Recovery of conduction disorders after sutureless aortic valve replacement

Predictors of the Need for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with a Biological Prosthesis and the Effect on Long-Term Survival

The need for a permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after surgical aortic valve implantation (SAVR) is a recognized postoperative complication, with potentially long-term reduced survival. From 1987 to 2017, 2500 consecutive patients underwent SAVR with a biological valve with or without concomitant procedures such as CABG or mitral valve repair. Mechanical valves or valves in another position were excluded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The need for PPM implantation was documented in 2.7% of the cases. Patients with a postoperative PPM were older and had higher risk scores and a higher comorbid burden. Its predictors were a prior SAVR (odds ratio of 5.38, p < 0.001), use of a Perceval valve (3.94, p = 0.008), prior AV block 1-2 (2.86, p = 0.008), and pulmonary hypertension (2.09, p = 0.017). The need for PPM implantation was associated with an increased need for blood products, a prolonged stay in the ICU, and an increased 30-day mortality (2.5% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.005). The median survival decreased from 117 (114-120) to 90 (74-105) months (p < 0.001). The implantation had no significant effect on the freedom of congestive heart failure. The need for a PPM implant is not a benign event but might be a marker for a more severe underlying disease. Improving surgical techniques, especially with the Perceval rapid deployment valve, might decrease the need for a PPM implant.

New-onset persistent left bundle branch block following sutureless aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence, predictive factors and prognostic value of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) in patients undergoing sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR).

METHODS

A total of 329 consecutive patients without baseline conduction disturbances or previous permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) who underwent SU-SAVR with the Perceval valve (LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) in two centres from 2013 to 2019 were included. Patients were on continuous ECG monitoring during hospitalisation and 12-lead ECG was performed after the procedure and at hospital discharge. NOP-LBBB was defined as a new postprocedural LBBB that persisted at hospital discharge. Baseline, procedural and follow-up clinical and echocardiography data were collected in a dedicated database.

RESULTS

New-onset LBBB was observed in 115 (34.9%) patients, and in 76 (23.1%) persisted at hospital discharge. There were no differences in baseline and procedural characteristics between patients with (n=76) and without (n=253) NOP-LBBB. After a median follow-up of 3.3 years (2.3-4.4 years), patients with NOP-LBBB had a higher incidence of PPI (14.5% vs 6.3%, p=0.016), but exhibited similar rates of all-cause mortality (19.4% vs 19.2%, p=0.428), cardiac mortality (8.1% vs 9.4%, p=0.805) and heart failure readmission (21.0% vs 23.2%, p=0.648), compared with the no/transient LBBB group. NOP-LBBB was associated with a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 1-year follow-up (delta: -5.7 vs +0.2, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

NOP-LBBB occurred in approximately a quarter of patients without prior conduction disturbances who underwent SU-SAVR and was associated with a threefold increased risk of PPI along with a negative impact on LVEF at follow-up.

Incidence, Predictors and Prognostic Value of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Sutureless Valve Implantation in Low-Risk Aortic Stenosis Patients

OBJECTIVES

SU-SAVR has been associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) compared with conventionally implanted aortic bioprostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors and mid-term prognostic impact of PPM after Perceval (Livanova, London, UK) SU-SAVR in low-risk patients.

METHODS

A total of 400 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II < 4%) patients without prior pacemaker who underwent SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis from 2013 to 2019 in two centres were included. Baseline, clinical and electrocardiographic parameters, procedural characteristics, and follow-up data were collected.

RESULTS

PPM was required in 36 (9%) patients after SU-SAVR, with a median time between the procedure and PPM implantation of 7.5 (4.5-10.5) days. Older age and prior right bundle branch block (RBBB) were associated with an increased risk of PPM (p < 0.05 for all), but only baseline RBBB was found to be an independent predictor of new PPM requirement (Odds ratio: 2.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-5.81; p = 0.022). At a median follow-up of 3.4 (2.3-4.5) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality (PPM: 36%, no PPM: 22%, p = 0.105) or heart failure rehospitalization (PPM: 25%, no PPM: 21%, p = 0.839).

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 out of 10 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing SU-SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis required PPM implantation. Prior RBBB determined an increased risk (close to 3 times) of PPM following the procedure. PPM was not associated with a higher risk of clinical events at 3-year follow-up.

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.

AIM

We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ2 and t-test.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.