Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Sutureless Valves: Results From an International Prospective Registry

Abstract

Objective

To report the early and mid-term results of patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) with a sutureless prosthesis from an international prospective registry.

Methods

Between March 2011 and September 2018, among 957 patients included in the prospective observational SURE-AVR (Sorin Universal REgistry on Aortic Valve Replacement) registry, 480 patients underwent MI-AVR with self-expandable Perceval aortic bioprosthesis (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) in 29 international institutions through either minithoracotomy (n = 266) or ministernotomy (n = 214). Postoperative, follow-up, and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed for all patients.

Results

Patient age was 76.1 ± 7.1 years; 64.4% were female. Median EuroSCORE I was 7.9% (interquartile range [IQR], 4.8 to 10.9). Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 81 minutes (IQR 64 to 100) and 51 minutes (IQR 40 to 63). First successful implantation was achieved in 97.9% of cases. Two in-hospital deaths occurred, 1 for noncardiovascular causes and 1 following a disabling stroke. In the early (≤30 days) period, stroke rate was 1.4%. Three early explants were reported: 2 due to nonstructural valve dysfunction (NSVD) and 1 for malpositioning. One mild and 1 moderate paravalvular leak were reported. In 16 patients (3.3%) pacemaker implantation was needed. Mean follow-up was 2.4 years (maximum = 7 years). During follow-up 5 explants were reported, 3 due to endocarditis and 2 due to NSVD. Follow-up stroke rate was 2.5%. Three structural valve deteriorations not requiring reintervention were reported. Five-year survival was 91.45%.

Conclusions

In this large prospective international registry, MI-AVR with Perceval valve confirmed to be safe, reproducible, and effective in an intermediate-risk population, providing excellent clinical recovery both in early and mid-term follow-up.

Keywords

MICS sutureless aortic stenosis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Osnabrugge

RLJ.

Mylotte

Head

et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: 1002–1012.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.015

Bonow

RO.

Greenland

. Population-wide trends in aortic stenosis incidence and outcomes. Circulation 2015; 131: 969–971.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.014846

Iung

Baron

Tornos

et al. Valvular heart disease in the community: a European experience. Curr Probl Cardiol 2007; 32: 609–661.doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2007.07.002

Mohr

FW.

Holzhey

Möllmann

et al. The German Aortic Valve Registry: 1-year results from 13,680 patients with aortic valve disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 46: 808–816.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu290

Holzhey

Mohr

FW.

Walther

et al. Current results of surgical aortic valve replacement: insights from the German Aortic Valve Registry. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101: 658–666.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.07.090

Leon

MB.

Smith

CR.

Mack

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1597–1607.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1008232

Smith

CR.

Leon

MB.

Mack

et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 2187–2198.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1103510

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21639811

Adams

DH.

Popma

JJ.

Reardon

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1790–1798.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1400590

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24678937

Berastegui García

Camara Rosell

ML.

Estevez Cid

et al. Perceval less invasive aortic replacement register: multicentric Spanish experience with the Perceval S bioprosthesis in moderate–high-risk aortic surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2018; 26: 596–601.doi:10.1093/icvts/ivx384

10.

Muneretto

Alfieri

Cesana

et al. A comparison of conventional surgery, transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and sutureless valves in “real-world” patients with aortic stenosis and intermediate- to high-risk profile. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150: 1570–1579.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.052

11.

Cosgrove

DM.

Sabik

. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 62: 596–597.doi:10.1016/0003-4975(96)00418-3

12.

O’Brien

SM.

Shahian

DM.

Filardo

et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2--isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88(1 Suppl): S23–S42.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.05.056

13.

Murzi

Cerillo

AG.

Miceli

et al. Antegrade and retrograde arterial perfusion strategy in minimally invasive mitral-valve surgery: a propensity score analysis on 1280 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 43: e167–e172.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezt043

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404687

14.

Bowdish

ME.

Hui

DS.

