Conventional versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a single-centre comparison between the Edwards Magna valve and its rapid-deployment successor

Aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprosthesis in case of infective endocarditis: a literature review

Purpose

Recently, the use of rapid deployment (RD) aortic valve prostheses has been introduced for the treatment of aortic valve replacement (AVR), showing excellent hemodynamic performances.According to these data, some groups have proposed new RD valves as an alternative solution in the case of infective aortic endocarditis (IAE) to reduce the use of foreign materials, and the manipulation of the annulus.The aim of this review is to report the results of early clinical experiences with the use of RD bioprostheses in the case of IAE, in order to discuss technical and clinical aspects of this emerging strategy to better elucidate its advantages and limitations as a potential therapeutic solution.

Methods

An in-depth search of PubMed from January to March 2023 was performed. English-language articles were selected independently by authors following the criteria in order to consider all available experiences (full papers, case reports, and case series) that have investigated the use of RD in case of IAE.

Results

The use of rapid deployment bioprosthesis represents a bailout strategy in case of severe aortic valve endocarditis and should be evaluated with caution in selected cases. This review collects the first, initial, and pioneering experiences of the use of the RD prosthesis in case of infective endocarditis, particularly when the fragility of the annular tissues precludes a secure anchoring of sutured prostheses.The reduced use of foreign materials by minimizing the number of stitches, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times, and the excellent hemodynamic performances associated with the use of RD bioprosthesis represent the most important advantages that could justify their use in the setting of aortic valve endocarditis.

Conclusion

Although there are few anecdotal experiences, surgical aortic valve replacement with the use of RD represents an emerging strategy in case of aortic valve endocarditis. Its advantages, pros, and cons are under debate, and robust clinical trials are needed to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

Innovations in Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comprehensive Overview of the Intuity Rapid Deployment Valve

Rapid deployment/sutureless (RDS) valves have recently emerged as an innovative surgical solution, providing an alternative to traditional methods of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) by eliminating the need for suture placement and tying. This innovation leads to a reduction in aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, enhancing the efficiency of the procedure. Among the 2 available RDS valves, the Edwards Intuity valve in particular has been demonstrated to be a particularly promising substitute in the field of SAVR. The Intuity valve distinguishes itself from other RDS and conventional valves by yielding superior outcomes, such as a significant reduction in mortality, increase in the longevity of the valve, and a marked decrease in both mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients. These benefits collectively contribute to its appeal as a favorable new solution. However, further investigation is needed to conclusively determine the long-term outcomes and safety of RDS valves. Nevertheless, the utilization of the Intuity valve presents an exciting solution to the existing limitations of conventional and minimally invasive SAVR, especially for patients afflicted with severe aortic stenosis.

Outcomes of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with concomitant cardiac procedures

Background

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RD-AVR) has been recently introduced with encouraging results. Outcomes of isolated RD-AVR include good hemodynamic profile, facilitation of minimally invasive techniques, and reduction of surgical times. However, role of this prosthesis in concomitant surgery is not well known.

Methods

In 2016, we formed a registry to monitor the introduction of this prosthesis, RApid Deployment Aortic Replacement (RADAR). We aim to report mid-term outcomes focusing on patients who had RD-AVR combined with other surgical procedures.

Results

Between July 2012 and February 2021, 370 patients were included in this registry (mean age, 75.8±8.0 years; 64.32% male; mean EuroSCORE II, 3.5±2.8). Of these, 128 (34.59%) had concomitant procedures including myocardial revascularization surgery in 69 patients (53.91%), surgery on the ascending aorta in 34 (26.56%), and procedures on other valves in 10 patients (7.81%). There were no significant differences between the isolated AVR and concomitant AVR groups in postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality (4.72% vs. 3.32%, P=0.524), or hemodynamic behavior of these prostheses. Three-year survival was 83.73% and 89.89% in the isolated and concomitant AVR group respectively. There was no difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank test, P=0.4124).

Conclusions

Our results support the safety and efficacy of the Edwards INTUITY valve system even in complex aortic valve disease with additional cardiac procedures. RD-AVR could become a useful tool for concomitant surgeries where surgical times are expected to be prolonged.

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.

Early-Term Results of Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement versus Standard Bioprosthesis Implantation Combined with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

OBJECTIVES

Aortic stenosis is highly prevalent among patients with concomitant coronary artery disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting is usually the treatment of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome and hemodynamic results of the implantation of rapid-deployment valves (Rapid-Deployment Edwards Intuity Valve System [RDAVR]) versus conventional sutured valves (CSAVR) in combined surgery.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and January 2017, 120 patients underwent replacement via RDAVR and 133 patients underwent replacement using CSAVR with concomitant coronary bypass grafting. Clinical and echocardiographic data were compared.

