Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis

The Surgical Treatment of Infective Endocarditis: A Comprehensive Review

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe cardiac complication with high mortality rates, especially when surgical intervention is delayed or absent. This review addresses the expanding role of surgery in managing IE, focusing on the variation in surgical treatment rates, the impact of patient demographics, and the effectiveness of different surgical approaches. Despite varying global data, a notable increase in surgical interventions for IE is evident, with over 50% of patients undergoing surgery in tertiary centres. This review synthesizes information from focused literature searches up to July 2023, covering preoperative to postoperative considerations and surgical strategies for IE. Key preoperative concerns include accurate diagnosis, appropriate antimicrobial treatment, and the timing of surgery, which is particularly crucial for patients with heart failure or at risk of embolism. Surgical approaches vary based on valve involvement, with mitral valve repair showing promising outcomes compared to replacement. Aortic valve surgery, traditionally favouring replacement, now includes repair as a viable option. Emerging techniques such as sutureless valves and aortic homografts are explored, highlighting their potential advantages in specific IE cases. The review also delves into high-risk groups like intravenous drug users and the elderly, emphasizing the need for tailored surgical strategies. With an increasing number of patients presenting with prosthetic valve endocarditis and device-related IE, the review underscores the importance of comprehensive management strategies encompassing surgical and medical interventions. Overall, this review provides a comprehensive overview of current evidence in the surgical management of IE, highlighting the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach and ongoing research to optimize patient outcomes.

Review of bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration: Patient or valve?

BACKGROUND

With guidelines progressively recommending bioprosthetic aortic valves in younger patients, a greater emphasis is placed on structural valve deterioration (SVD) as an important clinical endpoint for both transcatheter and surgically implanted valves. However, SVD of bioprosthetic valves is a complex entity with varying definitions in the literature and a multifaceted pathogenesis.

AIM

This review first aims to establish the most updated definitions of SVD as per the literature. We then explore the patient- and valve-related factors that play the greatest roles in facilitating early SVD.

METHODS

A PubMed literature review was conducted to identify the relevant research in this field within the past two decades.

CONCLUSION

Increasing rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome pose a significant risk to the longevity of bioprosthetic valves. Additionally, externally mounted valves have proven to sacrifice durability for superior haemodynamics. Bioprosthetic SVD continues to be a multifactorial issue that will require various patient- and valve-related factors to be addressed.

Biomechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has grown exponentially within the cardiology and cardiac surgical spheres. It has now become a routine approach for treating aortic stenosis. Several concerns have been raised about TAVI in comparison to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The primary concerns regard the longevity of the valves. Several factors have been identified which may predict poor outcomes following TAVI. To this end, the lesser-used finite element analysis (FEA) was used to quantify the properties of calcifications which affect TAVI valves. This method can also be used in conjunction with other integrated software to ascertain the functionality of these valves. Other imaging modalities such as multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) are now widely available, which can accurately size aortic valve annuli. This may help reduce the incidence of paravalvular leaks and regurgitation which may necessitate further intervention. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) remains a key factor, with varying results from current studies. The true incidence of SVD in TAVI compared to SAVR remains unclear due to the lack of long-term data. It is now widely accepted that both are part of the armamentarium and are not mutually exclusive. Decision making in terms of appropriate interventions should be undertaken via shared decision making involving heart teams.

The New Challenge for Heart Endocarditis: From Conventional Prosthesis to New Devices and Platforms for the Treatment of Structural Heart Disease

Infective endocarditis is a sinister condition with considerable morbidity and mortality. Its relevance in the current era is compounded by the increased use of implanted devices such as replacement valves or cardiac implantable electronic devices. These infections are caused by multiple different bacteria with different virulence, pathogenicity, and antimicrobial resistance. Unlike in native endocarditis, the presence of foreign tissue permits sustenance by inflammatory and thrombotic processes as the artificial surfaces promote inflammatory responses and hypercoagulability. Prevention of these infections has been suggested with the use of homografts in combination with antibiotics. Others have attempted to use "low fouling coats" with little clinical success thus far. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis plays a pivotal part in reducing the incidence of prosthesis-related endocarditis. This remains especially crucial with the increasing use of transcatheter heart valve therapies. The widespread use of cardiac implantable electronic devices such as permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices has also heralded a noticeable increase in cases of infectious endocarditis affecting complex equipment which can be difficult to treat. Multimodality strategies are needed with input from surgeons and cardiologists to ensure treatment is both prompt and successful, tailored to the individual needs of the patients.