Cleveland

et al. A comparison of aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy with standard sternotomy: a propensity score analysis of 492 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 456–463.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv038

15.

Berretta

Andreas

Carrel

et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment valves: a report from an international registry (Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 56: 793–799.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezz055

16.

D’Onofrio

Salizzoni

Rubino

et al. The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: a comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 152: 99–109.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.11.041

17.

Di Eusanio

Phan

Berretta

et al. Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR): early results from 3343 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 54: 768–773.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezy132

18.

Fischlein

Meuris

Hakim-Meibodi

et al. The sutureless aortic valve at 1 year: a large multicenter cohort study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151: 1617–1626.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.12.064

19.

Glauber

Moten

SC.

Quaini

et al. International expert consensus on sutureless and rapid deployment valves in aortic valve replacement using minimally invasive approaches. Innovations 2016; 11: 165–173.doi:10.1097/imi.0000000000000287

20.

Hamm

CW.

Arsalan

Mack

et al. The future of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 803–810.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv574

21.

Baumgartner

Falk

Bax

et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2017; 38: 2739–2791.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391

22.

Nishimura

RA.

Otto

CM.

Bonow

et al. AHA/ACC focused update of the 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 Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 2017: 252–289.

23.

Concistrè

Chiaramonti

Bianchi

et al. Aortic valve replacement with Perceval bioprosthesis: single-center experience with 617 implants. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 105: 40–46.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.05.080

24.

Hamm

CW.

Möllmann

Holzhey

et al. The German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY): in-hospital outcome. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 1588–1598.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht381

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24022003

25.

Reardon

MJ.

Van Mieghem

NM.

Popma

et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 1321–1331.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1700456

26.

Leon

MB.

Smith

CR.

Mack

et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1609–1620.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1514616

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27040324

27.

Mack

MJ.

Leon

MB.

Thourani

et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1695–1705.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1814052

28.

Murzi

Cerillo

AG.

Gilmanov

et al. Exploring the learning curve for minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 152: 1537–1546.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.04.094

29.

Murzi

Cerillo

AG.

Bevilacqua

et al. Enhancing departmental quality control in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a single-institution experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42: 500–506.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs050

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22427391

30.

Glauber

Gilmanov

Farneti

et al. Right anterior minithoracotomy for aortic valve replacement: 10-year experience of a single center. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150: 548–556.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.06.045

31.

Lamelas

Sarria

Santana

et al. Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91: 79–84.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.09.019

32.

Margaryan

Kallushi

Gilmanov

et al. Sutureless aortic valve prosthesis sizing: estimation and prediction using multidetector-row computed tomography. Innovations 2015; 10: 230–235.doi:10.1097/imi.0000000000000182

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26371451

33.

Biancari

Rosato

D’Errigo

et al. Immediate and intermediate outcome after transapical versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am J Cardiol 2016; 117: 245–251.doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.10.036

34.

Santarpino

Pfeiffer

Jessl

et al. 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.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.025

35.

Walther

Hamm

CW.

Schuler

et al. Perioperative results and complications in 15,964 transcatheter aortic valve replacements: prospective data from the GARY registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 2173–2180.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.034

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25787198

36.

Nazif

TM.

Dizon

JM.

Hahn

et al. Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial and registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8(1 Pt A): 60–69.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.07.022

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25616819

37.

Yanagawa

Cruz

Boisvert

et al. A simple modification to lower incidence of heart block with sutureless valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 152: 630–632.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.02.034

38.

Fischlein

Gersak

Pfeiffer

. How to prevent a pacemaker implantation after sutureless bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 152: 635–636.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.03.055

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27423841

39.

Mazine

Teoh

Bouhout

et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a Canadian multicentre study. Can J Cardiol 2015; 31: 63–68.doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2014.10.030

40.

Bouhout

Mazine

Rivard

et al. Conduction disorders after sutureless aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 1254–1260.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.07.044

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27717423