RESULTS

The mean age was 76 ± 7 for RDAVR patients and 74 ± 6 years for CSAVR patients (p = 0.054); 48% in the RDAVR group were female versus 17% in the CSAVR group (p <0.002). Other characteristics such as diabetes mellitus, body-mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nicotine consumption, and extracardiac arteriopathy were similar. Coronary three-vessel disease was more common in the RDAVR group (42.5 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.017). Both mean EuroSCORE II (6.6 ± 5.4 vs. 4.3 ± 3.0, p = 0.001) and STS score (5.4 ± 4.4 vs. 3.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the RDAVR group. Mean cross-clamp time (82 ± 25 vs. 100 ± 30 minutes, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (119 ± 38 vs. 147 ± 53 minutes, p < 0.001) were shorter with RDAVR. The mean number of bypass grafts, length of hospital and ICU stays, and mechanical ventilation time were not statistically significant different. Hospital mortality was 2.5% for RDAVR and 9.7% for CSAVR (p = 0.019). There was a similar rate of stroke (5.8 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.990) and postoperative delirium (14.1 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.728). Mean gradients were 8.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg in the RDAVR group vs. 11.3 ± 4.6 mm Hg in the CSAVR group (p = 0.001) at discharge.

CONCLUSION

RDAVR combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) can be performed extremely safely. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times can be significantly reduced with rapid deployment aortic valve system in the scenario of combined CABG. RDAVR resulted in lower gradients than CSAVR in patients implanted with prostheses of the same size.

Rapid deployment versus its conventional counterpart in aortic valve replacement: comparison of early hemodynamic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Edwards Intuity is designed for rapid deployment based on the structure of Magna Ease. This study was conducted to compare early hemodynamic performance between the two valves.

METHODS

Patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) using Edwards Intuity or Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease in our institution from June 2016 to July 2021 were enrolled. Intuity valve was used in 215 patients, and Magna Ease valve was used in 198 patients, respectively. Early postoperative echocardiographic data were available in 99.0% (409/413) of the patients. The transvalvular mean pressure gradient, effective orifice area, and effective orifice area index were compared between the valves stratified by prosthesis size.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the proportion of female patients or body surface area between the groups. Mean pressure gradient on early postoperative echocardiography was significantly lower in Intuity valve than Magna Ease valve for 19, 21, 23, and 25 mm valves (15.5±5.0 vs. 20.8±9.1 mmHg, P=0.004; 12.7±4.2 vs. 15.6±5.3 mmHg, P=0.001; 11.5±3.3 vs. 13.4±5.8 mmHg, P=0.034; and 9.9±3.1 vs. 12.3±4.0 mmHg, P=0.029; respectively). Effective orifice area was larger in Intuity valve than Magna Ease valve for 19 mm valve (1.45±0.38 vs. 1.19±0.28 cm2, P=0.002), and effective orifice area index was also larger in Intuity valve than Magna Ease valve for 19 mm valve (0.96±0.26 vs. 0.80±0.20 cm2/m2, P=0.005). Early clinical outcomes, including operative mortality and postoperative complications, demonstrated no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Edwards Intuity demonstrated superior early hemodynamic performance compared with Magna Ease in a size-by-size comparison, and this superiority was more definite for small prostheses.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment vs. Transcatheter Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients: Mid-Term Results

BACKGROUND

Recent trials showed that TAVI is neither inferior nor superior to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves (SuRD-AVR) when compared to TAVI in low surgical risk patients with isolated aortic stenosis.

METHODS

Data from five European Centers were retrospectively collected. We included 1306 consecutive patients at low surgical risk (EUROSCORE II < 4) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of SuRD-AVR (n = 636) or TAVI (n = 670) from 2014 to 2019. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score was performed, and two balanced groups of 346 patients each were obtained. The primary endpoints of the study were: 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. The secondary endpoint was 5-year survival freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was similar between the two groups (SuRD-AVR:1.7%, TAVI:2.0%, p = 0.779), while the TAVI group showed a significantly lower 5-year overall survival and survival freedom from MACCEs (5-year matched overall survival: SuRD-AVR: 78.5%, TAVI: 62.9%, p = 0.039; 5-year matched freedom from MACCEs: SuRD-AVR: 64.6%, TAVI: 48.7%, p = 0.004). The incidence of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and paravalvular leak grade ≥ 2 (PVL) were higher in the TAVI group. Multivariate Cox Regression analysis identified PPI as an independent predictor for mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI patients had a significantly lower five-year survival and survival freedom from MACCEs with a higher rate of PPI and PVL ≥ 2 when compared to SuRD-AVR.

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.

High Incidence of Transient Permanent Pacemaker Rate After Rapid Deployment Valve Replacement: Insights of a 9-Year Single-Centre Experience

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) remains debated. Expertise in this field has significantly increased over the last decade. This study aimed to investigate the need for PPI following implantation of a rapid deployment (RD) valve.