Percutaneous versus Surgical Intervention for Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Aortic stenosis is a disease that is increasing in prevalence and manifests as decreased cardiac output, which if left untreated can result in heart failure and ultimately death. It is primarily a disease of the elderly who often have multiple comorbidities. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve therapies has changed the way we treat these conditions. However, long-term results of these therapies remain uncertain. Recently, there has been an increasing number of studies examining the role of both surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We therefore performed a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two investigators searched papers published between January 1, 2007, and to date using the following terms: "aortic valve stenosis," "aortic valve operation," and "transcatheter aortic valve therapy." Both strategies in aortic stenosis treatment highlighted specific indications alongside the pitfalls such as structural valve degeneration and valve thrombosis which have a bearing on clinical outcomes. We propose some recommendations to help clinicians in the decision-making process as technological improvements make both surgical and transcatheter therapies viable options for patients with aortic stenosis. Finally, we assess the role of finite element analysis in patient selection for aortic valve replacement. THVT and AVR-S are both useful tools in the armamentarium against aortic stenosis. The decision between the two treatment strategies should be best guided by a strong robust evidence base, ideally with a long-term follow-up. This is best performed by the heart team with the patient as the center of the discussion.

Surgical aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus

BACKGROUND

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the standard of treatment for severe aortic stenosis, a small aortic annulus (SAA) poses significant challenges. Improvements in valve designs and evolution in surgical techniques have led to improved outcomes, however, the ideal prosthetic valve remains elusive.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature review to discuss the surgical management of aortic stenosis, with a special focus on patients with SAA.

RESULTS

Stentless valves and root replacement techniques have been shown to overcome the hemodynamic challenges associated with conventional stented bioprostheses, but are technically challenging and require longer cross-clamp times. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves mitigate the long operative time while maintaining the hemodynamic advantages. The use of transcatheter AVR has emerged as another reasonable alternative and has shown promise among patients with SAA, however, long-term outcomes are awaited.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus regarding the type of valve prosthesis or replacement technique among patients with SAA. Consideration of patient comorbidities and valvular anatomy is paramount in planning the optimal strategy for AVR. Further long-term clinical trials are necessary to assess outcomes and achieve progress toward the development of the ideal prosthesis.

Biomaterials in Valvular Heart Diseases

Valvular heart disease (VHD) occurs as the result of valvular malfunction, which can greatly reduce patient's quality of life and if left untreated may lead to death. Different treatment regiments are available for management of this defect, which can be helpful in reducing the symptoms. The global commitment to reduce VHD-related mortality rates has enhanced the need for new therapeutic approaches. During the past decade, development of innovative pharmacological and surgical approaches have dramatically improved the quality of life for VHD patients, yet the search for low cost, more effective, and less invasive approaches is ongoing. The gold standard approach for VHD management is to replace or repair the injured valvular tissue with natural or synthetic biomaterials. Application of these biomaterials for cardiac valve regeneration and repair holds a great promise for treatment of this type of heart disease. The focus of the present review is the current use of different types of biomaterials in treatment of valvular heart diseases.

A management framework for left sided endocarditis: a narrative review

Left sided endocarditis (LSE) can include the entirety or portion of mitral and/or aortic valve and the structures in their anatomical contiguity and represent a significant portion of emergency surgical activity. Literature and guidelines on the management of LSE relies mainly on observational studies given the difficulty in designing randomized trials in emergency settings. Heart teams (HT) are often called in to difficult decisions on the most appropriate strategy to adopted in case of LSE. Decision-making should take into account the localization and the extension of the infection, patient preoperative status and comorbidities, presence of a previous valve prosthesis and best timing for surgery. Despite evidence suggests that early surgery may improve survival in patients with complicated infective endocarditis (IE), an increased risk of recurrence and postoperative valvular dysfunctions has been reported. The most important factors associated with long-term outcomes are preoperative multiorgan failure, prosthetic mechanical valve IE, vegetation size ≥15 mm, and timing of surgical treatment. Importantly, up to one third of potential candidates do not undergo surgery and these patients experience extremely high mortality rates. Another important point regards the choice of the optimal valve substitute to be used according to the different clinical situation. The lack of RCT in this field and the difficulty to design this type of studies in the case of non-elective conditions further complicates the possibility to achieve a univocal consensus on the best strategy to be adopted in each form of LSE and further validation studies are needed. On the basis of the current evidences a decisional algorithm is proposed summarizing all the crucial aspects in the management of LSE.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to determine the differences in outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in low-risk patients.

