Clinical experience with the second-generation 3f Enable sutureless aortic valve prosthesis

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Sutureless or rapid deployment valves in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging surgical technique using the transcatheter valve technology, which may lead to reduction in cross-clamp time and potentially better hemodynamics compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve. The absence of subannular pledgets results to excellent hemodynamic performance with reduced turbulent flow and larger effective orifice area. However, complications from both surgical and transcatheter AVR may still occur and impact survival. The incidence of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation are not low. Although technical modifications can improve these outcomes, there is a learning curve effect. Therefore, technical and anatomical considerations as well as better patient selection are paramount for better outcomes. In this review, we discuss the use of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in setting of (1) complex procedures, (2) minimally invasive AVR, and (3) small aortic annulus. The advantage of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in terms of mortality remains to be clarified; therefore, it is necessary to accumulate long-term outcomes in an appropriate patient cohort.

Similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians with aortic stenosis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the preferred treatment option for severe aortic stenosis in the elderly and in patients with comorbidities. We sought to compare outcomes after TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in octogenarians.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study conducted at our tertiary center, clinical data were gathered before and after TAVI and SAVR procedures performed from January 2013 to May 2019; follow-up completed in March 2021. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Patients were stratified according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and procedure type. Propensity score-based matching was also performed.

Results

Of 542 patients who matched the inclusion criteria, 273 underwent TAVI and 269 SAVR. TAVI patients were older (85.8 ± 3.0 vs. 82.2 ± 2.2 years; P < 0.001) and had a higher mean STS score (5.0 ± 4.0 vs. 2.8 ± 1.3; P < 0.001) and EuroSCORE II (5.3 ± 4.1 vs. 2.8 ± 6.0; P < 0.001). Rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker insertion (15.0% vs. 9.3%; P = 0.040) and paravalvular leak (9.9% vs. 0.8%; P < 0.001) were higher and acute kidney injury lower (8.8% vs. 32.7%; P < 0.001) after TAVI, with no difference between treatment groups for major bleeding (11.0% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.130) or 30-day mortality (5.5% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.315). A statistically significant difference was found between TAVI and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk groups when it came to occurrence of paravalvular leak, acute kidney injury, and new onset AF (all P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This analysis of an octogenarian “real-life” population undergoing TAVI or SAVR (with a biological valve) showed similar outcomes regarding clinical endpoints in low- and medium-risk (STS score) groups.

Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves.

METHOD AND RESULTS

From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18-29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16-29] mm Hg and 18 [14-24] mm Hg, p < 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

History, development and clinical perspectives of sutureless and rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement

Degenerative aortic stenosis is the most frequent valvular heart disease in industrialized countries. Conservative treatment may beneficially influence symptoms but is never successful. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the only recognized treatment option to provide substantially prolonged survival until 2008. Operative mortality of isolated SAVR has been reported as low as 0.5% to 1% in experienced institutions, while long-term survival is close to that observed in a control healthy population of similar age. A multitude of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of SAVR with regard to improvement in quality of life and physical performance in the majority of symptomatic patients. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an equal treatment modality, first in patients with high surgical risk and more recently in patients with intermediate and low surgical risk. Paravalvular regurgitation and the higher rate of pacemaker implantation remain points of consideration. Additionally, the long-term durability of TAVI devices and occurrence of stroke late after TAVI require additional analyses. Sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve (R-SAVR) were designed to simplify and accelerate a conventional or less invasive surgical procedure while allowing complete excision of the calcified native valve. From 3 different implants tested more than 10 to 15 years ago, only two are available on the market today: the Perceval^® valve from Liva Nova and the Intuity^® sutureless prosthesis from Edwards Lifesciences. There has been extensive experience with these two devices in previous years and the results obtained are comparable to those observed following the use of conventional implants. The sutureless devices may be of particular interest for more complex and combined surgical procedures. This review summarizes the sutureless (SU-SAVR) and rapid deployment valve technologies and presents a clinical outlook for the patient population managed with these devices.

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.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: Meta-analysis and microsimulation

OBJECTIVE

To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients, we provide a comprehensive overview of outcome after AVR with bioprostheses.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of studies reporting clinical outcome after AVR with bioprostheses in elderly patients (mean age ≥70 years; minimum age ≥65 years) published between January 1, 2000, to September 1, 2016. Reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risks.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies reporting on 34 patient cohorts were included, encompassing a total of 12,842 patients with 55,437 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up 5.0 ± 3.3 years). Pooled mean age was 76.5 ± 5.5 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 5.42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-6.55), thromboembolism rate was 1.83%/year (95% CI, 1.28-3.61), and bleeding rate was 0.75%/year (95% CI, 0.50-1.11). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was based on pooled time to SVD data (Gompertz; shape: 0.124, rate: 0.003). For a 75-year-old patient, this translated to an estimated life expectancy of 9.8 years (general population: 10.2 years) and lifetime risks of bleeding of 7%, thromboembolism of 17%, and reintervention of 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The low risks of SVD and reintervention support the use of bioprostheses in elderly patients in need of AVR. The estimated life expectancy after AVR was comparable with the general population. The results of this study inform patients and clinicians about the expected outcomes after bioprosthetic AVR and thereby support treatment decision-making. Furthermore, our results can be used as a benchmark for long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients who were eligible for surgery and other (future) alternative treatments (eg, tissue-engineered heart valves).

