Sutureless bioprosthesis as an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement surgery. (14th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rua, N; Ferreira, R; Sena, A; Nobre, A
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 42(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-10-14
• Subjects: Prosthetic Heart Valves; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.1688
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The ageing population and the rising in comorbidities have urged the development of safer alternatives to the current gold standard surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis have shown promising results, especially in technically difficult procedures and as more and more patients need concomitant surgeries. Purpose: Assess clinical and haemodynamic performance, safety and durability of the sutureless bioprosthesis implanted in patients with aortic valve disease, over a period of 5 years, both in isolated aortic valve replacement surgeries as well as in concomitant procedures. Methods: Single centre retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data of all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients analysed (mean age 77.20±5.08 years; 45.40% were female; mean logistic EuroSCORE 2.91±2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis. To assess the comparative risk of adding concomitant procedures, patients were divided into two groups and compared: one comprised patients who underwent isolated valve implantation (n=132) and the other patients who had concomitant coronary artery bypass graftings (n=49). 15 patients had other heterogeneous concomitant procedures and were therefore not considered in this comparison. Results: Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 45.50±19.04 and 36.50±11.40 minutes, respectively. 4 valves were reimplanted due to misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82±3.62 mmHg. Mean ICU and total hospital stay were 3.32±3.20 and 7.70±5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 99%, as two explantations occurred. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, atrial fibrillation de novo in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary in 3.1%. Early mortality was 0.51%. We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes or endocarditis and one successfully treated valve thrombosis. By comparison, patients with concomitant procedures had worse left ventricular function (40.8 vs 79.5%; p=0.030), longer aortic clamping (43.33±11.60 vs 27.30±8.10 minutes; p<0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (59.98±17.60 vs 37.45±11.30 minutes; p<0.001), as expected. ICU stay after surgery was also longer (3.96±3.20 vs 2.80±2.70 days; p=0.016). Apart from this, there were no other significant differences in postoperative complications and survival, even up to 5 years. Conclusion: Our study confirms the excellent clinical and haemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, even up to the 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent both in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable treatment of isolated aortic valve disease, and now also in patients needing concomitant procedures. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.