METHODS

All patients with a logistic EuroSCORE II <4% who underwent transfemoral TAVI between 2008 and 2016 (n = 955) or SAVR between 2009 and 2014 (n = 886) at our centre were included. One hundred and nine patients per group were available for propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Mortality during the 30-day follow-up showed no differences (SAVR vs TAVI: 1.1% vs 1.8%, P = 1.0) but the rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (0.0 vs 14.8%, P < 0.001) and paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate (0.0 vs 7.0%, P = 0.017) were higher in TAVI patients. No difference was found regarding postoperative effective orifice area and transvalvular pressure gradients. Although, the 1-year survival was similar between both groups; 3- and 5-year survival was significantly inferior in the TAVI patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI yielded similar short-term outcomes compared with SAVR despite higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leakage ≥ moderate, but inferior long-term survival. Poorer long-term outcomes of the TAVI patient cohort were attributable to a more comorbid TAVI population. This emphasizes the need for long-term results from randomized controlled trials before TAVI can be broadly expanded to younger low-risk patients.

Learning From Controversy: Contemporary Surgical Management of Aortic Valve Endocarditis

Aortic valve replacement is the commonest cardiac surgical operation performed worldwide for infective endocarditis (IE). Long-term durability and avoidance of infection relapse are goals of the procedure. However, no detailed guidelines on prosthesis selection and surgical strategies guided by the comprehensive evaluation of the extension of the infection and its microbiological characteristics, clinical profile of the patient, and risk of infection recurrence are currently available. Conventional mechanical or stented xenografts are the preferred choice for localized aortic infection. However, in cases of complex IE with the involvement of the root or the aortomitral continuity, the use of homograft is suggested according to the surgeon and center experience. Homograft use should be counterbalanced against the risk of structural degeneration. Prosthetic bioroot or prosthetic valved conduit (mechanical and bioprosthetic) are also potentially suitable alternatives. Further development of preservation techniques enabling longer durability of allogenic substitutes is required. We evaluate the current evidence for the use of valve substitutes in aortic valve endocarditis and propose an evidence-based algorithm to guide the choice of therapy. We performed a systemic review to clarify the contemporary surgical management of aortic valve endocarditis.

Revisiting the guidelines and choice the ideal substitute for aortic valve endocarditis

Aortic valve replacement is the most commonly performed cardiac surgical operation worldwide for infective endocarditis (IE). Long-term durability and avoidance of infection relapse are the treatment goals. However, no detailed guidelines on prosthesis selection and surgical strategy are available. Management should be guided by a comprehensive evaluation of infection extension and its microbiological characteristics, the clinical profile of the patient and the risk of infection recurrence. We conducted a literature search of the PubMed database, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (through November 2019) for studies reporting to the use of biological substitutes in aortic valve endocarditis (AVE). Studies comparing long-term outcomes in the use of allogenic and autologous with conventional prostheses were investigated. Conventional mechanical or stented xenografts are the preferred choice for localized aortic infection. In cases of complex IE with the involvement of the root or the aorto-mitral continuity, the use of homografts are recommended, according to surgeon's and center experience. Homograft use needs to be balanced against the risk of structural degeneration. Prosthetic bioroot or prosthetic valved conduit with a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve are acceptable alternatives. The choice of aortic valves substitute and surgical strategy in IE is multifaceted. Principles guiding the selection of prosthesis and surgical approach rely on the long-term durability and the avoidance of infection relapse. A decisional algorithm considering the extension of the infection and its microbiological characteristics, the clinical profile of the patient and the risk of infection recurrence is provided. A multidisciplinary effort is required to achieve consistent outcomes.

Treatment of aortic valve endocarditis with stented or stentless valve

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to provide evidence for choosing a bioprosthesis in treating patients with active aortic valve endocarditis.

METHODS

From 1998 to 2017, 265 patients with active aortic valve endocarditis underwent aortic valve replacement with a stented valve (n = 97, 37%) or a stentless valve (n = 168, 63%) with further breakdown into inclusion technique (n = 142, 85%) or total root replacement (n = 26, 15%). Data were obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database aided with chart review, surveys, and National Death Index data.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 53 years (43-56) in the stented group and 57 years (44-66) in the stentless group. The stented and stentless groups had high rates of heart failure (54% and 40%), liver disease (16% and 7.7%), prosthetic valve endocarditis (14% and 48%), root abscess (38% and 70%), and concomitant ascending aorta procedures (6.2% and 22%), respectively. The stentless group required permanent pacemakers in 11% of cases. Operative mortality was similar between groups (6.2% and 7.1%). The 5-year survival was 52% and 63% in the stented and stentless groups, respectively. Significant risk factors for long-term mortality included liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.38), previous myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.64), congestive heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.63), and renal failure requiring dialysis (hazard ratio, 4.37). The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 12% and 3.4% for the stented and stentless groups, respectively. The 10-year freedom from reoccurrence of aortic valve endocarditis was 88% for the stented and 98% for the stentless groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both stented and stentless aortic valves are appropriate conduits for replacement of active aortic valve endocarditis for select patients.