Surgical sutureless and transcatheter aortic valves: hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes in propensity score-matched high-risk populations with severe aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVES

In propensity score-matched patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the 3f Enable sutureless prosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the hemodynamic performance of both valves and mid-term survival of patients were evaluated.

BACKGROUND

Data on hemodynamic performance of surgical sutureless bioprostheses in high operative risk patients with aortic stenosis are scarce.

METHODS

Of 258 patients undergoing TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable valve, 80 (79 ± 5 years of age, 100% men) were included in the current analysis on the basis of propensity score 1:1 matching for baseline clinical and hemodynamic characteristics. All patients had hemodynamic echocardiographic evaluation at baseline and discharge. Mid-term survival was analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with the 3f Enable valve, TAVR prostheses (Edwards SAPIEN XT [Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California] and CoreValve [Medtronic]) had larger effective orifice area index (1.00 ± 0.30 cm(2)/m(2) vs. 0.76 ± 0.22 cm(2)/m(2); p < 0.001), lower pressure gradient (8.14 ± 4.21 mm Hg vs. 10.72 ± 4.01 mm Hg; p = 0.006), less frequent prosthesis-patient mismatch (30.0% vs. 67.5%; p = 0.001), and low flow (46.2% vs. 72.5%; p = 0.02), but more frequent aortic regurgitation (87.5% vs. 20.0%; p < 0.001). The presence of prosthesis-patient mismatch was independently associated with a low-flow state at discharge (odds ratio: 4.70; p = 0.004) and independently associated with the use of the sutureless prosthesis (odds ratio: 3.90; p = 0.02). However, the survival of the 2 groups was comparable after 1.5-year (interquartile range: 0.79 to 2.01 years) follow-up (log-rank test, p = 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR prostheses demonstrated better hemodynamics than the 3f Enable valve but a higher incidence of aortic regurgitation. However, these differences did not influence mid-term survival of patients.

A Meta-Analysis Examining Differences in Short-Term Outcomes between Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Prostheses

Objective

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses are anchored by radial force in a mechanism similar to that of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with an increased permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirement in a significant proportion of patients. We undertook a meta-analysis to examine the incidence of PPM insertion associated with sutureless compared with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Prisma guidelines.1 All searches were performed on August 10, 2014. Studies between 2007 and 2014 were included in the search.

Results

A total of 832 patients were included in the sutureless group and 3,740 in the conventional group. Aortic cross-clamp (39.8 vs 62.4 minutes; P < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass (64.9 vs 86.7 minutes; P = 0.002) times were shorter in the sutureless group. Permanent pacemaker implantation rate was higher in the sutureless cohort (9.1% vs 2.4%; P = 0.025).

Conclusions

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses are associated with significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times and a higher incidence of PPM insertion than conventional. Further investigation of the prognostic significance is required.

Regression of left ventricular mass after implantation of the sutureless 3f Enable aortic bioprosthesis

Left ventricular hypertrophy in aortic stenosis is considered a compensatory response for the maintenance of systolic function but a risk factor for cardiac morbidity and death. We investigated the degree of left ventricular mass regression after implantation of the sutureless Medtronic 3f Enable Aortic Bioprosthesis. We studied 19 patients who, from May 2010 through July 2011, underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable bioprosthetic valve, with clinical and echocardiographic follow-up at 6 months. The mean age was 77.1 ± 5.1 years (range, 68-86 yr); 14 patients were women (73.7%); and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 15.4% ± 11.8%. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, at discharge, and at 6 months' follow-up. The left ventricular mass was calculated by means of the Devereux formula and indexed to body surface area. The left ventricular mass index decreased from 146.1 ± 47.6 g/m(2) at baseline to 118.1 ± 39.8 g/m(2) at follow-up (P=0.003). The left ventricular ejection fraction did not change significantly. The mean transaortic gradient decreased from 57.3 ± 14.2 mmHg at baseline to 12.3 ± 4.6 mmHg at discharge and 12.2 ± 5.3 mmHg at follow-up (P <0.001), and these decreases were accompanied by substantial clinical improvement. No moderate or severe paravalvular leakage was present at discharge or at follow-up. In isolated aortic stenosis, aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable bioprosthesis results in significant regression of left ventricular mass at 6 months' follow-up. However, this regression needs to be verified by long-term echocardiographic follow-up.

