Sutureless Valve in Repeated Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from an International Prospective Registry

Abstract

Objective

To report early and midterm results registry of patients undergoing repeated aortic valve replacement (RAVR) with sutureless prostheses from an international prospective registry (SURE-AVR).

Methods

Between March 2011 and June 2019, 69 patients underwent RAVR with self-expandable sutureless aortic bioprostheses at 22 international cardiac centers.

Results

Overall mortality was 2.9% with a predicted logistic EuroSCORE II of 10.7%. Indications for RAVR were structural valve dysfunction (84.1%) and infective prosthetic endocarditis (15.9%) and were performed in patients with previously implanted bioprostheses (79.7%), mechanical valves (15.9%), and transcatheter valves (4.3%). Minimally invasive approach was performed in 15.9% of patients. Rate of stroke was 1.4% and rate of early valve-related reintervention was 1.4%. Overall survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 97% and 91%, respectively. No major paravalvular leak occurred. Rate of pacemaker implantation was 5.8% and 0.9% per patient-year early and at follow-up, respectively. The mean transvalvular gradient at 1-year and 5-year follow-up was 10.5 mm Hg and 11.5 mm Hg with a median effective orifice area of 1.8 cm²and 1.8 cm², respectively.

Conclusions

RAVR with sutureless valves is a safe and effective approach and provides excellent clinical and hemodynamic results up to 5 years.

Keywords

sutureless AVR redo surgery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

JM.

O’Brien

SM.

et al. 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: 82–90.19154908

Desai

ND.

Christakis

. Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: stented pericardial and porcine valves. In: Cohn

LH.

(ed) Cardiac Surgery in the Adult. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008, pp. 857–894.

Onorati

Biancari

De Feo

et al. Mid-term results of aortic valve surgery in redo scenarios in the current practice: results from the multicentre European RECORD (REdo Cardiac Operation Research Database) initiative. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47: 269–280.24686001

Jamieson

WRE.

Burr

LH.

Miyagishima

et al. Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure - risk assessment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 24: 873–878.14643803

Davierwala

PM.

Borger

MA.

David

et al. Reoperation is not an independent predictor of mortality during aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131: 329–335.16434261

Oxenham

Bloomfield

Wheatley

et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003; 89: 715–721.12807838

Kirsch

EWM.

Radu

NC.

Mekontso-Dessap

et al. Aortic root replacement after previous surgical intervention on the aortic valve, aortic root, or ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131: 601–608.

Furukawa

Tanemoto

. Redo valve surgery-current status and future perspectives. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 20: 267–275.25142755

Cohn

. Evolution of redo cardiac surgery: review of personal experience. J Card Surg 2004; 19: 320–324.15245461

10.

Phan

Zhou

JJ.

Niranjan

et al. Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4: 15–25.25694972

11.

Reul

RM.

Ramchandani

MK.

Reardon

. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve procedure in patients with bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J 2017; 13: 132–141.29743998

12.

Gersak

Fischlein

Folliguet

et al. Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an International Expert Consensus Panel. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 709–718.26516193

13.

Shrestha

Fischlein

Meuris

et al. European multicentre experience with the sutureless Perceval valve: clinical and haemodynamic outcomes up to 5 years in over 700 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 234–241.25750010

14.

Santarpino

Pfeiffer

Concistrè

et al. Redo aortic valve replacement: the sutureless approach. J Heart Valve Dis 2013; 22: 615–620.24383371

15.

Folliguet

TA.

Laborde

. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve replacement in aortic homograft. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 1866–1868.24182479

16.

Lio

Miceli

Ferrarini

et al. Perceval S valve solution for degenerated Freestyle root in the presence of chronic aortic dissection. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101: 2365–2367.27211946

17.

Kaneko

Vassileva

CM.

Englum

et al. Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: a benchmark for transcatheter valve in valve procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100: 1298–1304.26209480

18.

Leontyev

Borger

MA.

Davierwala

et al. Redo aortic valve surgery: early and late outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91: 1120–1126.21276956

19.

Rodriguez-Gabella

Voisine

Dagenais

et al. Long-term outcomes following surgical aortic bioprosthesis implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: 1401–1412.29598859

20.

Erlebach

Wottke

Deutsch

M-A

et al. Redo aortic valve surgery versus transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failing surgical bioprosthetic valves: consecutive patients in a single-center setting. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7: 1494–1500.26543594

21.

Silaschi

Wendler

Seiffert

et al. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with failed aortic bioprostheses. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017; 24: 63–70.27624351

22.

Takagi

Mitta

Ando

. Meta-analysis of valve in valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67: 243–250.30114716

23.

Suri

RM.

Javadikasgari

Heimansohn

et al. Prospective US investigational device exemption trial of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: one-year outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 157: 1773–1782.30553598

24.

Concistrè

Bianchi

Chiaramonti

et al. Minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement is associated with improved outcomes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Innovations 2019; 14: 445–452.31476934

25.

Powell

Pelletier

MP.

Chu

MWA

et al. The Perceval sutureless aortic valve: review of outcomes, complications, and future direction. Innovations 2017; 12: 155–173.28570342

26.

Meco

Montisci

Miceli

et al. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve versus conventional stented bioprostheses: meta-analysis of postoperative and midterm results in isolated aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc 2018; 7: e006091.29453309

27.

Miceli

Santarpino

Pfeiffer

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 Surg 2014; 148: 2838–2843.24698558

28.

Flameng

Herregods

M-C.

Vercalsteren

et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation 2010; 121: 2123–2129.20439787

29.

Zenses

A-S.

Dahou

Salaun

et al. Haemodynamic outcomes following aortic valve-in-valve procedure. Open Heart 2018; 5: e000854.30018783

30.

Villa

Messina

Laborde

et al. Challenge for perceval: aortic valve replacement with small sutureless valves-a multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99: 1248–1254.25661579

31.

Rubino

AS.

Biancari

Caruso

et al. Hemodynamic assessment of Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis by dobutamine stress echocardiography. Echocardiography 2018; 35: 64–70.29071795

32.

Tasca

Vismara

Mangini

et al. Comparison of the performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis with two pericardial stented valves on small annuli: an in vitro study. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 139–144.27544288

33.

Akins

CW.

Bitondo

JM.

Hilgenberg

et al. Early and late results of the surgical correction of cardiac prosthetic paravalvular leaks. J Heart Valve Dis 2005; 14: 792–799.16359061

34.

Mack

MJ.

Leon

MB.

Smith

et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2477–2484.25788234

35.

Ejiofor

Yammine

Harloff

et al.

Reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102: 1452–1458.

36.

Roselló-Díez

Cuerpo

Estévez

et al. Use of the Perceval sutureless valve in active prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 105: 1168–1174.29233766

37.

Oezpeker

Barbieri

Zujs

et al. Minimally invasive redo-aortic valve replacement: reduced operative times as compared to full sternotomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 68: 141–147.30114714

38.

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: 165–173.27540996

39.

Glauber

Miceli

. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless valve is the appropriate treatment option for high-risk patients and the “real alternative” to transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151: 610–613.26602264

40.

Yanagawa

Cruz

Boisvert

et al. A simple modification to lower incidence of heart block with sutureless valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 152: 630–632.26971380

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.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

0.16 MB