Sutureless Versus Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From a Multicenter Registry.

BACKGROUND: This study compared clinical and hemodynamic in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless vs rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR). METHODS: We examined 4695 patients who underwent isolated or combined SURD-AVR. The "sutureless" Perceval valve (LivaNova PLC, London, United Kingdom) was used in 3133 patients and the "rapid deployment" Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) in 1562. Potential confounding factors were addressed by the use of propensity score matching. After matching, 2 well-balanced cohorts of 823 pairs (isolated SURD-AVR) and 467 pairs (combined SURD-AVR) were created. RESULTS: Patients who received Perceval and Intuity valves showed similar in-hospital mortality and rate of major postoperative complications. Perceval was associated shorter cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. In the isolated SURD-AVR group, patients receiving Perceval were more likely to undergo anterior right thoracotomy incision. Postoperative transvalvular gradients were significantly lower for the Intuity valve compared with those of the Perceval valve, either in isolated and combined SURD-AVR. The Intuity valve was associated with a lower rate of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the safety and efficacy of SURD-AVR regardless of the valve type. The Perceval valve was associated with reduced operative times and increased anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve showed superior hemodynamic outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

Current trends of sutureless and rapid deployment valves: an 11-year experience from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Current evidence on sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) is limited and does not allow for the assessment of the clinical impact and the evolution of procedural and clinical outcomes of this new valve technology. The Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR) represents a unique opportunity to evaluate the current trends and outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions. METHODS: Data from 3682 patients enrolled between 2007 and 2018 were analysed. Patients were divided according to the date of surgery into 6 equal groups and by the type of intervention: isolated SURD-AVR (n = 2472) and combined SURD-AVR (n = 1086). RESULTS: Across the 11-year study period, significant changes occurred in patient characteristics including a decrease in age and in estimated surgical risk. Less invasive approaches for isolated SURD-AVR increased considerably from 49.4% to 85.5%. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 1.6% and 3.9% in isolated and combined procedures, respectively, with no change over time. The rate of perioperative stroke decreased significantly (from 4% to 0.5%), as did the rates of postoperative pacemaker implantation (from 12.8% to 5.9%) and aortic regurgitation (from 17.8% to 2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current trends and results of SURD-AVR interventions. The most notable changes over time were the increasing implantation of SURD valves in a younger population, with more frequent utilization of less invasive techniques. SURD-AVR demonstrated remarkable improvements in clinical outcomes with a significant reduction in the rates of stroke, pacemaker implantation and postoperative aortic regurgitation.

Minimally Invasive Redo Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From a Multicentric Registry (SURD-IR).

BACKGROUND: Reoperation for aortic valve replacement can be challenging and is usually associated with an increased risk for complications and mortality. The study aim was to report the results of a multicenter cohort of patients who underwent minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis. METHODS: From 2007 to 2018 data from 3651 patients were retrospectively collected from the Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry. Of them, 63 patients who had previously undergone cardiac surgery represented the study population. In-hospital clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Mean age of the selected 63 patients was 75.3 ± 7.8 years and logistic EuroSCORE 10.1. Surgery was performed by ministernotomy in 43 patients (68.3%) and by anterior right thoracotomy in 20 (31.7%); 31 patients (49.2%) received the Perceval valve (Livanova PLC, London, UK) and 32 (50.8%) the Intuity valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Mean cross-clamp time was 57.8 ± 23.2 minutes and cardiopulmonary bypass time 95.0 ± 34.3 minutes. Neither conversion to full sternotomy nor in-hospital deaths occurred. Postoperative events were ischemic cerebral events in 3 patients (4.8%), need for pacemaker implantation in 2 (3.6%), bleeding requiring reoperation in 5 (8.9%), and dialysis in 1 (1.6%). Median intensive care unit stay was 1 day, and median length of hospital stay was 10 days. On echocardiographic evaluation 1 patient showed a significant postoperative aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis is a safe and feasible treatment strategy, resulting in fast recovery and improved postoperative outcome with no mortality and an acceptable complication rate.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment valves: a report from an international registry (Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry)†.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical characteristics and in-hospital results of patients receiving SURD-AVR through less invasive approaches in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR). METHODS: Of the 1935 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2009 and 2018, a total of 1418 (73.3%) underwent MI interventions and were included in this analysis. SURD-AVR was performed using upper ministernotomy in 56.4% (n = 800) of cases and anterior right thoracotomy in 43.6% (n = 618). Perceval S was implanted in 1011 (71.3%) patients and Edwards Intuity or Intuity Elite in 407 (28.7%) patients. RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality and stroke rates were 1.7% and 2%, respectively. A definitive pacemaker implantation was reported in 9% of cases and significantly decreased over the observational period, from 20.6% to 5.6% (P = 0.002). The Perceval valve was associated with shorter operative times and was more frequently implanted in patients receiving anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve was preferred in younger patients and revealed superior postoperative haemodynamic results. CONCLUSIONS: SURD-AVR was largely performed through less invasive approaches and can be considered as a primary indication in MI surgery. In the SURD-IR cohort, MI SURD-AVR using both Perceval and Intuity valves appeared a safe and reproducible procedure associated with promising early results.