METHODS

Analysis of n=372 patients who underwent Edwards INTUITY (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n=251) and Perceval (Sorin/LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) (n=121) valve replacement at the current institution between May 2012 and August 2018 was performed. Coronary artery bypass graft procedures were additionally performed in patients with coronary artery disease. Baseline, preoperative and postoperative outcomes were examined regarding correctness and completeness of the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 23.0.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients (aged 75±6.3 yrs) with a high grade of aortic valve stenosis underwent either Edwards INTUITY (67%) or Perceval (33%) valve replacement. Seventy-six (76) patients (20%) presented with preoperative conduction disorders. Sixty (60) patients (16%) underwent PPI, which in most cases was performed during the first month after the initial operation. Follow-up was performed up to 9 years, presenting a persistent pacemaker dependency rate of 50% among all patients who underwent PPI. Twenty (20) (40%) PPI recipients showed no dependency on pacemaker, while 10 (10%) required temporary pacemaker support. Mean length of ICU stay was 4±5.1 days and in-hospital stay was 8.2±7.6 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PPI after RD valve implantation still remains high compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. However, this study shows that this phenomenon appears to be transient in a significant proportion of the patients undergoing RD valve replacement. These findings might contribute to the scientific discussion and should be taken into consideration for the indication of RD valve replacement.

Pearls, pitfalls, and surgical indications of the Intuity TM heart valve: A rapid deployment bioprosthesis. A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To highlight short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the Intuity TM rapid deployment prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

We reviewed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, SciELO, LILACS, CCTR/CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for clinical trials, retrospective clinical studies, meta-analysis, and gray literature.

RESULTS

Fourty-five clinical studies with 12.714 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-day mortality ranged from 3.8% for Intuity and 3.9% for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 2.17%), permanent pacemaker implantation (Intuity 11.11% and TAVR 12.5%), stroke (Intuity 2.2% and TAVR 2.6%), myocardial infarction (MI) (Intuity 0% and TAVR 1%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other sutured bioprosthesis (SB), mortality ranged from 0% to 3.9% for Intuity and 0%-6.9% for SB. Long-term cardiac mortality ranged from 0.9% to 1.55% for Intuity and 1.4%-3.3% for the Perceval valve. The incidence of PVL (Intuity 0.24%-0.7% and Perceval 0%-1%), endocarditis (Intuity 0.2%-0.7% and Perceval 1.6%-6.6%), stroke (Intuity 0.36%-1.4% and Perceval 0%-0.8%), MI (Intuity 0.07%-0.26%), and SVD (Intuity 0.12%-0.7% and Perceval 0%) were comparable. Compared to standard full sternotomy (SFS), minimally invasive surgery (MINV) mortality ranged from 0% to 4.3% for MINV and 0%-2.1% for SFS. Hospital costs outcomes ranged from $37,187-$44,368 for the Intuity, $69,389 for TAVR, and $13,543 for SB. Intuity short-term mortality ranged between 0.9% and 12.4% while long-term mortality ranged between 2.6% and 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript provides a 360° overview of the current rapid deployments, sutureless, and TAVR prosthesis.

Early pacemaker insertion after aortic valve replacement with an Edwards Intuity sutureless valve

BACKGROUND

Postoperative conduction disorders are serious adverse events in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and may prolong the duration of hospitalization and require pacemaker insertion.

AIM

Our aim was to evaluate the rate of pacemaker insertion after implantation of an Edwards Intuity sutureless aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) compared with a standard surgical bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This retrospective single-centre study included patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with an Intuity sutureless aortic valve or a standard bioprosthetic valve between 4 June 2014 and 27 June 2016. The main outcome criterion was the rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion. Secondary outcome criteria included the rate of new conduction disorders, the rate of atrial arrhythmia or paroxysmal conduction disorders, mortality and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients received an Intuity sutureless aortic valve (median age 76 years, interquartile range 71-80 years), and 176 were implanted with a standard biological aortic valve (median age 73 years, interquartile range 68-79 years; P=0.007). The rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion, after adjustment, was 22.44% in the Intuity group and 5.66% in the standard aortic valve group (P=0.030). The main indications for postoperative pacemaker insertion were complete atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block with prolongation of the H-V interval. The rate of new postoperative left bundle branch block conduction disorders was significantly higher in patients implanted with an Intuity valve (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 23.05; P=0.012).

CONCLUSION

Higher rates of pacemaker insertion and new conduction disorders were observed in patients implanted with an Intuity sutureless bioprosthesis compared with those who received a standard surgical aortic valve.

The hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable aortic bioprostheses in the elderly: a comparison between rapid deployment and transcatheter implantation

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid deployment valve (RDV) is a relatively recent treatment option. Aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of balloon-expandable (BE)-RDVs and BE-transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in a high surgical risk and frail-elderly population.

METHODS

BE-THVs and BE-RDVs were respectively implanted in 138 and 47 patients, all older than 75 years and with a Canadian Study of Health and Aging category of 5 or above. Echocardiographic assessment was performed at discharge and at six months.

RESULTS

At discharge, transprosthetic pressure gradients and indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) were similar in both cohorts. At six-month follow-up, BE-RDV showed lower peak (14.69 vs 20.86 mmHg; p <0.001) and mean (7.82 vs 11.83 mmHg; p <0.001) gradients, as well as larger iEOA (1.05 vs 0.84 cm²/m²; p <0.001). Similar findings were also shown considering only small sized valves. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage was more prevalent in BE-THVs at discharge (14.49 vs 0.00%; p=0.032) and, considering exclusively small prostheses, at six months too (57.69 vs 15.00%; p=0.014). Nevertheless, BE-THVs determined amelioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (53.79 vs 60.14%; p <0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (35.81 vs 33.15 mmHg; p=0.042) and tricuspid regurgitation severity (40.58 vs 19.57%; p=0.031) from discharge to mid-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

BE-RDVs showed better hemodynamic performance, especially when implanted in small annulus. Despite their worse baseline conditions, transcatheter patients still exhibited a greater improvement of their echocardiographic profile at mid-term follow-up.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Versus Sutured Aortic Valve Replacement: a Propensity Matched Comparison from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless (Perceval, Livanova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) aortic valve replacement (group 1) versus sutured aortic valve replacement (group 2).

