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

Not All SAVR Are Created Equal: All the Approaches Available for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) is still one of the pillars of cardiac surgery practice, and its role is evolving into a more complex operation. The competition with structural valve therapies and the urgent demand for less invasive solutions have unleashed surgeons' creativity in adapting to these new challenges. All the possible ways to surgically replace the aortic valve are analyzed in this review. Surgical techniques, advantages and disadvantages, and key differences are listed, helping surgeons navigate the available options. Sternotomy SAVR is the benchmark, but that is becoming obsolete and, in some cases, no longer performed for teaching purposes. Mini sternotomy is the easiest way to achieve minimal invasiveness in all anatomic situations, while right anterior thoracotomy is an elegant solution mastered by fewer surgeons. Endoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques are shaping the future of SAVR, yet they still lack wide adoption. The choice of approach is mainly dictated by the anatomic features of the patient and the surgeon's skills. A flow diagram to overcome the learning curve and advance toward more complex surgery is provided here. Mastering as many techniques as possible is paramount when offering a patient-tailored approach and performing a safe and less invasive operation.

Sutureless Valves, a "Wireless" Option for Patients With Aortic Valve Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter technologies triggered the recent revision of the guidelines that progressively widened the indications for the treatment of aortic stenosis. On the surgical realm, a technology avoiding the need for sutures to anchor the prosthesis to the aortic annulus has been developed with the aim to reduce the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and simplify the process of valve implantation. In addition to a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-like stent that exerts a radial force, these so-called "rapid deployment valves" or "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement also have cuffs to improve sealing and reduce the risk of paravalvular leak. Despite promising, the actual advantage of sutureless valves over traditional surgical procedures (surgical aortic valve replacement) or TAVR is still debated. This review summarizes the current comparative evidence reporting outcomes of "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement to TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

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.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March 2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n = 57), ViV-TAVR (n = 31) and redo-sutureless (n = 25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p = 0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.