International Expert Consensus on Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves in Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive Approaches

Abstract

Objective

To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach.

Results

No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed to-mographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs.

Conclusions

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.

Keywords

Sutureless valves Rapid deployment valves Minimally invasive surgery Aortic stenosis

References

Leon

M.B.

, Smith

C.R.

, Mack

Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 1597–1607.

Vahanian

, Alfieri

, Andreotti

Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 42: S1–S44.

Brown

, O'Brien

S.M.

, Wu

Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 137: 82–90.

Reynolds

M.R.

, Magnuson

E.A.

, Wang

Health-related quality of life after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) Trial (Cohort A). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60: 548–558.

Zahn

, Gerckens

, Grube

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: first results from a multi-centre real-world registry. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32: 198–204.

Walther

, Schuler

, Borger

M.A.

Is transapical aortic valve implantation really less invasive than minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?

Eur Heart J. 2010; 31: 1398–1403.

Kiefer

, Gruenwald

, Kempfert

Crimping may affect the durability of transcatheter valves: an experimental analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92: 155–160.

Santarpino

, Pfeiffer

, Jessl

Sutureless replacement versus transcatheter valve implantation in aortic valve stenosis: a propensity-matched analysis of 2 strategies in high-risk patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 147: 561–567.

Onorati

, D'Errigo

, Barbanti

Different impact of sex on baseline characteristics and major periprocedural outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve interventions: results of the multicenter Italian OBSERVANT Registry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 147: 1529–1539.

10.

Giordana

, D'Ascenzo

, Nijhoff

Meta-analysis of predictors of all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2014; 114: 1447–1455.

11.

Folliguet

T.A.

, Laborde

, Zannis

Sutureless Perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centers. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 93: 1483–1488.

12.

Martens

, Ploss

, Sirat

Sutureless aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable aortic bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87: 1914–1917.

13.

Glauber

, Miceli

, Gilmanov

Right anterior minithoracotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 145: 1222–1226.

14.

Brown

M.L.

, McKellar

S.H.

, Sundt

T.M.

, Schaff

H.V.

Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 137: 670–679.

15.

Foghsgaard

, Schmidt

T.A.

, Kjaergard

H.K.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: late conversion to full sternotomy doubles operative time. Tex Heart Inst J. 2009; 36: 293–297.

16.

Karimov

J.H.

, Cerillo

A.G.

, Gasbarri

, Solinas

, Bevilacqua

, Glauber

Stentless aortic valve implantation through an upper manubrium-limited V-type ministernotomy. Innovations. 2010; 5: 378–380.

17.

Kocher

A.A.

, Laufer

, Haverich

One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 145: 110–115.

18.

Borger

M.A.

, Moustafine

, Conradi

A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 17–25.

19.

Gilmanov

, Miceli

, Ferrarini

Aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy: can sutureless technology improve clinical outcomes?

Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 98: 1585–1592.

20.

Miceli

, Santarpino

, Pfeiffer

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve: early outcomes and one-year survival from two European centers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: 2838–2843.

21.

Phan

, Tsai

Y.C.

, Niranjan

Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 4: 100–111.

22.

D'Onofrio

, Rizzoli

, Messina

Conventional surgery, sutureless valves, and transapical aortic valve replacement: what is the best option for patients with aortic valve stenosis? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 146: 1065–1070.

23.

Muneretto

, Bisleri

, Moggi

Treating the patients in the ‘grey-zone’ with aortic valve disease: a comparison among conventional surgery, sutureless valves and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015; 20: 90–95.

24.

Koenig

K.C.

, Wahlers

, Scherner

Sutureless Perceval aortic valve in comparison with the stented Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 2014; 23: 253–258.

25.

Pollari

, Santarpino

, Dell'Aquila

A.M.

Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 98: 611–616.

26.

Akins

C.W.

, Miller

D.C.

, Turina

M.I.

Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008; 135: 732–738.

27.

Kappetein

A.P.

, Head

S.J.

, Généreux

Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 145: 6–23.

28.

Nishimura

R.A.

, Otto

C.M.

, Bonow

R.O.

2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: e1–e132.

29.

Lehmkuhl

, Foldyna

, Haensig

Role of preprocedural computed tomography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Rofo. 2013; 185: 941–949.

30.

Jochheim

, Schneider

V.S.

, Schwarz

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury after computed tomography prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Radiol. 2014; 69: 1034–1038.

31.

Azzalini

, Abbara

, Ghoshhajra

B.B.

Ultra-low contrast computed tomographic angiography (CTA) with 20-mL total dose for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) planning. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014; 38: 105–109.

32.

Borger

M.A.

, Dohmen

, Misfeld

, Mohr

F.W.

Minimal invasive implantation of an EDWARDS INTUITY rapid deployment aortic valve. Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 2013: mmt011.

33.

Gundry

S.R.

, Shattuck

O.H.

, Razzouk

A.J.

Facile minimally invasive cardiac surgery via ministernotomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998; 65: 1100–1104.

34.

