Rapid-deployment valves: Finally the fog is lifting-benefits beyond crossclamp and bypass times

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in a Real-World All-Comers Population

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR) using Edwards Intuity.

METHODS

A total of 215 patients underwent rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity at our institution. The median follow-up duration was 22 months (interquartile range, 8-36). Primary outcomes were overall survival, cumulative incidence of cardiac death, and major adverse cardiac events. Secondary outcomes were early and 1-year hemodynamic performances of the bioprosthetic valve.

RESULTS

The mean age was 68.6 ± 10.5 years, and EuroSCORE II was 3.09 ± 4.5. The study population included 113 patients (52.6%) with bicuspid valves (24 patients with type 0 bicuspid valves), 20 patients (9.3%) with pure aortic regurgitation, and 3 patients (1.4%) with infective endocarditis. Isolated AVR was performed in 70 patients (32.4%) and concomitant procedures were performed in 146 patients (67.6%), including aorta surgery (42.3%) and mitral valve procedure (22.3%). Operative mortality was 2.8%. Complete atrioventricular block occurred in 12 patients, but most of them were transient and only 3 patients received permanent pacemaker implantation before discharge. Overall survival at 3 years was 92.3%. Early hemodynamic data showed mean pressure gradients of 15.5 ± 5.0 and 12.7 ± 4.2 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively. One-year hemodynamics were also excellent with mean pressure gradients of 14.7 ± 5.3 and 10.7 ± 3.6 mm Hg in the 19 and 21 mm valve, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on a real-world all-comers population, rapid-deployment AVR using Edwards Intuity could be performed for various indications, including bicuspid valve, pure aortic regurgitation, and infective endocarditis, and the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes were excellent.

Rapid Deployment Valves Are Advantageous in the Redo Setting: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Background

The spectrum on how to manage aortic valve disease continues to widen. The purpose of this study is to add further clarification to the role of rapid deployment valves (RDVs) by comparing their outcomes with traditional sutured valves (TSVs) in the reoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) setting.

Methods

This study was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing a second surgical reoperation for aortic valve disease. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: RDV and TSV. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine the association between exposures of interest and the primary and secondary outcomes, after adjusting for all the baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 3 years, which was the composite of all-cause death, readmission for myocardial infarct, readmission for stroke, and readmission for heart failure.

Results

A total of 307 patients made up the study population from 2010 to 2019. Of those, 254 patients received TSV, and 53 patients received RDV. RDV patients were significantly older than TSV patients by 10 years, on average. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were found with the RDV group. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of MACE within 3 years.

Conclusions

This single-centre large cohort study of patients with reoperative AVR found that RDVs facilitate smoother operations by saving 1 hour of cross-clamp time and CPB time. Furthermore, RDVs have comparable outcomes with TSVs, despite the significantly older patient population.

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation After Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from the RADAR Registry

INTRODUCTION

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement has been recently introduced in clinical practice. Different studies have reported a significant reduction in surgical times with excellent hemodynamic profiles and short-term results. However, an increase in permanent pacemaker requirements compared with conventional aortic valve replacement has been described. Nevertheless, risk factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation are not well known. The aim of this study is to report our early outcomes with rapid deployment aortic valve replacement within the RADAR Registry, especially focusing on risk factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and January 2016, 164 patients undergoing isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with Edwards INTUITY Elite (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) were included in the RADAR Registry. Pre-, intra- and postoperative clinical data results and complications were recorded, especially focusing on risk factors for the development of postoperative complete or high-grade AV block requiring pacemaker implantation. Patients were followed up for up to 1 year with evaluation of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 164 consecutive patients were included in this study, where 128 patients (78.05%) had an isolated aortic valve replacement (group 1) and 36 (21.95%) a concomitant procedure (group 2). The surgical approach was ministernotomy in 61 patients (37.20%) and median sternotomy in 100 patients (60.98%). Complications with valve implantation were observed in three patients. Postoperative complete or high-degree AV block requiring a permanent pacemaker implantation developed in ten patients (6.9%). Seven patients died in-hospital (4.27%). No significant differences between groups were found in terms of stroke, postoperative infection, mortality, atrial fibrillation and postoperative atrioventricular block. Seven patients presented acute renal impairment (5.51%) in group 1 versus seven patients (20%) in group 2 (p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, low weight and preoperative arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, bifascicular block, left bundle branch block) emerged as risk factors for postoperative AV block requiring a pacer. In median follow-up of 1 year, seven (4.27%) patients died, and no cases of structural valve deterioration or endocarditis were observed. Significant patient-prosthesis mismatch was found in seven (4.27%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Initial experience with rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in the RADAR Registry demonstrates low rates of implantation complications and good perioperative and 1-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. Incidence of postoperative AV block requiring a pacer correlated with low weight and preoperative arrythmias (atrial fibrillation, bifascicular block and left bundle branch block). Avoidance of oversizing and careful consideration of implantation of this technology in patients with pre-existing arrythmias could minimize the risk for postoperative pacemaker implantation.

