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

Surgical explantation for a rapid deployment valve: the 'shave-and-hook technique'

An 80-year-old female patient underwent redo aortic valve replacement for haemolysis caused by moderate paravalvular leakage 1 year after a 21-mm Intuity Elite valve implantation. The elevatorium passed at the segment with paravalvular leakage. The frame was then bent inward using a hook and the peel around the sawing ring was shaved by an elevatorium. After explantation of the Intuity Elite valve, endoscopic examination showed no sign of annular or sub-annular damage. Conventional aortic valve replacement using a biological valve was performed. We introduce a safe alternative technique for explantation of a rapid deployed valve.

Right Anterior versus Right Transaxillary Access for Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Matched Competitive Analysis

(1) Background: Right anterior thoracotomy (RAT-AVR) has been the sole established sternum-sparing technique for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MICS-AVR) thus far. Nevertheless, transaxillary access, known as Minimally Invasive Cardiac LATeral Surgery (MICLATS-AVR), represents the latest and innovative advancement in sternum-sparing MICS-AVR access routes. In this study, procedural and clinical outcomes of a substantial transaxillary MICS-AVR cohort are compared to those of a RAT-AVR control group; (2) Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included 918 consecutive patients who underwent MICS-AVR at our facility between 2014 and 2022. This cohort was divided into two surgical access-related groups: RAT-AVR (n = 492) and MICLATS-AVR (n = 426). Procedural data, operative morbidity, and mortality were compared between groups. Further analysis was performed using propensity score matching; (3) Results: After matching, 359 pairs of patients were included and analyzed. There were no notable differences observed between the two groups regarding major adverse cardio-cerebral events. Despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass time in the MICLATS-AVR group (63.1 ± 20.4 min vs. 66.4 ± 18.2 min; p ≤ 0.001) the skin-to-skin time (129.4 ± 35.9 min. vs. 126.5 ± 29.8 min.; p = 0.790) and the aortic cross-clamp time was comparable between both groups (41.9 ± 13.3 min. vs. 43.5 ± 14.4 min.; p = 0.182). The overall hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MICLATS-AVR cohort (9.7 ± 5.2 days vs. 9.2 ± 4.5 days; p = 0.01). Both groups were comparable in terms of postoperative morbidities. However, significantly lower rates of postoperative impaired wound healing were noted in the MICLATS-AVR group (11.7% vs. 3.9%, p < 0.001); (4) Conclusions: In comparing MICLATS-AVR and RAT-AVR, our study found MICLATS-AVR to be at least as safe and time-efficient as RAT-AVR, with no significant differences in MACCE. MICLATS-AVR showed a shorter hospital stay and lower postoperative wound issues, indicating its feasibility and safety as an alternative. Notably, MICLATS-AVR is sternum- and bone-sparing, preserving the right mammary artery, and facilitates combined procedures like multiple valve surgeries.

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.

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.

Rhythm disturbances following rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement

Objectives

There have been reports of postoperative conduction disturbances after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. Our objective was to assess electrocardiogram changes in patients undergoing this procedure and review the literature on this topic.

Methods

In this retrospective case series, clinical data were extracted from patient records at St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne and the Australia New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons database. Electrocardiogram data were obtained at baseline and postoperatively on day 5 and at week 6 and reviewed for rhythm disturbances and intracardiac conduction problems. Pacemaker status was also recorded.

Results

From 2013 to 2017, 100 consecutive patients underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with 1 valve type at our institution. Three patients were excluded because of paced rhythm preoperatively, leaving 97 patients (mean age 74.7 ± 8.12 years; 56.7% male) for analysis. Some 18.6% of patients developed new left bundle branch block at 5 days postoperatively and only 4.1% of patients found with persistent left bundle branch block at 6-week follow-up compared with preoperatively. No significant changes were observed in the frequencies of atrial fibrillation, first-degree heart block, and right bundle branch block. However, there was evidence of increases in paced rhythm and subsequent need for a permanent pacemaker. A total of 14 patients (14.4%) had a permanent pacemaker implanted at an average of 11.1 ± 2.9 days postoperatively.

