Total endoscopic sutureless aortic valve replacement: rationale, development, perspectives

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.

Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement: Techniques and early results

Objective

To demonstrate the technical details of total endoscopic aortic valve replacement using a standard prosthesis, compare the clinical effect and safety of endoscopic aortic valve replacement and traditional aortic valve replacement.

Methods

From 2020 to 2021, 60 consecutive patients underwent elective isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). They were divided into two groups: the total endoscopic AVR group (TE-AVR group, 29 patients, nine women, aged 51.65 ± 11.79 years), and the traditional full-sternotomy group (AVR group, 31 patients, 13 women, aged 54.23 ± 12.06 years). Three working ports were adopted in the TE-AVR procedure.

Results

No patient died in either group. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time in the TE-AVR group were longer than those in the AVR group (CPB time: 177.6 ± 43.2 vs. 112.1 ± 18.1 min, p < 0.001; ACC time: 118.3 ± 29.7 vs. 67.0 ± 13.2 min, p < 0.001). However, the mechanical ventilation duration (14.2 ± 9.3 vs. 24.0 ± 18.9 h, p = 0.015) and postoperative hospital stay (6.0 ± 1.7 vs. 8.0 ± 4.5 days, p = 0.025) were shorter in patients of TE-AVR group than those of AVR group. Although the ICU stay (55.1 ± 26.9 vs. 61.5 ± 44.8 h, p = 0.509) and post-operative chest drainage of the first 24 h (229.8 ± 125.0 vs. 273.2 ± 103.2 ml, p = 0.146) revealed no statistical difference, there was a decreasing trend in the TE-AVR group. Among the patients of the TE-AVR group, two patients were converted to thoracotomy because of mild to moderate paravalvular leakage identified by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography.

Conclusion

Total endoscopic aortic valve replacement is safe and feasible, with less trauma and quicker recovery.

Safety and efficacy of two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Pure aortic valve disease is common and has been treated with sternotomy aortic valve replacement for decades. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been widely used in atrioventricular valve lesions, but totally thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement has rarely been reported.

METHOD

The profiles of 9 patients who were diagnosed with severe aortic valve diseases and treated with two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement between February 2021 and February 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical data, including baseline characteristics, operative data, postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes, were reported.

RESULTS

All nine patients successfully underwent two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement, with a cardiopulmonary bypass time of 137.56 ± 27.99 min and an aortic cross-clamp time of 95.33 ± 17.96 min. Seven (77.78%) patients underwent mechanical valve replacement, and two (22.22%) patients underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement. Two (22.22%) patients underwent a concomitant aortic root enlargement procedure. There were no intraoperative or postoperative deaths. The incidence of procedural complications was 0%, while the results of ventilation time, intensive care unit stay length, blood transfusion, chest tube drainage, and kidney function were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

Two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement is a safe and effective surgical treatment option for carefully selected patients with pure aortic valve diseases.

Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

Objective: To highlight the main target points covered by clinical studies on the Perceval sutureless valve for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and raise a point of discussion for further expansion of its use when compared with stented bioprostheses (SB) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods: We reviewed clinical trials and retrospective studies published up to date and compared the outcomes in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) stroke, paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding and long-term outcomes.

Results: Clinical studies showed that 30-day mortality ranged from 0–4% for Perceval and 2.9–7% for TAVR. The incidence of PVL (Perceval 1.9–19.4 vs. TAVR 9–53.5%), PPI (Perceval 2–11.2 vs. TAVR 4.9–25.5%), stroke (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–2.8%), MI (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–3.5%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0–6.4% for Perceval and 0–5.9% for SB. The incidence of PVR (Perceval 1–19.4 vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7 vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), stroke (Perceval 0–3.7 vs. SB 1.8–7.3%) and MI (Perceval 0–7.8 vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable among the groups. In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, mortality rate was (0–4%) and PVL incidence was (0–2.3%). However, there was a high incidence of PPI (0–20%), and stroke (0–8%). Long-term survival ranged between 96.7–98.6%.

Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its implantation speed, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, the reduced aortic cross-clamp time and the shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.