Midterm outcomes of subcoronary stentless porcine valve versus stented aortic valve replacement

INTRODUCTION

Stentless porcine xenografts are versatile bioprosthetic valves with the advantage of improved hemodynamics that mimic the function of the native aortic valve. However, these bioprostheses are challenging to implant in the subcoronary position.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent a bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) were included from our institutional database. Cox regression analysis was preformed to determine significant predictors for mid term mortality as well as all cause, cardiac, and heart failure readmission.

RESULTS

Patients in the subcoronary stentless group were older and more likely to be female and were likely to have a higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk of mortality. Survival was superior in the stented AVR cohort at 30-days (96.4% vs 90.5%; P < .001), 1-year (90.5% vs 71.6%; P < .001), and 5-year (74.5% vs 56.9%; P < .001) follow up. Acute kidney injury (16.22% vs 5.22%; P < .001) and blood product transfusion (70.27% vs 44.0%; P < .001) were higher in the stentless group. Multivariable analysis revealed subcoronary stentless implantation as a significant independent risk factor for mortality (hazards ratio: 1.92 [1.35,2.72]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Stentless porcine xenograft implantation with the Freestyle bioprosthetic in the subcoronary position can be successfully performed in select patients, but its use is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality affecting midterm outcomes. Individual patient selection and surgeon experience are important to ensure favorable outcomes.

Stentless Pericarbon Freedom Versus Stented Perimount Aortic Bioprosthesis: Propensity-Matched Long-Term Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

Stentless aortic valves have shown superior hemodynamic performance and faster left ventricular mass regression compared to stented bioprostheses. Yet, controversies exist concerning the durability of stentless valves. This case-matched study compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes of stentless LivaNova-Sorin Pericarbon Freedom™ (SPF) and stented Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CEP) aortic prostheses.

METHODS

From 2003 through 2006, 134 consecutive patients received aortic valve replacement with SPF at our institution. This cohort was matched, according to 20 preoperative clinical parameters, with a control group of 390 patients who received CEP prosthesis during the same time. The resulting 55 + 55 matched patients were analyzed for perioperative results and long-term clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 0% for both groups. Lower transvalvular gradients were found in the SPF group (10.6 ± 2.9 versus 15.7 ± 3.1 mmHg, P < 0.001). Overall late mortality (mean follow-up: 10.03 years) was similar for both groups (50.1% versus 42.8%, P = 0.96). Freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) at 13 years was similar for both groups (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 73.9%, P = 0.06). Freedom from aortic valve reinterventions did not differ (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 93.5%, P = 0.55). Gradients at 13-year follow-up remained significantly lower in SPF group (10.0 ± 4.5 versus 16.2 ± 9.5 mmHg, P < 0.001). Incidence of acute bacterial endocarditis (ABE) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SPF and CEP demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes related to late mortality, SVD, aortic valve reinterventions, and incidence of ABE and MACCE. Superior hemodynamic performance of SPF over time can make this valve a suitable choice in patients with small aortic root and large body surface area.

Solo Smart Stentless Bioprosthesis for Infective Valve Endocarditis with Aortic Annular Abscess

So far, there is still controversy regarding the optimal prosthetic valve for patients with active infective valve endocarditis with annular abscess. Here, we report the case of a 65-year-old woman who was diagnosed with infective endocarditis associated with extensive annular abscess. The patient underwent debridement of the abscess cavity followed by aortic valve replacement using a Solo Smart (SS) stentless bioprosthesis. Postoperative recovery was uneventful, with no signs of recurrent infection. Since the SS valve is designed for supra-annular and subcoronary implantation, it is considered to be an alternative to conventional prosthetic valves in patients with infective endocarditis with aortic annular abscess.

Peri-procedural thrombocytopenia after aortic bioprosthesis implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparison among conventional, stentless, rapid-deployment, and transcatheter valves

BACKGROUND

Thrombocytopenia has been shown to occur soon after surgical biological aortic valve replacement (AVR), and recently reported also after transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI). The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still unknown, and its clinical impact on the peri-operative outcome has been poorly investigated.