Recent trends in aortic valve interventions: Data of the Netherlands heart registration

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved from bailout for inoperable patients to an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in higher-risk groups. The aim of this study is to describe these clinical trends in TAVI and SAVR in patients with aortic valve disease.

METHODS

We analyzed data of the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR) up to 2018 to explore the trends in TAVI and SAVR among 14 cardiac centers in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2017, a total of 7432 isolated SAVR and 5929 TAVI procedures have been performed. A 43.9% increase in the total number of procedures was observed, mainly due to the considerable increase in the number of TAVI procedures. In 2017, there was a decrease in the number of SAVR procedures. In the TAVI group, 30- and 120-day mortality decreased significantly from 7.2% and 10.6% in 2013 to 3.4% and 5.7% in 2017, respectively. In the SAVR group, 30- and 120-day mortality decreased from 1.7% and 2.9% in 2013 to 1.2% and 1.7% in 2017, respectively. Outcomes showed a significant decrease in vascular complications after TAVI. The risk profile of TAVI patients has changed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The recent developments in TAVI have contributed to the increasing numbers of aortic valve interventions in the Netherlands. Mortality rates after SAVR and TAVI decreased as did the rate of complications after TAVI. Furthermore, a trend towards decrease of preoperative risk was observed.

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.

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses

Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the 'gold standard' for treatment of severe or symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The increasing age of patients and increasing comorbidities has led to the development of procedures to minimise operative time and reduce risks of surgery. One method of reducing operative times is the use of sutureless aortic valves (SU-AVR). We examine the current literature surrounding the use of SU-AVR. Alternatives to AVR are SU-AVR, sometimes referred to as rapid deployment valves, or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI has been demonstrated to be superior over medical therapy in patients deemed inoperable and non-inferior in high and intermediate-risk patients compared with surgical AVR. However, the lack of excision of the calcified aortic valve and annulus raises concerns regarding long-term durability and possibly thromboembolic complications. TAVI patients have increased rates of paravalvular leaks, major vascular complications and pacemaker implantation when compared with conventional AVR. SU-AVR minimises the need for suturing, leading to reduced operative times, while enabling complete removal of the calcified valve. The increase in use of SU-AVR has been mostly driven by minimally invasive surgery. Other indications include patients with a small and/or calcified aortic root, as well as patients requiring AVR and concomitant surgery. SU-AVR is associated with decreased operative times and possibly improved haemodynamics when compared with conventional AVR. However, this has to be weighed against the increased risk of paravalvular leak and pacemaker implantation when deciding which prosthesis to use for AVR.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through anterior right thoracotomy: Clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance

BACKGROUND

The ease of implantation of the rapid deployment (RD) and sutureless valves has contributed to the adoption of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR).

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study evaluates the safety and haemodynamic performance of minimally invasive AVR through ART using the RD valves.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center review of a total of 50 consecutive patients who received RD-AVR through ART.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 69-80), and median Euroscore II was 5.1 (IQR: 2.4-7.5). ART RD-AVR was successfully performed in all cases with no conversion to sternotomy, paravalvular leaks or need for valve explantation. The mean size of the implanted valve was 23.2  ± 2.3 mm. In-hospital mortality was 2%. The mean and maximum pressure gradients across the aortic prosthesis were 10 mm Hg (IQR: 9-12) and 19 mm Hg (IQR: 16-23).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement can be safely performed through anterior right thoracotomy wit excellent haemodynamic performance and low postoperative complications rate.

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.