Husser

, Holzamer

, Resch

Prosthesis sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation—comparison of three dimensional transesophageal echocardiography with multislice computed tomography. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168: 3431–3438.

35.

Sievers

H.H.

, Schmidtke

A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 133: 1226–1233.

36.

Bilen

, Sari

, Durmaz

The importance of echocardiography in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Echocardiography. 2014; 31: 101–110.

37.

Ramakrishna

, Kohl

B.A.

, Jassar

A.S.

Incidental moderate mitral regurgitation in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: review of guidelines and current evidence. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014; 28: 417–422.

38.

Benetti

F.J.

, Mariani

M.A.

, Rizzardi

J.L.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997; 113: 806–807.

39.

Minale

, Reifschneider

H.J.

, Schmitz

Early results of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Experience with the first 34 cases. G Ital Cardiol. 1997; 27: 458–461.

40.

Cohn

L.H.

, Adams

D.H.

, Couper

G.S.

Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg. 1997; 226: 421–426.

41.

Bang

J.H.

, Kim

J.W.

, Lee

J.W.

Minimally invasive approaches versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matching study. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 45: 80–84.

42.

Brinkman

W.T.

, Hoffman

, Dewey

T.M.

, Sutherland

F.W.

Aortic valve replacement surgery: comparison of outcomes in matched sternotomy and PORT ACCESS groups. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 90: 131–135.

43.

Khoshbin

, Prayaga

, Kinsella

, Sutherland

F.W.

Mini-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement reduces the length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2011; 1: e000266.

44.

Korach

, Shemin

R.J.

, Hunter

C.T.

Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a 10-year experience. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2010; 51: 417–421.

45.

Glauber

, Farneti

, Solinas

, Karimov

Aortic valve replacement through a right minithoracotomy. Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg. 2006; 2006: mmcts.2005.001826.

46.

Gilmanov

, Bevilacqua

, Murzi

Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 96: 837–843.

47.

Pineda

A.M.

, Santana

, Reyna

Outcomes of reoperative aortic valve replacement via right mini-thoracotomy versus median sternotomy. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013; 22: 50–55.

48.

Miceli

, Murzi

, Gilmanov

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using right minithoracotomy is associated with better outcomes than ministernotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: 133–137.

49.

Rodriguez

, Malaisrie

S.C.

, Mehall

J.R.

Right anterior thoracotomy aortic valve replacement is associated with less cost than sternotomy-based approaches: a multi-institution analysis of ‘real world’ data. J Med Econ. 2014; 19: 1–7.

50.

Dalén

, Biancari

, Rubino

A.S.

Ministernotomy versus full sternotomy aortic valve replacement with the sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis: a multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 524–530.

51.

Cerillo

A.G.

, Bevilacqua

, Farneti

P.A.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement through a right minithoracotomy. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012; 21: 168–171.

52.

Santarpino

, Pfeiffer

, Vogt

Advanced age per se should not be an exclusion criterion for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013; 22: 455–459.

53.

Santarpino

, Pfeiffer

, Concistrè

A supra-annular malposition of the Perceval S sutureless aortic valve: the ‘χ-movement’ removal technique and subsequent reimplantation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012; 15: 280–281.

54.

Murzi

, Cerillo

A.G.

, Bevilacqua

Traversing the learning curve in minimally invasive heart valve surgery: a cumulative analysis of an individual surgeon's experience with a right minithoracotomy approach for aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 41: 1242–1246.

55.

Caffarelli

A.D.

, Robbins

R.C.

Will minimally invasive valve replacement ever really be important?

Curr Opin Cardiol. 2004; 19: 123–127.

56.

Fenton

J.R.

, Doty

J.R.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery through lower half sternotomy. J Thorac Dis. 2013; 5: S658–S661.

57.

Ranucci

, Frigiola

, Menicanti

Aortic cross-clamp time, new prostheses, and outcome in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012; 21: 732–739.

58.

Nijhoff

, Abawi

, Agostoni

, Ramjankhan

F.Z.

, Doevendans

P.A.

, Stella

P.R.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the new balloon-expandable Sapien 3 versus Sapien XT valve system: a propensity score-matched single-center comparison. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8: e002408.

59.

Wendt

, Al-Rashid

, Kahlert

Low incidence of paravalvular leakage with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 transcatheter heart valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 100: 819–826.

60.

D'Onofrio

, Messina

, Lorusso

Sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative treatment for patients belonging to the “gray zone” between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conventional surgery: a propensity-matched, multicenter analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 144: 1010–1016.

61.

Rubino

A.S.

, Santarpino

, De Praetere

Early and intermediate outcome after aortic valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis: results of a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: 865–871.

62.

Englberger

, Carrel

T.P.

, Doss

Clinical performance of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: five-year results of the 3f Enable long-term follow-up study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: 1681–1687.

63.

Haverich

, Wahlers

T.C.

, Borger

Three-year hemodynamic performance, left ventricular mass regression, and prosthetic-patient mismatch after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in 287 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: 2854–2860.