, patient comorbidities are also increased more often rendering patients unsuitable for open conventional aortic valve replacement. As a result, transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become the treatment of choice in patients at very high surgical risk. However, the percutaneous technique is related to major disadvantages provided that the diseased native valve is left in place. Its durability is also uncertain. More recently, sutureless Perceval S valve bioprosthesis has gained ground in the field of aortic stenosis therapy filling the gap between conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter approach. Excellent haemodynamic and clinical results are reported. Its deployment is performed under direct view and ischemic and overall operative times are significantly decreased. Five-year follow-up results are also optimal. However, the "Achilles' heel" of sutureless technology is increased rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation requirement compared to conventional approach. The incidence of this complication varies in literature. Patient-related factors such as preoperative conduction disorders, older age and short membranous septum are predictors of postoperative pacemaker requirement. However, several technical modifications with regard to manufacturer recommendations can be adopted to mitigate this complication. Appropriate annular decalcification, higher guiding sutures placement, reduced balloon pressure and duration and avoiding of oversizing can contribute to prevent from this complication.

A pooled analysis of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement

 

OBJECTIVES

We performed a literature meta-analysis to estimate the rate of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Pertinent articles were identified from the PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases. Eligible studies reported the de novo incidence of postoperative pacemaker implantation after Perceval valve surgery. Among 394 articles retrieved, 26 studies including 9492 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The pooled event rate for postoperative pacemaker implantation was 7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6-9%]; however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies. In a sub-analysis, there was no difference between the rates of pacemaker implantation calculated from multicentre and registry studies (8 studies, 6845 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-10%) and single-centre studies (18 studies, 2647 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-9%; P = 0.75). Implantation rates were similar in high-volume studies (16 studies, 9121 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-8%) than in low-volume studies (10 studies, 371 patients; pooled rate: 7%, 95% CI 4-14%; P = 0.5). Postoperative pacemaker implantation rates tended to decrease over time.

CONCLUSIONS

With a pooled event rate of 7%, postoperative pacemaker implantation remains an important limitation of Perceval sutureless valve surgery, although we observed a degree of variability across included studies. The resultant findings provide a useful estimate for physicians and patients and can serve as a benchmark for future comparative studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020188397.

Recovery of conduction disorders after sutureless aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Conduction disorders and the need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after surgical aortic valve replacement are well-recognized complications. However, in the case of sutureless valve prostheses, it remains unknown whether pacemaker (PM) dependency and conduction disturbances resolve over time. Our aim was to evaluate whether conduction disorders after Perceval sutureless valve implantation recover during follow-up.

METHODS

Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement or concomitant aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass surgery using the Perceval sutureless valve, between January 2010 and July 2018, were included. Postoperative electrocardiogram findings were analysed to determine the incidence of new-onset left bundle branch blocks (LBBBs) and the requirement for PPM implantation. During a postoperative period of 6-18 months, electrocardiogram findings during PM checks were analysed to determine PM dependency and LBBB persistence.

RESULTS

Out of 184 patients who received a Perceval prosthesis during the study period, 39 (21.2%) patients developed new-onset LBBB and 10 patients (5.4%) received a PPM postoperatively. The occurrence of conduction disorders was not associated with valve size. Follow-up was completed in 176 (95.7%) patients. In patients with a new-onset LBBB, 35.9% recovered during follow-up (P = 0.001). Seven out of 10 (70%) patients remained PM dependent.

CONCLUSIONS

After Perceval aortic valve implantation, new-onset LBBB recovers in more than one-third of patients during follow-up. In patients who needed a postoperative PPM, the majority remained PM dependent.

Predictors of Pacemaker Insertion Post-Sutureless (Perceval) Aortic Valve Implantation