METHODS

A systematic review and a meta-analysis of all available studies reporting data about peri-procedural thrombocytopenia on isolated bio-AVR, comparing rapid-deployment (RDV), stentless (stentless-AVR), and TAVI vs. stented (stented-AVR) valves, have been performed.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials (2.163 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Perioperative platelet reduction ranged from 35% to 55% in stented-AVR, from 60% to 77% in stentless-AVR, from 53% to 60% in RDV, and from to 21% to 72% in TAVI (apparently, balloon-expandable valves more frequently associated to thrombocytopenia). Stented-AVR required more red blood cells transfusion than stentless-AVR (P < 0.0001), whereas no difference has been found between RDV and stented-AVR. Platelet transfusion rate was very low in all surgical groups. No difference has been found in RDV and stentless-AVR vs. stented-AVR, in terms of reoperation for bleeding, and length-of-intensive care unit or hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombocytopenia-related major adverse events were mainly reported in TAVI patients, whereas clinically meaningless in surgical patients. Transient peri-procedural thrombocytopenia is common after bio-AVR, regardless of prosthesis's type or implant modality. It should receive appropriate monitoring and focused investigations.

The Use of Biological Heart Valves

BACKGROUND

Biological heart-valve prostheses have undergone continuous devel- opment up to the present, and technological advances have been made in catheter- assisted valve systems (transcatheter aortic valve implantation, TAVI) and minimally invasive routes of application. These parallel trends have led to major changes in therapeutic strategies, widening the spectrum of patients who are candidates for biological aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic search in PubMed employing the search terms "conventional biological aortic pros- thesis," "rapid deployment prosthesis," and "transcatheter aortic valve implantation/ replacement."

RESULTS

Among biological heart-valve prostheses, a distinction is drawn between stented (conventional, rapid-deployment, and catheter-assisted) and non-stented types. The long-term durability of conventional, surgically implantable biological valve protheses is by far the best documented: the reported 5-year reoperation rates range from 13.4% to 36.6%, and the pacemaker implantation rate is ca. 4%. Rapid-deployment prostheses combine the advantages of conventional and ca- theter-assisted techniques and facilitate minimally invasive approaches. The TAVI method is currently recommended for high- and intermediate-risk patients, while conventional valve replacement remains the method of choice for those at low risk. Rapid-deployment and TAVI prostheses is associated with a higher pacemaker im- plantation rate than conventional prostheses: these rates are 8.5-15.3% for TAVI and 6.0-8.8% for rapid-deployment valves. The intermediate-term durability of catheter-assisted and rapid-deployment prostheses appears promising, but their long-term durability is still unclear.

CONCLUSION

The further development of biological heart-valve prostheses in the form of improved conventional, transcatheter, and rapid-deployment prostheses now enables individualized treatment. Before any such procedure is performed, the car- diac team must assess the patient's risk profile and the advantages and disadvan- tages of each type of prosthesis to determine which is best.

Stented versus Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Small Aortic Root

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare hemodynamic and perioperative outcomes of stented against stentless aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic root (21 mm or less).

Methods

A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing stentless to stented bioprosthetic valves in small aortic root patients. Odds ratios, weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were analyzed.

Results

A total of seven studies with a total of 965 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in preoperative baselines including mean age between both groups ( P = 0.08), peak aortic valve gradient ( P = 0.06), and effective orifice area ( P = 0.28), whereas higher mean aortic valve gradient in the stented group ( P = 0.007). No difference in cardiopulmonary bypass time ( P = 0.74), aortic cross-clamp times ( P = 0.88), intensive care unit stay ( P = 0.13), and stroke rate ( P = 0.56) were noted. However, stented group of patients showed higher rate of patient prosthesis mismatch ( P = 0.0001) and longer total hospital stay ( P = 0.002). Postoperatively, stentless group showed lower peak and mean aortic valve gradient ( P = 0.003 and P = 0.008, respectively) with a better effective orifice area ( P < 0.00001) at 6 months of follow-up. Mortality rates while in-hospital and at 1 year were similar in both groups ( P = 0.94 and P = 0.86, respectively).

Conclusions

Stentless aortic valves offer superior short-term hemodynamic outcomes in patients with small aortic root when compared with stented aortic valves. Although both groups have similar perioperative complications rates, stentless valves bring about a shorter hospital stay. A further large multicenter randomized controlled trial should address the longer-term benefit of stentless aortic valve over stented valve.