Clinical outcomes after implantation of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis with concomitant mitral valve surgery: the SURE-AVR registry

Background Early treatment of aortic valve stenosis is recommended in eligible symptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis who would otherwise have a poor prognosis. The sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis offers an alternative to standard aortic valve replacement with a sutured valve, but limited data are available in patients who have undergone multiple valve procedures involving the new, sutureless technology. We sought to investigate outcomes in high operative risk patients with previous or concomitant valve surgery who were implanted with a sutureless valve. Methods SURE-AVR is an ongoing, prospective, multinational registry of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. In-hospital and post-discharge outcomes up to 5 years were collected. Results The study population comprised 78 patients (mean ± SD: age 73.6 ± 7.6 years, logistic EuroSCORE 18.0 ± 17.5) enrolled at 13 sites who presented for concomitant or previous mitral valve repair (n = 45) or replacement (n = 33), with or without additional concomitant procedures, and were implanted with a sutureless valve. Mean ± SD overall aortic cross-clamp time was 109 ± 41 min and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 152 ± 49 min. Mean ± SD aortic pressure gradients decreased from 37.6 ± 17.7 mmHg preoperatively to 13.0 ± 5.7 mmHg at hospital discharge, and peak aortic pressure gradient from 61.5 ± 28.7 to 23.4 ± 10.6 mmHg. Early events included 1 death, 1 transient ischaemic attack, and 1 bleed (all 1.3%); a permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 6 patients (7.7%), and 2 reoperations (not valve related) (2.6%) took place. Over a median follow-up of 55.5 months (Q1 13.4, Q3 68.6), 12 patients died (6 cardiovascular and 6 non-cardiovascular, both 2.1% per patient-year). Five-year survival was 81.3%. Late paravalvular leak occurred in 2 patients (0.7% per patient-year) and permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 3 patients (0.1% per patient-year). There was no apparent rise in mean or peak aortic pressure gradient over the study. Conclusions These results suggest that the sutureless implant is a technically feasible procedure during mitral surgery and is associated with good clinical outcomes.

An alternative approach for complicated prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis

Background Surgical treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) with destruction of the aortic root and aortomitral continuity is demanding even in experienced hands. Case presentation Herein, we describe a case of a 71-year-old female patient who presented with PVE that was further complicated by a fistulous abscess cavity. The patient underwent removal of the dehisced prosthetic valve, radical annular debridement, reconstruction of the aortomitral curtain with a pericardial patch as a patch exclusion technique and implantation of a sutureless valve. Conclusion Patch exclusion technique, followed by sutureless valve implantation, might represent a feasible and safe alternative for the surgical treatment of complicated PVE.

Sutureless Valve in Repeated Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from an International Prospective Registry

Objective To report early and midterm results registry of patients undergoing repeated aortic valve replacement (RAVR) with sutureless prostheses from an international prospective registry (SURE-AVR). Methods Between March 2011 and June 2019, 69 patients underwent RAVR with self-expandable sutureless aortic bioprostheses at 22 international cardiac centers. Results Overall mortality was 2.9% with a predicted logistic EuroSCORE II of 10.7%. Indications for RAVR were structural valve dysfunction (84.1%) and infective prosthetic endocarditis (15.9%) and were performed in patients with previously implanted bioprostheses (79.7%), mechanical valves (15.9%), and transcatheter valves (4.3%). Minimally invasive approach was performed in 15.9% of patients. Rate of stroke was 1.4% and rate of early valve-related reintervention was 1.4%. Overall survival rate at 1 and 5 years was 97% and 91%, respectively. No major paravalvular leak occurred. Rate of pacemaker implantation was 5.8% and 0.9% per patient-year early and at follow-up, respectively. The mean transvalvular gradient at 1-year and 5-year follow-up was 10.5 mm Hg and 11.5 mm Hg with a median effective orifice area of 1.8 cm2and 1.8 cm2, respectively. Conclusions RAVR with sutureless valves is a safe and effective approach and provides excellent clinical and hemodynamic results up to 5 years.

Minimally invasive redo aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve implant

Reoperations for a dysfunctional mechanical aortic valve prosthesis are usually performed with a repeat sternotomy. Reopening the chest may be associated with a heart structure tear, bleeding, excessive transfusion, and a possible unfavorable outcome. Experience performing a redo aortic valve replacement with a minimally invasive approach and avoiding lysis of the pericardial adhesions is growing. We describe a redo aortic valve replacement procedure performed because of subvalvular pannus formation in a patient with a mechanical prosthesis. A partial J-shaped hemisternotomy at the 3rd intercostal space was performed; the ascending aorta was exposed and the valve was replaced with a sutureless bioprosthesis. The video tutorial shows the surgical approach, cardiopulmonary bypass solutions, and sutureless valve deployment.