Sutureless prostheses and less invasive aortic valve replacement: just an issue of clamping time?

BACKGROUND

Recently, sutureless aortic bioprostheses have been increasingly adopted to facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. We aimed at evaluating the impact of the transition from conventional bioprostheses to the routine use of the 3f Enable prosthesis (Medtronic ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN) for aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy.

METHODS

Between November 2009 and November 2012, 83 consecutive minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedures were performed in our institution by the same surgeon through an upper T-shaped ministernotomy. The earliest 42 patients (group A) received a conventional bioprosthesis, and the later 41 patients (group B) received the sutureless 3f Enable valve. Aortic clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times, early outcomes, and valve hemodynamics were compared.

RESULTS

There was no statistical intergroup difference in baseline characteristics. In-hospital mortality was 1% (a single nonvalve-related death). Average aortic clamping times in group A and group B were, respectively, 85 ± 17 and 47 ± 11 minutes (p < 0.0001); the cardiopulmonary bypass time was 108 ± 21 and 69 ± 15 minutes, respectively (p < 0.0001). There were three paravalvular leakages in group A (grade I) and four in group B (two grade I, and two grade II); three pacemaker implantations occurred in group B (p = 0.07); mean transvalvular gradient at discharge was 16.9 ± 9.1 mm Hg in group A and 11.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg in group B (p = 0.0007). During follow-up (average 25.5 ± 12.9 months), one structural valve deterioration was registered in group A, and was treated with a valve-in-valve procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

In our initial experience, the sutureless 3f Enable technology significantly reduced the clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times, as well as the mean transvalvular gradient in aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy.

Current status of surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis

In this review, we discuss the current surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis. Surgical strategy for treatment of aortic valve stenosis is based on the risk profile of the patient. We reviewed the existing literature and present the current state of the art of these various approaches, taking into account clinical outcomes, quality of life, costs, and learning curve.

Two alternative sutureless strategies for aortic valve replacement: a two-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Important comorbid conditions in patients referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR) require less invasive strategies. We describe our initial experience with the Perceval S (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy) and 3f Enable (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN USA) sutureless aortic bioprostheses.

METHODS

We compared intraoperative data, postoperative clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic results from patients receiving a Perceval S (P group; n = 97) or a 3f Enable (E group; n = 32) prosthesis in two cardiac surgery departments (Nuremberg, Germany, and Massa, Italy).

RESULTS

Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both groups, except for mean ± SD body surface area (P group = 2.01 ± 2.9 m, E group = 1.83 ± 3.8 m; P < 0.001). Sixty-five patients (67%) in the P group and 19 patients (59.5%) in the E group (P = 0.22) underwent minimally invasive AVR with either ministernotomy or right anterior minithoracotomy approach. Concomitant procedures were performed in 37 patients (38%) in the P group and 9 patients (28%) in the E group (P = 0.56). In-hospital mortality was 2%. The mean ± SD prosthesis diameter was 23.5 ± 1.4 mm (P group) compared with 22.1 ± 2 mm (E group) (P < 0.001). In isolated AVR, aortic cross-clamp time was 36 ± 12.7 minutes in the P group and 66 ± 18 minutes in the E group (P < 0.001). At a mean ± SD follow-up of 8.3 ± 4.5 months, survival was 97% (one death in the P group). In five patients (P group = 1, E group = 4), a moderate paravalvular leak was present (P = 0.013). The mean ± SD transvalvular gradient was 9.1 ± 3.3 mm Hg with the Perceval S and 11.2 ± 5.2 mm Hg with the 3f Enable (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement with sutureless aortic bioprosthesis is feasible, also with a minimally invasive approach. The Perceval S showed lower operative times and moderate paravalvular leaks and lower mean transvalvular gradients than did the 3f Enable, related to the larger diameter of the Perceval S implanted. Both prostheses showed an excellent hemodynamic performance. This new technology needs long-term follow-up.

Current status and future perspectives of prosthetic valve selection for aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve abnormality is the most frequent form of valvular heart disease. Notably, aortic stenosis in the elderly population has been increasingly common. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) using prosthetic valve has been still believed as a gold standard surgical intervention for various types of diseased aortic valve. The numerous reports and studies evaluating the clinical outcomes and durability of prosthesis were revealed, however, prosthesis selection for AVR is still debated. In twenty-first century, paradigm shift of prosthesis preference might be emerged from mechanical valves to bioprosthesis due to the development of the technology. Moreover, transcatheter aortic valve implantation accelerated among the worldwide trends. It could be developed having the potential to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with high-risk traditional AVR. After the current guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease, we should consider the valve choice in various patients' profile setting. This review summarizes the current status of prosthesis selection and future perspectives of ideal aortic valve intervention, including minimal invasive care.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation through an Upper V-Type Ministernotomy: An Innovative Approach in High-Risk Patients

Objective

Aortic valve replacement in minimally invasive approach has shown to improve clinical outcomes even with a prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time. Sutureless aortic valve implantation may ideally shorten operative time. We describe our initial experience with the sutureless 3f Enable (Medtronic, Inc, ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN USA) aortic bioprosthesis implanted in minimally invasive approach in high-risk patients.