INTRODUCTION

The use of rapid deployment sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) has become a viable alternative to conventional AVR especially in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, sutureless AVR has been associated with increased rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared with conventionally implanted aortic valve prostheses. The aim of this study was to determine predictive factors for complete heart block requiring insertion of a PPM post-AVR with a Perceval S sutureless valve (LivaNova, London, UK). Such knowledge will help to improve patient counselling, selection and management of patients undergoing sutureless AVR.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective cohort study assessed all patients who underwent insertion of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve prosthesis between July 2015 and September 2019. Medical records were reviewed for demographic, preoperative electrocardiograph (ECG), and operative features related to postoperative PPM implantation and follow-up in the electrophysiology clinic.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty (130) patients without pre-existing PPM underwent sutureless AVR (66.9% male, average age 74.4±6.6 years). Fifty-seven (57) underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. Eight (8) patients underwent redo cardiac surgery. Nineteen (19) of the 130 (14.6%) patients required insertion of a PPM during their postoperative course. Factors associated with PPM insertion were right bundle branch block (overall n=15, PPM vs No PPM: 8/19 vs 7/111 [42.1 % vs. 6.31 %; p<0.01]), longer QRS duration 113.32ms±22.24 ms vs 100.52±20.96 ms (p=0.017) and longer PR Interval 185.166±42.38 ms vs 169.23±25.70 ms (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Insertion of rapid deployment sutureless aortic valves in the setting of pre-existing right bundle branch block, prolonged QRS complex and longer PR intervals is associated with increased risk of postoperative PPM requirement. These factors should be considered when preoperatively counselling and postoperatively managing patients when balloon expandable sutureless valves are used.

Conduction disorders and impact on survival after sutureless aortic valve replacement compared to conventional stented bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve prostheses are frequently used for the treatment of aortic stenosis. However, postoperative left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation have emerged as frequent complications. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of new-onset LBBB and PPM implantation after sutureless aortic valve replacement (sAVR) with stented bioprostheses, and the impact on postoperative survival.

METHODS

Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or concomitant AVR with coronary artery bypass surgery between January 2010 and July 2017 were included in the study. Two groups were defined: sAVR and conventional AVR (cAVR). The findings of preoperative electrocardiograms were compared with postoperative electrocardiogram findings for both groups. The incidence of new-onset LBBB and the requirement for PPM implantation were recorded. The effect of these conduction disorders on late survival was analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 987 patients were analysed, consisting of 132 sAVR and 855 cAVR patients. The sAVR group had an increased incidence of new-onset LBBB compared to the cAVR group (16.7% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001). A significantly higher rate of postoperative PPM implantation was found for sAVR patients compared to cAVR (6.8% vs 1.6%, P = 0.001). The multivariate Cox analysis revealed that neither postoperative new-onset LBBB nor PPM implantation was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 0.74-4.03, P = 0.204).

CONCLUSIONS

sAVR is associated with an increased risk of new-onset LBBB and PPM requirement compared to cAVR. In this population, postoperative conduction disorders did not affect the mid-term survival.

Oversizing Increases Pacemaker Implantation Rate After Sutureless Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

Cardiac conduction system disturbances potentially leading to permanent pacemaker implantation are significant postoperative complications after aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of sutureless prosthetic valve oversizing on permanent pacemaker implantation rate.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 306 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve. Oversizing was determined by the implanted valve size indexed to body surface area. Data were analyzed with a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

This study confirmed excellent postoperative results for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with right anterior minithoracotomy approach and rapid deployment sutureless valves. Mortality rate was 1%. Eighteen (5.9%) patients received a new permanent pacemaker. Multivariable logistic regression model (P = 0.05) found oversizing as significant risk factor (P = 0.017) for permanent postoperative pacemaker implantation independent of patient age. There was a significant negative correlation between the indexed implanted valve size and the mean and peak postoperative transvalvular gradients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oversizing of sutureless prosthetic aortic valves is a risk factor for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation. Proper sizing of Perceval is important to avoid complications and ensure optimal valve performance.

Safety and Haemodynamic Outcomes of Currently Available Suture-less Aortic Valves in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Suture-less aortic valves aim to achieve better outcomes and to aid and facilitate the minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedure by tackling the issue of cross-clamp time, which is an independent predictor of postoperative outcomes, especially in patients with serious comorbidities. By reducing the number of sutures, the time for suture placement is reduced. Our meta-analysis tried to assess the safety and haemodynamic performance of the suture-less aortic valve prostheses to ascertain their benefits as a viable alternative to current established measures.

