780 Rapid Deployment or Sutureless Valves as An Alternative to Conventional Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement. (12th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Aljanadi, F; Moawad, N; Jones, M
• Is Part Of: British journal of surgery. Volume 108:Supplement 6(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-10-12
• Subjects: Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab259.248
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1323

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: Rapid deployment valves are being used widely. We wanted to compare outcomes for rapid-deployment valves and conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements in order to assess if their use is justifiable. Method: Outcomes of the last 120 patients who received a rapid-deployment AVR (RDAVR) between Sept 2014-Sept 2019 were compared to the last 120 patients who had conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (Conv AVR). Results: Age of RDAVR 77.5±4.93 was compared to Conv AVR 67.9±11.9 years (p > 0.05). Other baseline characteristics were similar. RDAVR group included more elderly (>80 years; 40 vs 11, p < 0.05) and females (83 vs 36, p < 0.05). RDAVR group had shorter cross clamp time (68 vs 89 min, p < 0.05) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (97 vs 110 min, p < 0.05) for isolated AVR. Mortality was equal in both groups (1.7%). Post-operative pressure gradients were similar (mean gradient 10.4±4.44 vs 11±5.31 mmHg and peak gradient 20.32±8.64 vs 22.95±9.72 mmHg). Additionally, patients were divided into size matched subgroups and post-operative pressure gradients were comparable. Hospital length of stay and early post-operative results were similar between the two groups. Early permanent pacemaker rate was similar in both groups (9 vs 5, p > 0.05). Survival rates in group 1 and 2 were 97.5% vs 99.2% at 1 year, 95.8% vs 96.7% at 2 years. and 95% vs 96.7% at 3 years, respectively. Conclusions: RDAVR had similar haemodynamic outcomes and survival. Where shorter cross clamp and pump times may be desirable RDAVR may be preferred in older high-risk patients.