Methods

Between May 2010 and May 2011, thirteen patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable bioprosthesis through an upper V-type ministernotomy interrupted at the second intercostal space. The mean ± SD age was 77 ± 3.9 years (range, 72–83 years), 10 patients were women, and the mean ± SD logistic EuroSCORE was 15% ± 13.5%. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, at postoperative day 1, at discharge, and at follow-up. Clinical data, adverse events, and patient outcomes were recorded retrospectively. The median follow-up time was 4 months (interquartile range, 2–10 months).

Results

Most of the implanted valves were 21 mm in diameter (19–25 mm). The CPB and ACC times were 100.2 ± 25.3 and 66.4 ± 18.6 minutes. At short-term follow-up, the mean ± SD pressure gradient was 14 ± 4.9 mm Hg; one patient showed trivial paravalvular leakage. No patients died during hospital stay or at follow-up.

Conclusions

The 3f Enable sutureless bioprosthesis implanted in minimally invasive approach through an upper V-type ministernotomy is a feasible, safe, and reproducible procedure. Hemodynamic and clinical data are promising. This innovative approach might be considered as an alternative in high-risk patients. Reduction of CPB and ACC time is possible with increasing of experience and sutureless evolution of actual technology.

The year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: selected highlights from 2011

There have been rapid advances in oral anticoagulation. The oral factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban and apixaban and the oral direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran recently have been rigorously evaluated. These novel anticoagulants will usher in a new paradigm for perioperative anticoagulation. Perioperative blood conservation in cardiac surgery recently has been highlighted in the updated guidelines by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. These recommendations reflect a comprehensive evaluation of the recent evidence to optimize transfusion practice. Transcatheter mitral valve repair continues to mature. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis has entered the clinical mainstream, with randomized trials showing its superiority over medical management and its equivalency to surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients. This transformational technology represents a major leadership opportunity for the cardiac anesthesiologist. Minimally invasive valve surgery has shown effectiveness in high-risk patients. Radial access is equivalent to femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes but significantly reduces the risk of local vascular complications. Recent trials have further clarified the roles of medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with significant coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. The past year has witnessed major advances in cardiovascular practice with new drugs, new devices, and new guidelines. The coming year most likely will advance these achievements to enhance the care of patients.

Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis in severe aortic root calcification: an innovative approach

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic root calcification is technically a very difficult procedure which requires a long cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, especially in patients undergoing complex procedures such as multivalve or valve and coronary surgery. We report a case of successful AVR with an innovative approach in a patient with an extensively calcified aortic root and concomitant tricuspid valve regurgitation who underwent mitral valve replacement 20 years ago.

What are the current results of sutureless valves in high-risk aortic valve disease patients?

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether sutureless aortic valves have a clinical and haemodynamic benefit in high-risk patients with aortic valve disease. A total of 307 papers were found using the reported searches; of which, six represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, date, journal, study type, population, main outcome measures and results are tabulated. The studies found analysed the outcomes of sutureless aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Reported measures included mortality; post-operative complications namely stroke, renal failure, endocarditis and bleeding; valve deployment, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp (ACC) times; echocardiographic assessment of paravalvular leaks (PVLs) and valve haemodynamics; and symptomatic functional class. Hospital mortality ranged between 3.1 and 12.5% and long-term mortality ranged between 3.1 and 10%. Incidence of PVL was found to be between 0.0 and 11%. Stroke was observed in 0.7%, renal failure in 3.1%, prosthetic valve endocarditis in 2.1-3.1% and major bleeding in 3.1%. The valve deployment time was 9-21 min, CPB time 35-111 min and ACC time 17-70 min. Short-term mean and peak valve gradients were in the ranges of 10-11 and 18-22 mmHg, respectively, reducing to 8-9 and 16.4-19 mmHg, respectively, at follow-up. Owing to the lack of comparative studies analysing the outcomes of sutureless and conventional aortic valves, we compared these results with the recently published PARTNER Trial (Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients), and it can be shown that the outcomes of sutureless aortic valves compare favourably with conventional valves in terms of mortality, neurological deficit, renal failure and post-operative bleeding. However, there is increased incidence of endocarditis and PVLs, together with raised mean valve gradients, perhaps owing to the mechanical properties and deployment techniques of sutureless aortic valves.