METHOD

From their inceptions to February 2017, six electronic databases were searched. Relevant studies using commercially accessible suture-free valves to replace the aortic valve have been recognised. Based on the predefined endpoints, data were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

For incorporation in qualitative and quantitative analyses, 24 studies were recognised, with a total number of 5,073 patients undergoing suture-less aortic valve replacement. Mortality incidence at the 30-day and 12-month follow-ups were 2.5% and 2.7%, respectively, while the incidences of thromboembolic events (1.6%) and paravalvular leak (0.5%) were acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Current available evidence indicates that sutureless aortic valve replacement is a safe operation showing low mortality and complication rates, with satisfactory haemodynamic performance.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Sutureless Valves: Results From an International Prospective Registry

Objective

To report the early and mid-term results of patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) with a sutureless prosthesis from an international prospective registry.

Methods

Between March 2011 and September 2018, among 957 patients included in the prospective observational SURE-AVR (Sorin Universal REgistry on Aortic Valve Replacement) registry, 480 patients underwent MI-AVR with self-expandable Perceval aortic bioprosthesis (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) in 29 international institutions through either minithoracotomy ( n = 266) or ministernotomy ( n = 214). Postoperative, follow-up, and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed for all patients.

Results

Patient age was 76.1 ± 7.1 years; 64.4% were female. Median EuroSCORE I was 7.9% (interquartile range [IQR], 4.8 to 10.9). Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 81 minutes (IQR 64 to 100) and 51 minutes (IQR 40 to 63). First successful implantation was achieved in 97.9% of cases. Two in-hospital deaths occurred, 1 for noncardiovascular causes and 1 following a disabling stroke. In the early (≤30 days) period, stroke rate was 1.4%. Three early explants were reported: 2 due to nonstructural valve dysfunction (NSVD) and 1 for malpositioning. One mild and 1 moderate paravalvular leak were reported. In 16 patients (3.3%) pacemaker implantation was needed. Mean follow-up was 2.4 years (maximum = 7 years). During follow-up 5 explants were reported, 3 due to endocarditis and 2 due to NSVD. Follow-up stroke rate was 2.5%. Three structural valve deteriorations not requiring reintervention were reported. Five-year survival was 91.45%.

Conclusions

In this large prospective international registry, MI-AVR with Perceval valve confirmed to be safe, reproducible, and effective in an intermediate-risk population, providing excellent clinical recovery both in early and mid-term follow-up.

Incidence and causes of pacemaker implantation during postoperative period of aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis is currently the most frequently occurring valve pathology. Developments, such as transcatheter prostheses and rapid deployment prostheses, allow for the offer of a valve replacement to higher risk patients, but these techniques are linked with a higher need for a permanent pacemaker during the immediate postoperative period.

METHODS

We studied the incidence and the factors associated with permanent pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement with Edwards Intuity rapid deployment prosthesis.

RESULTS

Between October 2012 and December 2016, the Edwards Intuity prosthesis was implanted in 71 patients (68% male, 75.3 ± 5 years old). Six patients (8%) required a permanent pacemaker during immediate postoperative period. Univariate analysis showed that a history of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (P = .046, B = 7.5, 95% CI [1.039-54.1]) and preoperative amiodarone (P = .009, B = 31.5; 95% CI [2.32-426]) were associated with a higher need for a pacemaker during the postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation during the immediate postoperative period of aortic valve replacement with Edwards Intuity prosthesis was 8%, a value which is within the limits reported for conventional aortic prostheses. Preoperative amiodarone treatment and previous AMI may increase the need for a pacemaker during the postoperative period of these aortic prostheses.

Clinical Short-Term Outcome and Hemodynamic Comparison of Six Contemporary Bovine Aortic Valve Prostheses

BACKGROUND

Conventional stented valves (CV) remain gold standard for aortic valve disease. Bovine prostheses have been improved and rapid deployment valves (RDV) have arrived in the recent decade. We compare clinical and hemodynamic short-term outcome of six bovine valves.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 829 consecutive patients (all-comers) receiving bovine aortic valve replacement (AVR). Four CV from different manufacturers (Mitroflow, Crown, Perimount, Trifecta) and two RDV (Perceval, Intuity) were compared in terms of pre-, intra-, and postprocedural data. A risk model for mortality was created.

