Sutureless versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant: A Propensity Score Matching Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), especially via the transfemoral (TF) route, is increasingly performed in patients considered in the 'gray zone' between TAVI and surgery. However, the best treatment option in this patient population remains to be established. METHODS: Since 2010, a total of 923 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 538) or sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n = 385) at the authors' institutions. Among these patients, 79 treated with TF-TAVI were compared with 79 propensity score-matched patients who had undergone elective isolated AVR with the sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between patients who underwent sutureless AVR or TF-TAVI (none versus three; 3.8%; p = 0.123). Similarly, postoperative complications were comparable between groups. Atrioventricular block requiring postoperative pacemaker implantation occurred in seven patients (9.2%) of the sutureless group and in eight patients (11.1%) of the TF-TAVI group (p = 0.455). The use of blood products varied between groups in terms of red blood cell transfusions (1.7 ± 2 versus 0.3 ± 0.9 units for the sutureless group versus TF-TAVI group; p <0.001). Paravalvular leakage at discharge was present in three patients (3.8%) in the sutureless group and in 26 patients (32.9%) in the TF-TAVI group (p <0.001). The mean follow up was longer for sutureless AVR (36 ± 21 versus 27 ± 20 months; p = 0.003). Survival rates were 97.5% and 84.8% in the sutureless and TF-TAVI groups, respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both, TF-TAVI and sutureless AVR are well-standardized, safe and effective procedures. TF-TAVI seems to be a valuable alternative to surgical AVR for frail patients, reducing the need for perioperative blood transfusion. In contrast, in patients with a favorable long-term survival outcome, minimally invasive AVR remains the procedure of choice as it is associated with better long-term results.

Prone Positioning in Cardiac Surgery: For Many, But Not for Everyone.

Prone positioning is a therapeutic maneuver to improve arterial oxygenation in patients with acute lung injury that is not implemented in most centers performing adult cardiac surgery. The aim of this study was to review our experience with prone positioning to assess the effects of this maneuver in patients with postoperative acute respiratory failure. From 2010-2014, 127 adult patients with postoperative acute respiratory failure were treated with prone positioning in addition to specific therapy. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was 22.8% (n = 29). No significant differences were observed in preoperative risk factors between patients who survived (S) and those who died (D), except for age (62.7 ± 11.2 vs 70.2 ± 11.3; P = 0.007-at multivariate analysis P = 0.03, odds ratio [OR] = 1.1/year). Preproning values of PaO2/FiO2 were significantly different between groups (D vs S: 115 ± 46 vs 150 ± 56; P = 0.006), but only preproning FiO2 remained highly significant at multivariate analysis (D vs S: 0.82 ± 0.18 vs 0.67 ± 0.16; P = 0.001, OR = 1.07; with FiO2 > 0.75 vs < 75, OR = 19.6). D showed a higher improvement of PaO2/FiO2 immediately after prone positioning (207 ± 100 vs 219 ± 90, P = 0.56; within-group analysis between preproning and 1 hour after proning: S-P = 0.49, D-P = 0.019; at 12 hours: 286 ± 123 vs 240 ± 120, P = 0.06; within-group analysis between 1 hour and 12 hours after proning: S-P = 0.15; D-P = 0.17; between groups-P = 0.05). D had higher peak WBC count (26 ± 9.8 vs 17.7 ± 5.9×103/mL; P = 0.0001) and a higher rate of low output syndrome (15 vs 9 patients-51.7% vs 9.2%; P = 0.0001). At multivariate analysis, white blood cell count: P = 0.005, OR = 1.11/103 white blood cell; low output syndrome: P = 0.0002, OR = 20.5. In conclusion, our results show that prone positioning, if performed early, is a safe and effective adjunct measure for patients with postoperative acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of noncardiogenic origin.

Clinical Outcome and Cost Analysis of Sutureless Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Surgical sutureless and interventional transcatheter aortic valve prostheses are nowadays extensively adopted in high-risk elderly patients. An explorative analysis was carried out to compare the clinical outcome and costs associated to these approaches. Since 2010, a total of 626 patients were distributed between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI; n = 364) and sutureless (n = 262) groups. Patients of both groups were not comparable for clinical and surgical characteristics, but many patients were in a "gray zone"; therefore, a retrospective propensity score analysis was possible and performed. For the matched pair samples, postoperative, follow-up clinical data, and costs data were obtained. In-hospital death occurred in 5 patients in sutureless group and 3 patients in TAVI group (p = 0.36). Blood transfusions were higher in sutureless group (2.1 ± 2.3 vs 0.4 ± 1.0 U). TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (2.2 ± 2.7 vs 3.2 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.037; 12 ± 6 vs 14 ± 6 days, p = 0.017). No differences in postoperative neurologic (p = 0.361), renal (p = 0.106), or respiratory (p = 0.391) complications were observed between groups. At follow-up (24.5 ± 13.8 months), 1 patient in sutureless group and 7 patients in TAVI group died (p = 0.032). Paravalvular leakage occurred more frequently in patients in TAVI group (35 [34%] vs 7 [6.9%]; p <0.001) with an impact on follow-up survival rate. The costs associated to the 2 procedures are similar when the cost of the device was excluded (p = 0.217). When included, the sutureless approach resulted a cost saving (€22,451 vs €33,877, p <0.001). In conclusion, the patients in the "gray zone" record a satisfying clinical outcome after sutureless surgery and TAVI. Patients in the sutureless group endure more hospital complications, but TAVI entails a higher follow-up mortality. On the costs aspects, TAVI technologies are more expensive, and it reflects on higher overall hospital costs.