METHODS

Patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement between 2014 and 2020 were analysed using data from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Patients in group 1 and group 2 were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 7708 patients were included in the study. After matching, 2 groups of 2643 each were created. Patients in group 1 were more likely to undergo minimally invasive approaches and were associated with shorter operative times when compared with group 2. Overall in-hospital mortality was similar between groups. While an increased risk of stroke was observed in group 1 in the first study period (2014-2016) (relative risk 3.76, p < 0.001), no difference was found in more recent year period (relative risk 1.66, p = 0.08)(p for heterogeneity 0.003). Group 1 was associated with reduced rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, atrial fibrillation and mild aortic regurgitation. New pacemaker implant was three-fold higher in group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed significant differences in procedural and clinical outcomes between the study groups. These results suggest that sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program. The knowledge of the respective post-aortic valve replacement benefits for different valve technologies may result in patient-tailored valve selection with improved clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

Long-term durability after surgical aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta and the Intuity valve-a comparative analysis

OBJECTIVES

Long-term durability of surgical bio-prostheses is a key factor, especially in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We compared the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD) between patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the Trifecta (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) or the Intuity valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA).

METHODS

Between April 2010 and May 2020, 1118 patients underwent SAVR with the Trifecta (n = 346) and the Intuity (n = 772) valve at a single centre. A total of 1070 patients (Trifecta n = 298, Intuity n = 772) were analysed after the exclusion of patients with pure regurgitation and endocarditis. Retro- and prospective echocardiographic and clinical follow-up was performed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to identify prognostic factors for SVD, aortic re-interventions and mortality.

RESULTS

With 27 cases (Trifecta n = 23, Intuity n = 4) of SVD observed, cumulative incidence of SVD was significantly higher in the Trifecta cohort (P < 0.001). Implantation of a Trifecta valve [hazard ratio (HR) 11.20; 95% confidence interval 3.79-33.09], log-transformed preoperative creatinine (HR 2.47; 1.37-4.44) and sex (male HR 0.42; 0.19-0.92) emerged as prognostic factors of SVD. A significantly higher cumulative incidence of re-interventions was observed in the Trifecta cohort (P = 0.004) and valve type was an independent time-varying risk factor (HR at 12 months 2.78; 95% confidence interval 1.42-5.45). Overall, no significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed between the groups (log-rank test: P = 0.052).

CONCLUSIONS

SVD was significantly more frequent in patients receiving a Trifecta valve and its implantation was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of SVD and aortic valve re-interventions. This comparative analysis of 2 low-gradient bioprosthesis put the long-term durability of the Trifecta valve in question and need to be taken into consideration when performing bioprosthetic SAVR.

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.

Mid-term outcomes of rapid deployment aortic prostheses in patients with small aortic annulus

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards Intuity valve is a rapid deployment aortic prosthesis that favours less invasive approaches. However, evidence about the clinical behaviour of their smaller sizes is scarce. Herein, we studied haemodynamic behaviours and clinical outcomes of small Intuity prostheses (19-21 mm) in comparison to larger Intuity prostheses (>21 mm).

METHODS

This is an observational study including patients implanted with an Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis. Patients with prosthesis sizes 19-21 and >21 mm were included. Baseline and perioperative variables, as well as adverse events during the follow-up were recorded and compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients (37% female, mean age 75 ± 4.5 years) were included, of whom 54 (45%) were implanted with a small prosthesis and 68 (55%) with a prosthesis >21 mm. There were no significant differences between patients with small Intuity prostheses and patients with larger prostheses regarding in-hospital mortality (2% vs 4%, P = 0.43) or mortality during the follow-up (3.41 vs 2.45 per 100 patients-years; P = 0.58). Survival in the small Intuity valve group was 95% at 1 year and 83% at 6 years, whereas in the larger Intuity valve group was 96% at 1 year and 78% at 6 years. The presence of a small prosthesis did not influence mid-term survival (log-rank P-value = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed good clinical performance of Intuity aortic prostheses with appropriate mid-term survival in patients with the small aortic annulus. Thus, the Edwards Intuity rapid deployment aortic prosthesis may be considered as a potential option in patients with the small aortic annulus.

Minimally invasive access type related to outcomes of sutureless and rapid deployment valves

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive surgical techniques with optimal outcomes are of paramount importance. Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valves are increasingly implanted via minimally invasive approaches. We aimed to analyse the procedural outcomes of a full sternotomy (FS) compared with those of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) and further assess MICS, namely ministernotomy (MS) and anterior right thoracotomy (ART).

