Rapid-Deployment Versus Conventional Bio-Prosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) has become an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment due to its advantages in reducing surgery time and improving outcomes. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of SUAVR vs. CAVR treatment for patients with moderate to severe AS in Thailand.

METHODS

A two-part constructed model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from both societal and healthcare perspectives. Data on short-term mortality, complications, cost, and utility data were obtained from the Thai population. Long-term clinical data were derived from clinical studies. Costs and QALYs were discounted annually at 3% and presented as 2022 values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine additional cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SUAVR treatment incurred higher costs compared with CAVR treatment from both societal (THB 1,733,355 [USD 147,897] vs THB 1,220,643 [USD 104,150]) and healthcare provider perspectives (THB 1,594,174 [USD 136,022] vs THB 1,065,460 [USD 90,910]). In addition, SUAVR treatment resulted in lower health outcomes, with 6.20 life-years (LYs) and 4.95 QALYs, while CAVR treatment achieved 6.29 LYs and 5.08 QALYs. SUAVR treatment was considered as a dominated treatment strategy using both perspectives. Sensitivity analyses indicated the significant impact of changes in utilities and long-term mortality on the model.

CONCLUSION

SUAVR treatment is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with CAVR treatment for patients with moderate-severe AS in Thailand, as it leads to higher costs and inferior health outcomes. Other important issues related to specific patients such as those with minimally invasive surgery, those undergoing AVR with concomitant procedures, and those with calcified and small aortic root should be taken into account.

Propensity-Weighted Comparison of Conventional Stented and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Bioprostheses

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study was to compare early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of Intuity and ME bioprostheses.

METHODS

A propensity score weighting approach was performed. Preoperative variables were defined according to EuroSCORE criteria and postoperative complications according to VARC-2 definitions.

RESULTS

We evaluated 375 patients who underwent SAVR with the two study devices. Intuity and ME were implanted in 252 (67.2%) and in 123 (32.8%) patients, respectively. There were no differences in terms of postoperative complications, including mortality (1% in each group; OR 0.46[0.05;4.21]). The incidence of pace-maker implantation was 6% and 5% in Intuity and ME groups, respectively (OR 0.53[0.27;1.07]). Intuity showed significantly lower gradients (Median mean gradients: 9mmHg vs. 14mmHg, p<0.001), larger effective orifice area index (1.13cm²/m² vs. 1cm²/m², p=0.007) and lower incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (7.1% vs. 22.8%, p=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The RD Intuity provides similar early clinical outcomes but shows significantly better hemodynamic performance compared to the ME valve.

Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement

Objectives

Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.

Methods

A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity‐matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).

Results

Random‐effects meta‐analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−1.35, −1.20], p < .001) and cross‐clamp times (SMD: −1.05, 95% CI: [−1.12, −0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: −0.385, 95% CI: [−0.679, −0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow‐up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05).

Conclusions

Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.

Direct comparison of rapid deployment versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis

Background

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the procedural and early outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using rapid deployment valve (RD group) versus sutureless valve (SU group).

Methods

A literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were mean transvalvular pressure gradient (MPG) after AVR, the incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL) and the need for a permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The secondary outcomes included aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, early mortality and other postoperative complications, such as atrial fibrillation, bleeding reoperation and stroke.

Results

Eight articles were included, and all outcomes except MPG after AVR in matched valve sizes were extracted from 7 studies (RD group =842 patients and SU group =1,386 patients). The pooled analysis demonstrated a lower MPG in the RD group than in the SU group, with mean difference (MD) of 2.64 mmHg. The pooled risk ratios of any PVL and grade ≥2 (or moderate) PVL were not significantly different between the groups; however, the incidence of PPI was significantly lower in the RD group than in the SU group, with a risk ratio of 0.69. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly longer in the RD group than in the SU group, with weighted MDs of 8.74 (P<0.001) and 9.94 (P<0.001) minutes, respectively. The risks of early mortality and other postoperative complications were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions

AVR using RD valve was associated with better valve hemodynamics in terms of the MPG than AVR using SU valve, and better outcomes were observed in the RD group regarding PPI. Procedural times were longer in AVR using RD valve than SU valve. Early clinical outcomes showed no difference between RD and SU valve.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.

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.

Outcomes of a Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve versus its Conventional Counterpart

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) from two studies.

Methods

Patients who underwent RDAVR (INTUITY valve) in the prospective, 5-year, single-arm multicenter TRITON study, or conventional AVR (Perimount Magna Ease valve) in the prospective Perimount Magna Ease postmarket study, were propensity score matched and compared for procedural, hemodynamic, safety, and clinical outcomes.

Results

Matched RDAVR (n = 106) and conventional AVR (n = 106) patients had similar baseline characteristics (mean ± SD age, 72.8 ± 7.6 vs 72.5 ± 7.4 years; male 59.4% vs 61.3%) and procedures (concomitant procedures: 41.5% vs 50.9%). Mean ± SD aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in RDAVR than AVR patients (51.8 ± 20.9 vs 73.9 ± 33.2 minutes; P < 0.001), as was mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.8 ± 34.2 vs 102.4 ± 41.7 minutes; P < 0.001). At 1 year, RDAVR patients showed significantly lower mean ± SD and peak aortic valve gradients (9.0 ± 3.4 and 17.0 ± 6.2 mm Hg, respectively) than conventional AVR patients (13.4 ± 5.5 and 24.2 ± 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P < 0.001). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was significantly less common with RDAVR than with AVR [overall: 16/66 (24.2%) vs 46/76 (60.5%); P = 0.007; severe: 2/66 (3.0%) vs 13/76 (17.1%)]. There were no significant differences between the RDAVR and AVR groups regarding 30-day safety endpoints. Survival rates in the RDAVR and conventional AVR groups were, respectively, 99.1% and 100.0% at 30 days, 97.1% and 95.1% at 1 year, and 93.3% and 94.1% at 3 years ( P = nonsignificant).

Conclusions

In this retrospective study with matched populations, the RDAVR with the INTUITY valve system provided superior procedural and hemodynamic outcomes than a standard bioprosthesis without compromising safety.

Rapid deployment or sutureless versus conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the early and follow-up outcomes of aortic valve replacement using rapid deployment or sutureless (RD) valves (RDAVR group) with aortic valve replacement using conventional bioprostheses (CAVR group).

METHODS

A literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and the secondary outcomes included the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and early mortality and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles (RDAVR group = 1297 patients; CAVR group = 1488 patients) were selected. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly shorter in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (mean difference, -26.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -31.86 to -20.82 and mean difference, -25.33; 95% CI, -30.79 to -19.87, respectively). The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of any paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion were significantly higher in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.53-3.51 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49-2.90, respectively). The pooled analysis showed that the risk of a paravalvular leak grade ≥2 in the RDAVR group did not significantly differ between the RDAVR and CAVR groups (RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.71-5.93). The risk of PPM insertion remained significant when only studies reporting adjusted outcomes were pooled. The risks of other postoperative complications, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up were not significantly different between the RDAVR and CAVR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RDAVR is associated with significantly shorter ACC and CPB times than CAVR, although this difference did not translate into improved postoperative outcomes, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Care might be needed when implanting RD valves because they are associated with a higher incidence of PPM insertion, regardless of the RD valve type.