Operative outcome of patients at low, intermediate, high and 'very high' surgical risk undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment prostheses: results of the SURD-IR registry.

OBJECTIVES: The ideal strategy for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients of varying risk categories has become a debated topic in the last years: should the transcatheter or surgical approach be adopted? The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of low-, intermediate-, high- and very high-risk patients undergoing sutureless, rapid deployment aortic valve replacement. METHODS: From 2007 to 2017, data on a total of 3651 patients were collected from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR). Of these, 2057 patients who underwent primary isolated aortic valve replacement were considered for this analysis and classified as being at low (EuroSCORE <5; n = 500), intermediate (EuroSCORE 5-10; n = 901), high (EuroSCORE 11-20; n = 500) and very high (EuroSCORE >20; n = 156) preoperative risk. RESULTS: Overall, a less invasive approach was used in 74.1% of patients and represented the most frequent (>50%) approach in all risk categories. The Perceval prosthesis was used more frequently than other devices, especially in patients at high and very high risk. Hospital mortality was 1.6%, 0.8%, 1.9% and 2.7% in low-, intermediate-, high- and very high-risk patients, respectively, with no significant differences among subgroups. Similarly, postoperative complication rates were similar across the different risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless, rapid deployment biological valve prostheses is associated with excellent results and represents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. This seems to be particularly true in patients with a higher risk profile.

Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR): early results from 3343 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR) was established by a consortium of 18 research centres-the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG)-to overcome limitations of the literature and provide adequately powered evidence on sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valves replacement (SURD-AVR). METHODS: Data from 3343 patients undergoing SURD-AVR over a 10-year period (2007-2017) were collected in the registry. The mean age of the patients was 76.8 ± 6.7 years, with 36.4% being 80 years or older. The average logistic EuroSCORE was 11.3 ± 9.7%. RESULTS: Isolated SURD-AVR was performed in 70.7% (n = 2362) of patients using full sternotomy (35.3%) or less invasive approaches (64.8%). Overall hospital mortality was 2.1%, being 1.4% in patients who had isolated SURD-AVR and 3.5% in those who had concomitant procedures (P < 0.001). When considering baseline risk profile, mortality rate was 0.8% and 1.9% in low risk (logistic EuroSCORE <10%) isolated SURD-AVR and combined SURD-AVR, respectively, and 2.2% and 3.7% in higher risk patients (logistic EuroSCORE ≥10%). Postoperative neurological complications included stroke (2.8%) and transient ischaemic attack (1.1%). New atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker occurred in 10.4% of the patients. The rate of pacemaker implantation significantly decreased over time [from 17.2% (2007-2008) to 5.4% (2016); P = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that SURD-AVR is a safe and effective alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement and is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. Further adequately powered statistical analyses from the retrospective and prospective SURD-IR will allow for the development of high-quality evidence-based clinical guidelines for SURD-AVR.