METHODS

We selected all isolated aortic valve replacements in the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR, n = 2257) and performed propensity score matching to compare aortic valve replacement through FS or MICS (n = 508/group) as well as through MS and ART accesses (n = 569/group).

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 1.6% in FS and MICS patients who had a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 11%. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were shorter in the FS group than in the MICS group (mean difference 3.2 and 9.2 min; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing FS had a higher rate of acute kidney injury (5.6% vs 2.8%; P = 0.012). Direct comparison of MS and ART revealed longer mean cross-clamp and CPB times (12 and 16.7 min) in the ART group (P < 0.001). The postoperative outcome revealed a higher stroke rate (3.2% vs 1.2%; P = 0.043) as well as a longer postoperative intensive care unit [2 (1-3) vs 1 (1-3) days; P = 0.009] and hospital stay [11 (8-16) vs 8 (7-12) days; P < 0.001] in the MS group than in the ART group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this non-randomized international registry, FS resulted in a higher rate of acute kidney injury. The ART access showed a lower stroke rate than MS and a shorter hospital stay than all other accesses. All these findings may be related to underlying patient risk factors.

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.

Need for permanent pacemaker implantation following implantation of the rapid deployment valve in combined procedures: a single centre cohort study

Background

Rapid deployment aortic valves may interfere with the cardiac conduction system. We investigated the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following the implantation of Edwards INTUITY valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA).

Methods

One hundred twenty patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the INTUITY valve in a combined procedure at the German Heart Centre Munich between April 2016 and December 2019. Twenty-four patients with prior PPI or concomitant ablation procedures (24/120, 20%) were excluded. Patient-specific, procedural and post-procedural outcomes were assessed in the remaining 96 cases.

Results

AVR was successful in all cases. Seventy-four percent of the study population were men. Mean age was 69.5±7.6 years. EuroSCORE II was 3.2±2.9. Forty-six patients (46/96, 47.9%) presented with pre-operative conduction disorders, right bundle branch block (RBBB) (17/96, 17.7%) and first-degree or second degree atrio-ventricular block (AVB) (18/96, 18.8%), in particular. In total, 9 patients (9/96, 9.4%) underwent PPI. PPI was required in 3 patients (3/50, 6.0%) who did not have a pre-existing conduction disorder due to new high degree AVB. 6 patients with pre-operative conduction disorders (6/46, 13%) needed PPI. Timing of PPI was 5.2±1.5 days (median 5). Independent predictors of PPI were preoperative RBBB [odds ratio (OR) =4.554, P=0.049] and large valve size (#27) (OR =5.527, P=0.031).

Conclusions

The analysis of the data collected enabled us to identify patient factors associated with higher risk for post-operative PPI following AVR with the INTUITY valve. Patient factors associated with post-operative PPI, were RBBB and large valve size. These patients should be closely monitored following the procedure, in particular.

Early and Two-year Outcomes after Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: a Nationwide Population-based Study

BACKGROUND

We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data.

METHODS

From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs.

RESULTS

Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR grouP = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

Quantitative and Qualitative Platelet Derangements in Cardiac Surgery and Extracorporeal Life Support

Thrombocytopenia and impaired platelet function are known as intrinsic drawbacks of cardiac surgery and extracorporeal life supports (ECLS). A number of different factors influence platelet count and function including the inflammatory response to a cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) or to ECLS, hemodilution, hypothermia, mechanical damage and preoperative treatment with platelet-inhibiting agents. Moreover, although underestimated, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is still a hiccup in the perioperative management of cardiac surgical and, above all, ECLS patients. Moreover, recent investigations have highlighted how platelet disorders also affect patients undergoing biological prosthesis implantation. Though many hypotheses have been suggested, the mechanism underlying thrombocytopenia and platelet disorders is still to be cleared. This narrative review aims to offer clinicians a summary of their major causes in the cardiac surgery setting.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment valves: a report from an international registry (Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry)†

OBJECTIVES

The impact of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical characteristics and in-hospital results of patients receiving SURD-AVR through less invasive approaches in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

Of the 1935 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2009 and 2018, a total of 1418 (73.3%) underwent MI interventions and were included in this analysis. SURD-AVR was performed using upper ministernotomy in 56.4% (n = 800) of cases and anterior right thoracotomy in 43.6% (n = 618). Perceval S was implanted in 1011 (71.3%) patients and Edwards Intuity or Intuity Elite in 407 (28.7%) patients.

RESULTS

Overall in-hospital mortality and stroke rates were 1.7% and 2%, respectively. A definitive pacemaker implantation was reported in 9% of cases and significantly decreased over the observational period, from 20.6% to 5.6% (P = 0.002). The Perceval valve was associated with shorter operative times and was more frequently implanted in patients receiving anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve was preferred in younger patients and revealed superior postoperative haemodynamic results.

CONCLUSIONS

SURD-AVR was largely performed through less invasive approaches and can be considered as a primary indication in MI surgery. In the SURD-IR cohort, MI SURD-AVR using both Perceval and Intuity valves appeared a safe and reproducible procedure associated with promising early results.

