Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

Valvular prostheses

Prosthetic heart valves may be mechanical or bioprosthetic. Mechanical valves, which are composed primarily of metal or carbon alloys, are classified according to their design as ball-caged, single-tilting-disc, or bileaflet-tilting-disc valves. In ball-cage valves, the occluder is a sphere which is contained by a metal ‘cage’ when the valve is in its open position, and fills the orifice when the valve is in its closed position. In single-tilting-valves, the occluder is a single circular disc which is constrained in its motion by a cage, a central strut, or a slanted slot in the valve ring, therefore it opens at an angle less than 90° to the sewing ring plane. In bileaflet-tilting-disc valves there two occluders, two semicircular discs that open forming three orifices, a central one and two lateral ones. Biological tissue valves prostheses may be heterografts, which are composed of porcine, bovine, or equine tissue (valvular or pericardial), or homografts, which are preserved human aortic valves. Heterografts include stented and stentless bioprostheses. In stented valves, the biological tissue of the valve is mounted on a rigid stent (plastic or metallic) covered with fabric. Conversely stentless bioprostheses use the patient’s native aortic root as the valve stent. The absence of a stent and sewing ring cuff make it possible to implant a larger valve for a given native annulus size, resulting in a larger effective orifice area (EOA).

USE OF SUTURELESS AND RAPID DEPLOYMENT PROSTHESES IN CHALLENGING REOPERATIONS Review of the current evidence

Background and aim of the study: Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternative to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement.These devices have been employed also in extremely demanding surgical settings as underlined in the present review. Methods: A search on PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid- deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as a bail out procedures. Results: We have identified 25 patients in whom a sutureless or a rapid-deployment prosthesis were used in complex redo procedures. In 17 patients a failing stentless bioprosthesis was replaced with a sutureless (n=14) or a rapid deployment valve (n=3). Bioprostheses implanted at first operation were mainly Freestyle (n=11) or Prima Plus (n=3) aortic roots, while Perceval (n=13) and Intuity (n=3) were those most frequently employed at reoperation. A failing homograft was replaced in 6 patients using a Perceval (n=5) or an Intuity (n=1) bioprosthesis while a Perceval was used to replace the aortic valve in 2 patients to treat failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and are reported alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Conclusions: Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these setting, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

Successful Reoperation in 3 Cases of Failed Sorin Freedom Stentless Aortic Valve Using the LivaNova Perceval Sutureless Prosthesis

Reoperations for deteriorated stentless bioprostheses are quite challenging procedures. Calcification of the aortic annulus and of the subcoronary root makes often impossible the removal of the failed valve, living a complex Bentall operation or a high-risk transcatheter aortic valve implantation valve-in-valve procedure as the only options, particularly in cases of small-size prostheses. The Perceval sutureless prosthesis (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) can be a valid alternative for failed stentless valve replacement. We report our experience with 3 complex cases of degenerated Sorin Pericarbon Freedom prosthesis treated successfully by means of Perceval sutureless implantation and demonstrating the reproducibility and the safety of this surgical approach.

Is the Freedom SOLO Stentless Bioprosthesis a Useful Tool for Patients with Aortic Endocarditis and Aortic Annular Destruction?

Background The Freedom SOLO (FS) stentless bovine-pericardial prosthesis with a supra-annular implantation technique can be a viable option for patients with endocarditic annular destruction. We assessed early- and long-term outcomes following the use of this prosthesis in extensive aortic valve endocarditis. Methods From 2006 to 2016, 59 patients with extensive aortic endocarditis underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with FS (cumulative follow-up 263 patients-years) in three European centers; all patients presented annular tissue infection, while 54.3% of patients had annular abscess. Results Mean age was 66 ± 11 years and mean EuroSCORE I was 30.3% (standard deviation: 24.1%). In our series, 30.5% of patients had prosthetic valve endocarditis. Early mortality was 15.2% (nine patients). Estimated overall survival at 5 and 10 years was 68.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.8–75.0%) and 59.1% (95% CI: 66.8–81.2%), respectively. At 10-year survival, freedom from valve-related death was 83.7% (95% CI: 80.9–86.5%). No structural valve deterioration was reported in this series. Five patients (8.5%) had recurrent endocarditis during follow-up and two of them underwent reoperation. Survival freedom from reoperation and endocarditis at 10-year follow-up was 88.0% (CI: 80.4–95.6%) and 86.7% (CI: 80.5–92.9%), respectively. Conclusion FS stentless bioprosthesis is a valuable and simple option to achieve AVR in patients with extensive aortic annulus endocarditis. Although in this group of complex patients, early mortality remains considerably high, late survival outcomes are comparable to the more technically demanding homografts and conventional stentless bioprostheses, with low rates of endocarditis recurrence.

