Very few studies provide direct comparisons between aortic root enlargement and sutureless valve implantation in patients with a small aortic annulus who underwent aortic valve replacement. This study aims to provide comparative outcomes between the two in such a subset of patients, through a systematic review and pool analysis.
Methods
The PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases were searched using the appropriate terms. The data from original articles mentioning aortic root enlargement and sutureless valves in a single or comparative study with another group of patients with a small aortic annulus were pooled and analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results
Both cardiopulmonary bypass (68.4 vs. 125.03 min, p < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in the sutureless valve group, along with a concomitantly higher number of minimally invasive surgeries. The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (9.76% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.00001), patient prosthesis mis-match and paravalvular leak was significantly higher in the sutureless valve group. In comparison, the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding was higher in the aortic root enlargement group (5.27% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.02). The two groups had no differences in the duration of hospital stays or mortality.
Conclusions
Sutureless valves demonstrated a comparable hemodynamic outcome with aortic root enlargement in patients with a small aortic annulus. In addition to this, it greatly facilitated minimally invasive surgery. However, the high incidence of pacemaker implantation is still a concern for the widespread recommendation of sutureless valves, especially in young patients with a small aortic annulus.
Freitas-FerrazABTirado-ConteGDagenaisF, et al.Aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus. Circulation2019; 139: 2685–2702.
2.
BelluschiIMoriggiaSGiacominiA, et al.Can Perceval sutureless valve reduce the rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch?Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2017; 51: 1093–1099.
3.
PandeyPSahaAJhaNK, et al.Are small-sized mechanical valves adequate for patients with small aortic roots?Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2022; 30: 992–1000.
4.
KamiokaNAritaTHanyuM, et al.Valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement for a small aortic annulus. Int Heart J2019; 60: 86–92.
5.
HaseHYoshijimaNYanagisawaR, et al.Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut R versus Sapien 3 in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus: the OCEAN-TAVI registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2021; 97: E875–E886.
6.
GhoneimABouhoutIDemersP, et al.Management of small aortic annulus in the era of sutureless valves: a comparative study among different biological options. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2016; 152: 1019–1028.
7.
HaunschildJScharnowskiSMendeM, et al.Aortic root enlargement to mitigate patient-prosthesis mismatch: do early adverse events justify reluctance?Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2019; 56: 335–342.
8.
SáMPBOCarvalhoMMBSobral FilhoDC, et al.Impact of surgical aortic root enlargement on the outcomes of aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of 13 174 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2019; 29: 74–82.
9.
SáMPVan den EyndeJAmabileA, et al.Late outcomes after aortic root enlargement during aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2022; 36: 3065–3073.
10.
BeckmannEMartensAAlhadiF, et al.Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2016; 22: 744–749.
11.
ShresthaMMaedingIHöfflerK, et al.Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2013; 17: 778–782.
12.
GlauberMDi BaccoLCuencaJ, et al.Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless valves: results from an international prospective registry. Innovations (Phila). 2020; 15: 120–130.
13.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med2009; 6: e1000097.
14.
BarkerTHStoneJCSearsK, et al.The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid Synth2023; 21: 494–506.
15.
MunnZBarkerTHMoolaS, et al.Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth2020; 18: 2127–2133.
16.
MbuziVFulbrookPJessupM. Effectiveness of programs to promote cardiovascular health of Indigenous Australians: a systematic review. Int J Equity Health2018; 17: 153.
17.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
18.
WanXWangWLiuJ, et al.Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol2014; 14: 135.
19.
UmeoguajuFUAkaninworJOEssienEB, et al.Heavy metal profile of surface and ground water samples from the Niger Delta region of Nigeria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Monit Assess2021; 194: 46.
20.
VillaEMessinaALabordeF, et al.Challenge for perceval: aortic valve replacement with small sutureless valves – a multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg2015; 99: 1248–1254.
21.
ShalabiASpiegelsteinDSternikL, et al.Sutureless versus stented valve in aortic valve replacement in patients with small annulus. Ann Thorac Surg2016; 102: 118–122.
22.
DedeiliasPBaikoussisNGPrappaE, et al.Aortic valve replacement in elderly with small aortic root and low body surface area; the Perceval S valve and its impact in effective orifice area. J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 11: 54.
23.
DionnePOPoulinFBouchardD, et al.Early hemodynamic results in patients with small aortic annulus after aortic valve replacement. Innovations (Phila)2017; 12: 254–258.
24.
ChiarielloGABrunoPVillaE, et al.Aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with small aortic annulus: results with three different bioprostheses. Innovations (Phila)2019; 14: 27–36.
25.
PrakashSAgarwalSDuttaN, et al.A comparative study of surgical treatment of small aortic root with or without aortic root enlargement using a single prosthesis type. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)2010; 11: 836–842.
26.