Intermediate-term outcome of 500 consecutive rapid-deployment surgical aortic valve procedures†

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards INTUITY Valve System is a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, inspired from the Edwards Magna valve and transcatheter technology, with a subvalvular stent frame to enable rapid deployment. We report a single-centre experience of aortic valve replacement with this novel bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Five hundred consecutive patients, of whom 45.6% were female with a mean age of 73.5 [standard deviation (SD) 7.9 years], with severe aortic stenosis who received a rapid deployment aortic valve between May 2010 and July 2017 were included in a prospective and ongoing database. The median follow-up time was 12 months, and the total accumulated follow-up time was 818 patient years. Preoperative characteristics, operative parameters, survival, valve-related adverse events and valve haemodynamics were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was 0.8% (4/500), and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 94%, 89% and 81%, respectively. A minimally invasive surgical approach was chosen in 236 patients (47%), of which 122 (24%) were operated on through an anterior right thoracotomy. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times for isolated aortic valve replacement were 53 (SD 17) and 89 (SD 29) min for full sternotomy as well as 75 (SD 23) and 110 (SD 31) min for minimally invasive surgery approaches (P < 0.001). Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13 (SD 5), 11 (SD 4), 12 (SD 5) and 11 (SD 3) mmHg, respectively. New pacemaker implantation was necessary in 8.6% of patients. A single case (0.2%) of structural degeneration was registered after 6 years. Valve explantation for non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis occurred in 9 patients (1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid deployment aortic valve has shown excellent results concerning haemodynamic performance, durability and safety. Implantation requires specific training, and the rate of pacemaker implantation remains a matter of concern. This novel valve also facilitates minimally invasive approaches and may be beneficial in complex combined procedures.

Conduction disorders after aortic valve replacement: what is the real impact of sutureless and rapid deployment valves?

Background

Although sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been associated with an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to conventional AVR (c-AVR), the predictors of new conduction abnormalities remain to be clarified. This study aimed to identify risk factors for conduction disorders in patients undergoing AVR surgery.

Methods

Data from 243 patients receiving minimally invasive AVR were prospectively collected. SURD-AVR was performed in 103 (42.4%) patients and c-AVR in 140 (57.6%). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of new-onset conduction disorders, defined as first degree atrioventricular (AV) block, advanced AV block requiring PPM implantation, left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB).

Results

The unadjusted comparison revealed that SURD-AVR was associated with a higher rate of advanced AV block requiring PPM when compared with c-AVR (10.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.01). After adjusting for other measured covariates (OR: 1.6, P=0.58) and for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 5.1, P=0.1), no significant relationship between type of AVR and PPM implantation emerged. On multivariable analysis, preoperative first-degree AV block (OR: 6.9, P=0.04) and RBBB (OR: 6.9, P=0.03) were independent risk factors for PPM. Subgroup analysis of patients with normal preoperative conduction revealed similar incidence of PPM between SURD-AVR and c-AVR (1.3% vs. 1.9%, P=0.6). When compared with c-AVR, SURD-AVR was associated with a greater incidence of postoperative new onset LBBB (18.1% vs. 3.2%, P<0.001). This finding was confirmed after adjusting for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 6.3, P=0.009).

Conclusions

Our study revealed that the risk of PPM implantation in patients receiving surgical AVR is heavily influenced by the presence of pre-existing conduction disturbances rather than the type of valve prosthesis. Conversely, SURD-AVR emerged as an independent predictor for LBBB and was associated with an increased risk of PPM in patients presenting with RBBB.

Mid-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier Edwards Magna Ease prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 250,000 heart valve operations are performed annually worldwide. An intensive research and development effort has led to progressively more advanced heart valve prostheses. The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (CEPME) prosthesis represents the latest iteration of the Edwards Perimount series of aortic tissue valves. The current study aims to evaluate the midterm performance of this bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Five hundred and eighteen patients with aortic stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement with the CEPME valve at Papworth Hospital between August 2008 and November 2011. After a minimum of 3 years from the index operation, eligible patients were retrospectively and consecutively recruited to participate. Recruitment was closed after 100 eligible patients had completed all study assessments. Investigations at follow-up included echocardiography, and NYHA status. Primary endpoints included valve performance measures.

RESULTS

The mean age was 72 years, 64% were male and median follow-up was 5.1 years. NYHA status had improved in 66% of patients. The average postoperative peak and mean pressure gradients decreased by 51.2 mmHg (64.5%) and 31.8 mmHg (59.4%), with a significant improvement in NYHA status. The frequency of moderate aortic regurgitation was 3%. There was no evidence for structural valve deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

The CEPME has excellent mid-term durability. Its use effectively improves haemodynamics and functional capacity.

The sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry: lessons learned from more than 4,500 patients

The treatment options for patients with aortic valve disease have considerably expanded over the last decade. The remarkable advances in catheter-based technology, the popularizing of minimally invasive (MI) surgery, and the introduction of new valve technologies, such as sutureless and rapid-deployment (SURD) valves have led to a paradigm shift in the management of aortic valve pathologies. Yet, given their recent introduction, the current evidence on sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been limited thus far. The Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR) was established in 2015 by a consortium of 18 research centers to assess safety, efficacy, short- and long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions. The present keynote lecture aims to assess and comment on the real-world evidence for SURD-AVR surgery generated from the SURD-IR.