RESULTS

All valves reduced gradients. From 23 mm, all CV showed acceptable gradients. Twenty-one millimeter Mitroflow/Perceval and 19 mm Crown showed above-average gradients. As baseline data differed, we performed propensity matching between aggregated isolated CV and RDV groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), clamp, and surgery times were shorter with RDV (87.4 ± 34.0 min vs 111.0 ± 34.2, 54.3 ± 21.1 vs 74.9 ± 20.4, 155.2 ± 42.9 vs 178.0 ± 46.8, p < 0.001). New pacemaker rate (10.1 vs 1.3%, p = 0.016) and the tendency toward neurologic events (8.9 vs 2.5%, p = 0.086) were higher using RDV, induced mainly by the Perceval. Early mortality was equal (2.5 vs 1.3%, p = 0.560). Revision for bleeding, dialysis, blood products, length-of-stay, gradients, and regurgitation was also equal. Risk analysis showed that low valve size, low ejection fraction, endocarditis, administration of red cells, and prolonged CPB time were predictors of elevated mortality.

CONCLUSION

Isolated bovine AVR has low mortality. Valves ≥ 23 mm show comparable gradients while the valve model matters < 23 mm. RDV should be used with care. Procedure-related times are shorter than those of CV but pacemaker implantation and neurologic events are more frequent (Perceval). Early mortality is low and valve performance comparable to CV.

Update in Heart Rhythm Abnormalities and Indications for Pacemaker After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Objective: Rhythm abnormalities following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and indications for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) were reviewed, which aren't well established in the current guidelines. New left bundle branch block and atrioventricular block are the most common electrocardiographic changes after TAVI. PPI incidence ranges from 9-42% for self-expandable and 2.5-11.5% for balloon expandable devices. Not only anatomical variations in conduction system have an important role in conduction disorders, but different valve characteristics and their relationship with cardiac structures as well. Previous right bundle branch block has been confirmed as one of the most significant predictors for PPI.

Mid-term follow-up after suture-less aortic heart valve implantation

Background

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valve disease in the adult population and its prevalence increases with age. Unfortunately, older age and comorbidities significantly increase mortality, operative risk and worsen prognosis. In recent years, sutureless bioprosthesis [sutureless-aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR)] has become an alternative to standard AVR or TAVI in high-risk patients. Compared to standard AVR, the advantages of SU-AVR include shorter valve implantation, shorter aortic cross clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and higher valve EOA with more favorable hemodynamic parameters. Good early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes have been reported in several studies. However, although early SU-AVR results reported in the literature are encouraging, there are few results of long term follow-up. The aim of this study is to present long term echocardiographic hemodynamic outcomes of the Enable sutureless bioprosthesis.

Methods

The first human implantation of the Enable sutureless bioprosthesis was performed on the 13th January, 2005 by the authors of this manuscript. From that time until July 2008, 25 patients underwent isolated SU-AVR implantation. The median preoperative logistic EuroSCORE was 1.92±0.17 [standard deviation (SD)] and the STS score was 2.96±2.73. Preoperatively, 65.4% of patients were in NYHA class III or IV, the peak/mean gradient transaortic gradient was 84.6/52.1 mmHg.

Results

After the SU-AVR procedure, the average peak/mean aortic gradients were respectively: 12.9/7.1 mmHg at the intraoperative time; 18.1/9.5 mmHg at 3-6 months; 18.3/9.6 mmHg at 11-14 months; 16.9/9.3 mmHg at 2 years; 15.3/8 mmHg at 3 years; 13.4/7.1 mmHg at 4 years; 16.7/8.9 mmHg at 5 years follow-up. Other hemodynamic echocardiographic parameters such as LVOT diameter, LVOT peak velocity, LVOT TVI, valve peak velocity and valve TVI were stable during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

In summary, sutureless bioprostheses are safe and effective treatments for valve stenosis with excellent outcomes and hemodynamic profile which remained stable during the follow-up period. The peak and mean gradients were 16.7 and 8.9 mmHg, respectively, over a 5-year follow-up period.

Perioperative Stroke and Mortality After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Perioperative stroke rate after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) varies between 1.3% and 6.2%, whereas the operative mortality ranges between 1% and 16.4%. The aim of this study was to determine whether perioperative stroke is a risk factor for operative mortality after SAVR by performing a meta-analysis of relevant studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to retrieve relevant literature. Screening of the articles was done independently on the basis of predetermined criteria. Data from the relevant studies were extracted and a random effects model was used to calculate the odds of mortality among patients with perioperative strokes after aortic valve replacement compared with those without such strokes. Subgroup analyses of patients (1) aged above and below 70 years and (2) undergoing isolated valve replacement procedure were performed. Metaregression to check for association of effect estimate and (1) sex, (2) mechanical valve replacement, (3) New York Heart Association class III/IV, (4) left ventricle ejection fraction <30%, and (5) preoperative atrial fibrillation was performed.