Conclusions

Rhythm disturbances and conduction abnormalities are noted with the rapid-deployment aortic valves used at our institution, but appear comparable to other rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement bioprostheses. These abnormalities may be related to the effect of the sub-annular stent frame of the valve system and implantation technique.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: results from a multicentric registry

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical and hemodynamic in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

METHODS

We examined 4695 patients who underwent isolated or combined SURD-AVR. The "sutureless" Perceval valve was used in 3133 patients and the "rapid deployment" Intuity in 1562. Potential confounding factors were addressed by the use of propensity score matching. After matching, 2 well-balanced cohorts of 823 pairs (isolated SURD-AVR) and 467 pairs (combined SURD-AVR) were created.

RESULTS

Patients who received Perceval and Intuity valves showed similar in-hospital mortality and rate of major postoperative complications. Perceval was associated shorter cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. In the isolated SURD-AVR group, patients receiving Perceval were more likely to undergo anterior right thoracotomy incision. Postoperative transvalvular gradients were significantly lower for the Intuity valve compared to those of the Perceval valve, either in isolated and combined SURD-AVR. The Intuity valve was associated with a lower rate of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm the safety and efficacy of SURD-AVR regardless of the valve type. The Perceval valve was associated with reduced operative times and increased anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve showed superior hemodynamic outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

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

Five-year outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the Edwards Intuity valve

BACKGROUND

This report presents 5-year outcomes of the rapid-deployment Edwards Intuity valve in a prospective, single-center study.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an aortic valve replacement (AVR) with an Edwards Intuity bioprosthesis at La Timone Hospital, Marseille, France, from July 2012 to June 2015 were assessed over a 5-year follow-up period. The primary outcome was overall mortality at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were reoperation, overall mortality and stroke, cardiovascular mortality, composite endpoints defined by the updated Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2), periprosthetic regurgitation, prosthesis-patient mismatch, and the need for new pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

In total, 170 consecutive patients were assessed, of which 67.1% were males. The mean age was 76 years, mean EuroSCORE II was 3.5% and 5-year overall mortality was 12.4%. At 5 years, reoperation was 2.9%, overall mortality and stroke was 4.1% per patient-year, and cardiovascular mortality was 4.7%. VARC clinical efficacy and VARC time-related valve safety were achieved in 46.0% and 59.9% of patients, respectively. At one month VARC device success was 71.2% and VARC early safety was 87.1%. At one year, mild and moderate periprosthetic regurgitation were 2.4% and 0.6%, respectively, and moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were 18.8% and 4.8%, respectively. Conduction disturbances needing new PPI occurred in 3.5% patients.

CONCLUSION

The 5-year outcomes of AVR with the Edwards Intuity valve system demonstrate satisfactory midterm safety and excellent haemodynamic performance.

Fifty years of the pericardial valve: Long-term results in the aortic position

It is now 50 years since the development of the first pericardial valve in 1971. In this time significant progress has been made in refining valve design aimed at improving the longevity of the prostheses. This article reviews the current literature regarding the longevity of pericardial heart valves in the aortic position. Side by side comparisons of freedom from structural valve degeneration are made for the valves most commonly used in clinical practice today, including stented, stentless, and sutureless valves. Strategies to reduce structural valve degeneration are also discussed including methods of tissue fixation and anti-calcification, ways to minimise mechanical stress on the valve, and the role of patient prosthesis mismatch.

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.

A new technique that prevents paravalvular leakage after aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve system

BACKGROUND

We report our 1-year single-center experience of a new technique of aortic valve replacement using a rapid-deployment valve (RD-AVR) to avoid postoperative complications. We also report the unexpected pitfalls and handling techniques that we have seen in past cases.

METHODS

We performed aortic valve replacement on 38 patients between May 2019 and April 2020. Their mean age was 74 years. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and short-term results during a 1-year follow-up period, while the secondary outcomes were related to prosthetic valve function, especially paravalvular leakage (PVL). We further analyzed the relationship between the new technique and its outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 196 min. There were no in-hospital deaths, and the mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 11.8 days. Valvular measurements using three-dimensional computed tomography were larger and more accurate than those measured using ultrasonic echocardiography. Postoperative RD-AVR prosthetic valve function was excellent. However, PVL occurred in four cases 1 week and 1 year postoperatively and regurgitation did not improve. A gap associated with PVL was identified below the right-noncoronary commissure. To prevent PVL, we additionally stitched this gap in the later 18 cases; there was no case of PVL and no new pacemaker implantation in these cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PVL is more likely to occur if there is a gap below the R-N commissure, especially in cases with a large annulus; therefore, applying an additional stitch to the R-N commissure is extremely useful.