Outcome of rapid deployment aortic valves: long-term experience after 700 implants

Background

The Edwards Intuity Valve System is a bioprosthesis with a balloon-expandable stent frame which enables rapid-deployment (RD). We aimed to analyze our single-center long-term experience with a follow-up until 9 years after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with this bioprosthesis.

Methods

Between May 2010 and May 2019, 700 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis or combined aortic valve disease, implanted with a RD valve at our institution, were included in a prospective database. Median follow-up was 19 months and the total accumulated follow-up was 2,140 patient-years. Pre-operative characteristics, operative parameters, survival rates, valve-related adverse events and valve hemodynamics were assessed.

Results

Mean age was 74±8 years, 45% female. Concomitant procedures were performed in 339 (48.4%) patients. In case of isolated AVR (361/700), a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach was conducted in 283 patients (78.4%). Cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times for isolated AVR were 107.7±28.2 and 73.8±21.3 minutes for MIS approaches and 92.8±28.8 and 57.5±20.6 minutes for full sternotomy (P<0.001), respectively. Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13±5, 11±4, 12±5 and 13±8 mmHg. New early pacemaker implantation was required in 8.9% of patients. Re-intervention or re-operation with valve explantation for structural degeneration, non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis, occurred in 21 cases (3%). Thirty-day mortality was 0.7% (5/700) and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 98%, 91% and 76%.

Conclusions

We report excellent long-term results in this updated single center experience for RD aortic valves regarding durability, safety and hemodynamic performance.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valves for Patients With a Small Aortic Root: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic root is a matter of concern in terms of prosthesis-patient mismatch. We evaluated the survival and hemodynamic performance after implantation of a small rapid-deployment aortic valve (EDWARDS INTUITY valve system sizes 19 and 21 mm).

METHODS

Between May 2010 and November 2018, 659 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who received a rapid-deployment valve were included in a prospective and ongoing database. A small aortic bioprosthesis (sizes 19 mm and 21 mm) was implanted in 217 (32.9%) patients (mean age 74.9 ± 7.9 years, 85.3% women). Preoperative characteristics, operative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Mean gradients at discharge and 1 year were 14.8 ± 5.6 mm Hg and 13.6 ± 4.9 mm Hg, respectively. Mean effective orifice area and the indexed effective orifice area at discharge were 1.55 ± 0.36 cm² and 0.87 ± 0.22 cm²/m², respectively, and prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 77 (35.5%) patients (25.8% moderate and 9.7% severe). Perioperative mortality was 1.8% (n = 4 of 217) and overall survival at 1 year and 5 years was 91% and 79%, respectively. The presence of any prosthesis-patient mismatch degree did not have a significant influence on overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.19; P = .638). At the last follow-up, mean New York Heart Association functional class was 1.5 ± 0.7 vs 2.8 ± 0.6 at baseline (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment valves has shown improved results concerning hemodynamic performance, with decreased rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch. We observed excellent early-term and midterm survival and a significant improvement in functional class in this subgroup of patients with a small annulus.

Conduction disturbances following surgical aortic valve replacement with a rapid-deployment bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

The implantation of rapid-deployment aortic valves may interfere with the conduction system of the heart. This study evaluates the occurrence and predictive factors of conduction anomalies in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a rapid-deployment balloon-expandable bioprosthesis in a single-center, real-world experience.

METHODS

Between May 2010 and April 2019, 700 consecutive patients were included in a prospective, ongoing database with a longitudinal follow-up preoperatively, at discharge, and at 3 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years postoperatively. Thirty-seven patients (5.3%) had a permanent pacemaker at baseline and were excluded from further analysis, leaving 663 patients for analysis. Assessment of conduction anomalies was performed by electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring and repeated 12-lead ECG during the hospital stay and at postoperative follow-ups.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, 126 patients (19.0%) presented with different conduction disturbances. New permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) occurred in 61 patients during the first 14 days (cumulative incidence, 9.4%). The indication for PPI was complete atrioventricular block in 47 cases (77%). Preoperative conduction anomalies, such as right bundle branch block, as well as operative characteristics (concomitant procedures) were found to be independent predictors for new PPI. One-year survival was 98% in patients with new early PPI and 96% in those without new early PPI (P = .60).

CONCLUSIONS

The PPI rate was in the range of previous reports for rapid-deployment prostheses. PPI did not have a significant influence on short- to intermediate-term survival. Case selection with exclusion of patients presenting with baseline conduction disturbances may decrease the rate of new PPIs after SAVR with rapid-deployment balloon-expandable bioprostheses.

SAVR versus TAVI: What about the Hemodynamic Performance? An In Vivo and In Vitro Analysis

Background Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is nowadays discussed whether it remains the gold standard of treatment. In the last decade, there has been a tremendous increase in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to the growing expertise and excellent results of the catheter-based approach. We, therefore, retrospectively compared the rapid deployment valve (RDV), the Edwards Intuity valve (IEV), with the Edwards Sapien 3 (S3V) with regard to post-procedural hemodynamics.

