Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options. METHODS: A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity-matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310). RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.35, -1.20], p < .001) and cross-clamp times (SMD: -1.05, 95% CI: [-1.12, -0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: -0.385, 95% CI: [-0.679, -0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow-up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.

An alternative approach to explantation and exchange of the HeartWare left ventricular assist device.

OBJECTIVES: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) explantation and exchange is a relatively infrequent but potentially complex procedure. Patients requiring such procedures have multisystem suboptimal physiological reserve due to end-stage heart failure and are prone to complications. Less-invasive procedures are believed to facilitate postoperative recovery and early mobilization. We describe an alternative approach to explantation and exchange of the HeartWare LVAD through left thoracotomy. METHODS: Six patients (M = 4, F = 2, mean age = 49.16 years) underwent device explant/exchange or initial implant (explant = 2, exchange = 3, initial implant = 1) through left thoracotomy utilizing cardiopulmonary bypass and induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). The mean bypass time and mean VF arrest time were 82 and 3 min, respectively. A new outflow graft was anastomosed to the previous outflow graft in 3 cases of device exchange and to the descending aorta in 1 case of initial implant. RESULTS: One patient died in the intensive care unit due to unrelated causes (gram-negative sepsis) after device exchange. All others were discharged alive and currently remain on follow-up. The mean length of hospital stay was 40.66 days. CONCLUSIONS: On-pump approach through single thoracotomy incision is safe and equally suitable for device explant, exchange and initial implant. However, structural heart defects requiring surgical correction and the requirement of simultaneous right ventricular assist device are the limitations of this approach.