RESULTS

Statistical analyses using a random effects model showed that patients with perioperative strokes had 4.74 times greater odds for operative mortality after SAVR, independent of the following covariates: (1) sex, (2) mechanical valve replacement, (3) New York Heart Association class III/IV, (4) left ventricle ejection fraction <30%, and (5) preoperative atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with perioperative strokes after SAVR have nearly 5 times greater odds of experiencing operative mortality compared with those without. Thus, perioperative strokes are associated with increased risk of early mortality and require further examination of preventive strategies.

Sutureless aortic valves: who is the right patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) has emerged as an alternative to traditional AVR for patients with aortic stenosis who present a higher surgical risk, such as the elderly, or those with small or highly calcified aortic roots. With transcatheter aortic valve implantation - the other major AVR alternative - being used in increasingly lower-risk patients, the place of sutureless valves in the AVR landscape needs to be defined. In this review, we discuss recent data and expert opinion as it pertains to the subject of sutureless AVR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent studies have evaluated the performance of sutureless valves in a variety of clinical contexts, including minimally invasive operations and high-risk surgical procedures. The optimal surgical technique for sutureless AVR has been refined through the publication of several reports addressing technical considerations. Reduction in operative times represents the main advantage of sutureless valves over conventional surgical prostheses, and the possibility of complete annular decalcification - and hence a reduced incidence of paravalvular leak - is the primary advantage over TAVI.

SUMMARY

Sutureless valves have emerged as an attractive option for high-risk patients or for complex surgeries where a minimization of bypass time is critical. However, there is limited data regarding long-term outcomes, durability or reoperation.

Ten-year experience with the Perceval S sutureless prosthesis: lessons learned and future perspectives

Aortic stenosis has traditionally been addressed with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). In recent years, several technologies have emerged as alternative treatment methods for aortic valve disease. Among them, the Perceval (LivaNova, London, UK) is a sutureless valve that has been used in clinical practice for over 10 years. It has been implanted in over 20,000 patients worldwide. With nearly 600 Perceval implants since 2011, the Montreal Heart Institute has developed a worldwide expertise with this technology. In this article, we provide an overview of the clinical data currently available in the literature and discuss the lessons we have learned from our experience with the Perceval prosthesis.

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Expandable, rapid deployment aortic valves may interfere with the cardiac conduction system, which can lead to permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). We sought to characterize PPI after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with the Edwards Intuity valve system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) and investigate associated factors.

METHODS

We analyzed 708 patients from 29 centers in the Multicenter Experience With Rapid Deployment Edwards Intuity Valve System for Aortic Valve Replacement (TRANSFORM) trial undergoing rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass graft surgery without preexisting pacemakers. Intrinsic conduction status was recorded as well as PPI incidence through 1 year. The PPI indications were categorized based on expert review of patient PPI source documents. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify characteristics associated with PPI.

RESULTS

After rapid deployment aortic valve replacement, the PPI incidence through 30 days (PPI₃₀) was 13.6%, with 10.9% due to atrioventricular block. In the 423 of 708 patients (59.7%) without any baseline conduction abnormalities, all-cause PPI₃₀ was 8%, 5% for atrioventricular block. For PPIs inserted before discharge, the median time to PPI was 5 days, with 22% placed within 48 hours. Independent predictors of PPI₃₀ were baseline right bundle branch block (odds ratio 7.35, p < 0.0001), female gender (2.62, p = 0.004), larger valve size (1.20, p = 0.016), and atrioventricular block (1.80, p = 0.062). Subset analysis revealed a greater than twofold difference in PPI₃₀ among the largest enrolling centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient factors associated with PPI after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement were right bundle branch block, atrioventricular block, female gender, and larger valve size. Interestingly, a strong center-level effect was associated with PPI. This effect may reflect differences in practice patterns, such as postoperative drug management or timing to PPI. These findings provide a deeper understanding of PPI after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement and help guide clinical practice and patient management.

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.