Methods A total of 246 patients treated with TAVI or SAVR between February 2009 and November 2015 were included. One-hundred twenty-five patients were analyzed in the SAVR group and compared with 121 patients undergoing TAVI. Transvalvular pressure gradients (PGs) and the incidence and extent of aortic regurgitation (AR) were compared post-procedurally by echocardiography for each valve size. In vitro hemodynamics were analyzed by placing both valves into an aortic silicone phantom connected to a pulsatile flow pump and measured using phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (4D flow MRI).

Results Post-procedurally, mean transvalvular PGs for the 23 mm valves were 9 (7;11.5) versus 13 (9;18) (p < 0.001), whereas maximum PGs were 16.5 (14;22) versus 25.5 mm Hg (17.5;34) (p < 0.001) in IEV and S3V patients, respectively. The 21 mm IEV showed significantly lower transvalvular PGs compared with the 23 mm S3V: mean PGs: 11 (8;13) versus 13 (9;18) (p < 0.05); maximum PG: 19.5 (13;24) versus 25.5 (18;34) mm Hg (p < 0.05). Analysis revealed significantly lower post-procedural transvalvular PGs for larger valves sizes. With respect to AR, the incidence of AR was significantly lower in IEV group (p < 0.05). In vitro velocities and turbulent kinetic energy values showed similar results between both valves.

Conclusion Implanted RDVs presented a lower incidence of paravalvular regurgitation and were associated with significantly lower post-procedural transvalvular PGs, especially for small valve sizes. Our data might support the application of rapid deployment aortic valves in patients with small aortic annulus in the TAVI era.

A mechanistic investigation of the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve's hemodynamic performance

OBJECTIVE

Rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement has emerged as an alternative to the contemporary sutured valve technique. A difference in transvalvular pressure has been observed clinically between RD-SAVR and contemporary SAVR. A mechanistic inquiry into the impact of the rapid deployment valve inflow frame design on the left ventricular outflow tract and valve hemodynamics is needed.

METHODS

A 23 mm EDWARDS INTUITY Elite rapid deployment valve and a control contemporary, sutured valve, a 23 mm Magna Ease valve, were implanted in an explanted human heart by an experienced cardiac surgeon. Per convention, the rapid deployment valve was implanted with three non-pledgeted, simple guiding sutures, while fifteen pledgeted, mattress sutures were used to implant the contemporary surgical valve. In vitro flow models were created from micro-computed tomography scans of the implanted valves and surrounding cardiac anatomy. Particle image velocimetry and hydrodynamic characterization experiments were conducted in the vicinity of the valves in a validated pulsatile flow loop system.

RESULTS

The rapid deployment and control valves were found to have mean transvalvular pressure gradients of 7.92 ± 0.37 and 10.13 ± 0.48 mmHg, respectively. The inflow frame of the rapid deployment valve formed a larger, more circular, left ventricular outflow tract compared to the control valve. Furthermore, it was found that the presence of the control valve's sub-annular pledgets compromised its velocity distribution and consequently its pressure gradient.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid deployment valve's intra-annular inflow frame provides for a larger, left ventricular outflow tract, thus reducing the transvalvular pressure gradient and improving overall hemodynamic performance.

Step-by-Step Aortic Valve Replacement With a New Rapid Deployment Valve

PURPOSE

Rapid deployment/sutureless aortic valve replacement is aimed at minimizing the invasiveness of surgical aortic valve replacement. We describe the implantation techniques of a new rapid deployment aortic valve, focusing on its unique and challenging features.

DESCRIPTION

The EDWARDS INTUITY Elite aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) represents a hybrid between the surgical PERIMOUNT Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences) pericardial valve, but with advanced features of the percutaneous SAPIEN valve system (Edwards Lifesciences). A flexible delivery system, with a balloon-expandable subannular frame, facilitates insertion. Important implantation steps include an extended oblique "hockey-stick" aortotomy, symmetrical annular debridement, intra-annular and supra-annular sizing, guiding suture placement, and balloon expansion of the subannular valve frame.

EVALUATION

Although this valve provides advantages over conventional aortic valves, its implantation is unique, and special operative considerations must be heeded for optimal outcomes. Implantation requires minimal suturing, enabling smaller incisions. Also, the intra-annular inflow frame may promote improved hemodynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

The INTUITY Elite system represents a significant innovation in bioprosthesis technology. It has been shown to be safe and effective, but its implantation requires detailed attention to several unique operative steps.

Ultra fast track surgery: a rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through a J-ministernotomy

Aortic valve surgery has been undergone continuous development over the last years, involving less invasive techniques and the use of new technologies to reduce the traumatic impact of the intervention and extend the operability toward increasingly high-risk patients. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) has gradually been recognized as a less traumatic technique compared to median sternotomy, becoming first choice approach in numerous experienced centers. Herein we present our multidisciplinary minimally invasive approach for AVR, involving: (I) reduced chest incision; (II) rapid deployment AVR; (III) minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system; and (IV) ultra fast track (UFT) anaesthetic management.

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.