OkamotoYYamamotoKSugimotoT, et al.Early and late outcomes of aortic valve replacement with aortic annular enlargement: a propensity analysis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2016; 64: 410–417.
27.
ChowdhuryUKSinghSGeorgeN, et al.Early evaluation of the aortic root after Nicks’ procedure. JTCVS Tech2020; 4: 85–96.
28.
CoutinhoGFCorreiaPMPaupérioG, et al.Aortic root enlargement does not increase the surgical risk and short-term patient outcome?Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2011; 40: 441–447.
29.
OkamotoYYamamotoKSugimotoT, et al.Early and late outcomes of AVR with aortic annular enlargement in octogenarian. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2015; 63: 453–458.
30.
CelientoMSaccocciMDe MartinoA, et al.Stability of aortic annulus enlargement during aortic valve replacement using a bovine pericardial patch: an 18-year clinical, echocardiographic, and angio-computed tomographic follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2014; 147: 977–983.
31.
YousefSSerna-GallegosDBrownJA, et al.Outcomes of root enlargement vs root replacement for aortic stenosis[published online ahead of print, 2022 December 27]. Ann Thorac Surg.2022; S0003-4975: 01613–7.
32.
HanedanMOYurukMAParlarAI, et al.Sutureless versus conventional aortic valve replacement: outcomes in 70 high-risk patients undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures. Tex Heart Inst J2018; 45: 11–16.
33.
BerrettaPArztSFioreA, et al.Current trends of sutureless and rapid deployment valves: an 11-year experience from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2020; 58: 1054–1062.
34.
PollariFSantarpinoGDell'AquilaAM, et al.Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 98: 611–616.
35.
RanucciMFrigiolaAMenicantiL, et al.Aortic cross-clamp time, new prostheses, and outcome in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis2012; 21: 732–739.
36.
ConcistrèGChiaramontiFBianchiG, et al.Aortic valve replacement with perceval bioprosthesis: single-center experience with 617 implants. Ann Thorac Surg2018; 105: 40–46.
37.
MiceliAGilmanovDMurziM, et al.Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve through a right anterior mini thoracotomy versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 49: 960–965.
38.
MiceliASantarpinoGPfeifferS, et al.Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with perceval S sutureless valve: early outcomes and one-year survival from two European centers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2014; 148: 2838–2843.
39.
TamDYDharmaCRochaRV, et al.Early and late outcomes following aortic root enlargement: a multicenter propensity score-matched cohort analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2020; 160: 908–919.
40.
LazarHL. Aortic root enlargement-is it a safe and effective approach to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch and is it for everyone?Can J Cardiol2019; 35: 707–709.
41.
LabordeFFischleinTHakim-MeibodiK, et al.Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the Perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective European multicentre study (the Cavalier Trial). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 49: 978–986.
42.
EnsmingerSFujitaBBauerT, et al.Rapid deployment versus conventional bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol2018; 71: 1417–1428.
43.
D'OnofrioASalizzoniSRubinoAS, et al.The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: a comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2016; 152: 99–109.e2.
44.
MoscarelliMSantarpinoGAthanasiouT, et al.A pooled analysis of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2021; 33: 501–509.
45.
ColarossiGMiglioriniFBeckerM, et al.Conventional prostheses versus sutureless perceval for aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis[published online ahead of print, 2022 December 15]. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023; 29: 107–124.
46.
VriesendorpMDde Lind van WijngaardenRAFKlautzRJM. Concomitant aortic root enlargement is perhaps safe, but is it also effective?Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2020; 57: 815.
47.
LinCYLeeHALinPJ, et al.Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis replacement in elderly Asian patients with aortic stenosis: experience in a single institution. Biomed J2018; 41: 265–272.
48.
VilaltaVCarrilloXFernández-NofreríasE, et al.Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for bioprosthetic aortic sutureless valve failure: a case series. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed)2021; 74: 269–272.
49.
D'OnofrioAMessinaALorussoR, et al.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 Surg2012; 144: 1010–1016.
50.
Di EusanioMBerrettaP. The sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry: lessons learned from more than 4,500 patients. Ann Cardiothorac Surg2020; 9: 289–297.
51.
Berastegui GarcíaECamara RosellMLEstevez CidF, 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 Surg2018; 26: 596–601.
52.
SzecelDMeurisB. Long-term outcome with sutureless valves: 12 years of Perceval experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg2020; 9: 322–324.
53.
SzecelDEurlingsRRegaF, et al.Perceval sutureless aortic valve implantation: midterm outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg2021; 111: 1331–1337.
54.
HameedIGaudinoM. Reply: fact or fiction: the benefit of aortic root enlargement during aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2021; 161: e159.
55.
YuWTamDYRochaRV, et al.Aortic root enlargement is safe and reduces the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch: a meta-analysis of early and late outcomes. Can J Cardiol2019; 35: 782–790.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