Early Clinical Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has been developed as an alternative surgical treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of SU-AVR through an assessment of hemodynamic performance and safety.

Methods

From December 2014 to June 2016, a total of 12 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent SU-AVR. The endpoints were overall survival and valve-related complications (paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, endocarditis, and permanent pacemaker implantation). The mean follow-up duration was 18.1±8.6 months.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 77.1±5.8 years and their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.2±17.7. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 94.5±37.3 minutes and 54.9±12.5 minutes, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography showed good prosthesis function with low transvalvular pressure gradients (mean, 13.9±8.6 mm Hg and peak, 27.2±15.0 mm Hg) at a mean of 9.9±4.2 months. No cases of primary paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, or endocarditis were reported. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 1 patient (8.3%). The 1-year overall survival rate was 83.3%±10.8%.

Conclusion

Our initial experience with SU-AVR demonstrated excellent early clinical outcomes with good hemodynamic results. However, there was a high incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation compared to the rate for conventional AVR, which is a problem that should be solved.

One-year outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

The goals of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement include facilitation of minimally invasive surgery and reduced aortic crossclamp time. We report the short-term outcomes of a series of 493 patients undergoing rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY valve system (Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, Irvine, Calif).

METHODS

Assessing Standard oF Care and Clinical Outcomes UsiNg the EDWARDS INTUITY VAlve SysTem in a European multI-center, Active, pOst-market surveillaNce Study was a prospective, multicenter (n = 26) European registry designed to evaluate the safety and performance of the valve system. During rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement, device technical success and crossclamp time were assessed. Procedural outcomes, hemodynamic performance, and various adverse events and clinical outcomes were evaluated up to 2 years.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2014, 493 of 517 enrolled patients successfully received implants with the study valve (95.4% technical success). Mean crossclamp times for 163 full sternotomies, 128 mini-upper sternotomies, and 36 right anterior thoracotomies isolated aortic valve replacements were 47.3, 52.0, and 73.3 minutes, respectively. Mean follow-up was 1.8 years, with 870 total patient-years of follow-up. Mean effective orifice area increased from 0.72 (baseline) to 1.88 cm², and mean pressure gradient decreased from 47.6 to 9.6 mm Hg (1 year). Mean effective orifice area index increased (0.39-1.01 cm²/m²), and 28 of 287 patients (9.8%) exhibited severe prosthesis-patient mismatch at 1 year. After 1 year, 68.1% and 21.7% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I and II, respectively. Freedom from death, major bleeding, major perivalvular leak, reoperation, and device explant at 1 year were 0.935, 0.939, 0.976, 0.975, and 0.983, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate commendable safety and performance of the test valve system over the short term in a broad European setting.

Early Hemodynamic Results in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus after Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective

Patients with a small aortic annulus (≤21 mm) have an increased risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch after valve replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the early hemodynamic performance of the balloon-expandable transaortic valve implantation Edwards system (SAPIEN) and the sutureless Perceval prostheses.

Methods

Fifty patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and 113 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement. Mean ± SD aortic annulus diameter was 19.7 ± 1 mm, with no significant difference between groups. SAPIEN valve size was 23 mm in 40 patients (80%) and 26 mm in 10 patients (20%). Perceval valve size was small in 45 patients (40%), medium in 62 patients (55%), and large in 6 patients (5%). Transthoracic Doppler echocardiographic images were collected at baseline and before discharge.

Results

There were no significant difference in predischarge effective orifice area (SAPIEN: 1.5 ± 0.5 cm2 and Perceval: 1.48 ± 0.34 cm2, P = 0.58) and indexed effective orifice areas (SAPIEN: 0.93 ± 0.32 cm2/m2 and Perceval: 0.88 ± 0.22 cm2/m2, P = 0.42). Predischarge mean ± SD transaortic gradient was lower with the SAPIEN than with Perceval valves (12 ± 6 and 17 ± 6 mm Hg, respectively, P < 0.001). Rates of moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were similar (SAPIEN: 44% and 10% and Perceval: 50% and 14%, P = 0.53 and 0.75, respectively). There were no moderate-severe paravalvular leaks.

Conclusions

Although indexed effective orifice areas were similar, transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN system yielded lower predischarge transaortic mean gradients than the surgically implanted Perceval, in patients with a small annulus.