RESUMO
Aortic valve infective endocarditis is a life-threatening condition. Patients frequently present profoundly unwell and extensive surgery may be required to correct the underlying anatomical deficits and control sepsis. Periannular involvement occurs in more than 10% of patients with aortic valve endocarditis. Complex aortic valve endocarditis has a mortality rate of 10 to 40%. Longstanding surgical dogma suggests homografts represent the optimal replacement option in complex aortic valve endocarditis; however, there is a paucity of evidence and lack of consensus on the optimal replacement choice. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed utilizing EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane databases to review articles describing homografts versus aortic valve replacement and/or valved conduit graft implantation for complex aortic valve endocarditis. The outcomes of interest were mortality, reinfection, and reoperation. Eleven studies were included in this meta-analysis, contributing 810 episodes of complex aortic valve endocarditis. All included reports were cohort studies. There was no statistically significant difference in overall mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.59; p = 0.95), reinfection (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.78; p = 0.74), or reoperation (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.38-2.14; p = 0.87) between the homograft and valve replacement/valved conduit graft groups. Overall, there was no difference in mortality, reinfection, or reoperation rates between homografts and other valve or valved conduits in management of complex aortic endocarditis. However, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence in the area, and comparison of valve types warrants further investigation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The use of rapid deployment sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) has become a viable alternative to conventional AVR especially in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, sutureless AVR has been associated with increased rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared with conventionally implanted aortic valve prostheses. The aim of this study was to determine predictive factors for complete heart block requiring insertion of a PPM post-AVR with a Perceval S sutureless valve (LivaNova, London, UK). Such knowledge will help to improve patient counselling, selection and management of patients undergoing sutureless AVR. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective cohort study assessed all patients who underwent insertion of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve prosthesis between July 2015 and September 2019. Medical records were reviewed for demographic, preoperative electrocardiograph (ECG), and operative features related to postoperative PPM implantation and follow-up in the electrophysiology clinic. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty (130) patients without pre-existing PPM underwent sutureless AVR (66.9% male, average age 74.4±6.6 years). Fifty-seven (57) underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. Eight (8) patients underwent redo cardiac surgery. Nineteen (19) of the 130 (14.6%) patients required insertion of a PPM during their postoperative course. Factors associated with PPM insertion were right bundle branch block (overall n=15, PPM vs No PPM: 8/19 vs 7/111 [42.1 % vs. 6.31 %; p<0.01]), longer QRS duration 113.32ms±22.24 ms vs 100.52±20.96 ms (p=0.017) and longer PR Interval 185.166±42.38 ms vs 169.23±25.70 ms (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Insertion of rapid deployment sutureless aortic valves in the setting of pre-existing right bundle branch block, prolonged QRS complex and longer PR intervals is associated with increased risk of postoperative PPM requirement. These factors should be considered when preoperatively counselling and postoperatively managing patients when balloon expandable sutureless valves are used.