Aortic valve replacement with stentless bioprosthesis «Kemerovo-AB-Neo»

We analyzed 50 aortic valve replacements (AVR) with Kemerovo-AB-Neo stentless bioprostheses. Mean age was 66.75 (54 to78) years, hospital mortality rate accounted for 2%. The peak transprosthetic pressure gradient (PTPG) in patients operated for aortic stenosis came to 19.57 mm Hg. PTPG was shown to be dependent on the implantation technique; it reached 24.57 mm Hg when in order to fix the proximal line, interrupted sutures were used and ran to 175 mm Hg in the case of running sutures (р = 0.03). Helical CT confirmed fine mobility of the cardiac structures after Kemerovo-AB-Neo implantation: the aortic cross-section area varied up to 84% during the cardiac cycle. It should be noted that AVR with Kemerovo-AB-Neo stentless valves gives good clinical and hemodynamic results early after surgery. A free-hand technique of implantation should be preferred. The implantation of stentless bioprostheses retains cardiac structures mobility and natural aortic root dimensions after performing an AVR.

Deformational dynamics of the aortic root in elderly patients after aortic valve replacement with biological prostheses

<p><strong>Aim.</strong> The study was designed to comparatively assess dynamic changes of the aortic root structures depending on a phase of the cardiac cycle in patients with degenerative aortic stenosis, who underwent aortic valve replacement with different types of biological prostheses.<br /><strong>Methods.</strong> This prospective parallel controlled randomized trial study was performed at Meshalkin National Medical Research Center over a period from 2011 to 2015. The inclusion criteria were severe aortic stenosis and patients’ age older than 65 years. 114 patients were randomized 1:1 in two groups: group I included 57 patients with stentless biological prostheses, while group II (control one) consisted of 57 patients with stented xenopericardial prostheses. The average age was 71 [66; 74] and 72 [69; 77] for the first and second groups, respectively (p = 0.054). All patients underwent aortic valve replacement. The operation was performed under standard normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. The diameter of the implanted prostheses was 25 mm [24; 26] and 23 mm [21; 23] for the first and second groups, respectively (p = 0.375). An ECG-synchronized CT study of the aortic root was carried out in the postoperative period.<br /><strong>Results.</strong> An intergroup systolic/diastolic difference in the values of the cross-sectional area of the aortic root at all levels was observed in patients with stentless bioprostheses, while the control group patients (with stented bioprostheses) had no such difference at the levels of the left ventricle output tract and the fibrous ring of the aortic valve.<br /><strong>Conclusion.</strong> A stentless design of bioprostheses retains the deformational and elastic properties of the aortic root in elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis after surgical treatment.</p><p>Received 5 December 2017. Revised 12 December 2017. Accepted 15 December 2017.</p><p><strong>Funding:</strong> The study did not have sponsorship.</p><p><strong>Conflict of interest:</strong> The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p><p><strong>Author contributions</strong><br />Conception and study design: D.P. Demidov, D.A. Astapov, A.V. Bogachev-Prokophiev<br />Data collection and analysis: D.P. Demidov<br />Drafting the article: D.P. Demidov<br />Critical revision of the article: D.A. Astapov, A.V. Bogachev-Prokophiev<br />Final approval of the version to be published: D.A. Astapov, A.V. Bogachev-Prokophiev, S.I. Zheleznev, A.M. Karaskov</p>