scholarly journals Early pacemaker insertion after aortic valve replacement with Edwards Intuity sutureless valve versus standard bioprosthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 88
Author(s):  
A. Mechulan ◽  
R. Demoulin ◽  
F. Pons ◽  
L. Leong-Feng ◽  
A. Peret ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Sutureless Valve ◽  
Pacemaker Insertion ◽  
Valve Versus

scholarly journals J-ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad A. Torky ◽  
Amr A. Arafat ◽  
Hosam F. Fawzy ◽  
Abdelhady M. Taha ◽  
Ehab A. Wahby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Pacemaker Insertion ◽  
Cardiac Operations ◽  
Low Ejection Fraction

Abstract Background The advantage of minimally invasive sternotomy (MS) over full sternotomy (FS) for isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still controversial. We aimed to examine if J-shaped MS is a safe alternative to FS in patients undergoing primary isolated AVR. This study is a retrospective and restricted cohort study that included 137 patients who had primary isolated AVR from February 2013 to June 2015. Patients with previous cardiac operations, low ejection fraction (< 40%), infective endocarditis, EuroSCORE II predicted mortality > 10%, and patients who had inverted T or inverted C-MS or right anterior thoracotomy were excluded. Patients were grouped into the FS group (n=65) and MS group (n=72). Preoperative variables were comparable in both groups. The outcome was studied, balancing the groups by propensity score matching. Results Seven (9%) patients in the MS group were converted to FS. Cardiopulmonary bypass (98.5 ± 29.3 vs. 82.1 ± 13.95 min; p ≤ 0.001) and ischemic times (69.1 ± 23.8 vs. 59.6 ± 12.2 min; p = 0.001) were longer in MS. The MS group had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (10.1 ± 11.58 vs. 10.9 ± 6.43 h; p = 0.045), ICU stay (42.74 ± 40.5 vs. 44.9 ± 39.3; p = 0.01), less chest tube drainage (385.3 ± 248.6 vs. 635.9 ± 409.6 ml; p = 0.001), and lower narcotics use (25.14 ± 17.84 vs. 48.23 ± 125.68 mg; p < 0.001). No difference was found in postoperative heart block with permanent pacemaker insertion or atrial fibrillation between groups (p = 0.16 and 0.226, respectively). Stroke, renal failure, and mortality did not differ between the groups. Reintervention-free survival at 1, 3, and 4 years was not significantly different in both groups (p = 0.73). Conclusion J-ministernotomy could be a safe alternative to FS in isolated primary AVR. Besides the cosmetic advantage, it could have better clinical outcomes without added risk.

Minimally invasive redo aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve implant

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Prosthesis ◽  
Mechanical Prosthesis ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Replacement Procedure ◽  
Aortic Valve Prosthesis ◽  
Sutureless Valve

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.

scholarly journals Outcomes of a Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve versus its Conventional Counterpart

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten C. W. Wahlers ◽  
Martin Andreas ◽  
Parwis Rahmanian ◽  
Pascal Candolfi ◽  
Barbora Zemanova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Aortic Cross Clamp Time ◽  
Patient Prosthesis Mismatch ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Rapid Deployment ◽  
Valve Versus ◽  
Conventional Counterpart

Objective The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) from two studies. Methods Patients who underwent RDAVR (INTUITY valve) in the prospective, 5-year, single-arm multicenter TRITON study, or conventional AVR (Perimount Magna Ease valve) in the prospective Perimount Magna Ease postmarket study, were propensity score matched and compared for procedural, hemodynamic, safety, and clinical outcomes. Results Matched RDAVR (n = 106) and conventional AVR (n = 106) patients had similar baseline characteristics (mean ± SD age, 72.8 ± 7.6 vs 72.5 ± 7.4 years; male 59.4% vs 61.3%) and procedures (concomitant procedures: 41.5% vs 50.9%). Mean ± SD aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in RDAVR than AVR patients (51.8 ± 20.9 vs 73.9 ± 33.2 minutes; P < 0.001), as was mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.8 ± 34.2 vs 102.4 ± 41.7 minutes; P < 0.001). At 1 year, RDAVR patients showed significantly lower mean ± SD and peak aortic valve gradients (9.0 ± 3.4 and 17.0 ± 6.2 mm Hg, respectively) than conventional AVR patients (13.4 ± 5.5 and 24.2 ± 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P < 0.001). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was significantly less common with RDAVR than with AVR [overall: 16/66 (24.2%) vs 46/76 (60.5%); P = 0.007; severe: 2/66 (3.0%) vs 13/76 (17.1%)]. There were no significant differences between the RDAVR and AVR groups regarding 30-day safety endpoints. Survival rates in the RDAVR and conventional AVR groups were, respectively, 99.1% and 100.0% at 30 days, 97.1% and 95.1% at 1 year, and 93.3% and 94.1% at 3 years ( P = nonsignificant). Conclusions In this retrospective study with matched populations, the RDAVR with the INTUITY valve system provided superior procedural and hemodynamic outcomes than a standard bioprosthesis without compromising safety.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement via Partial Sternotomy

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven Martens ◽  
Andreas Zierer ◽  
Anja Ploss ◽  
Sami Sirat ◽  
Aleksandra Miskovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiopulmonary Bypass ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Partial Sternotomy ◽  
Sutureless Valve ◽  
Valve Implantation

Objective For elderly patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, aortic valve replacement with tissue valves is still the treatment of choice. Stentless valves were introduced to clinical practice for better hemodynamic features as compared with stented tissue valves. However, the implantation is more complex and time demanding, especially in minimal invasive aortic valve replacement. We present our clinical data on 22 patients having received a sutureless ATS 3f Enable aortic bioprosthesis via partial upper sternotomy. Methods The procedure was performed using CPB with cardioplegic arrest. After resection of the stenotic aortic valve and debridement of the annulus, the valve was inserted and released. Mean age was 79 years, and mean logistic Euroscore was 13. Subvalvular myectomy was performed in two patients. Prosthetic valve sizes were 19 mm (n = 1), 21 mm (n = 7), 23 mm (n = 6), 25 mm (n = 6), and 27 mm (n = 2). Results Implantation of the valve required 10 ± 6 minutes. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp time were 87 ± 16 and 55 ± 11 minutes, respectively. Early mortality (<90 days) was 9% (2 patients). No paravalvular leakage was detected intraoperatively or in follow-up echocardiography. The mean transvalvular gradients were 9 ± 6 mm Hg at discharge and 8 ± 2 mm Hg at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions Sutureless valve implantation via partial sternotomy is feasible and safe with the ATS 3f Enable bioprosthesis. Reduction of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp time seems possible with increasing experience. Hemodynamic data are very promising with low gradients at discharge and after 12 month. Sutureless valve implantation via minimal invasive access may be an alternative treatment option for elderly patients with high comorbidity.

scholarly journals Aortic Root Enlargement or Sutureless Valve Implantation?

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 742-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos G. Baikoussis ◽  
Panagiotis Dedeilias ◽  
Michalis Argiriou
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Root ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Old Patients ◽  
Sutureless Valve ◽  
Aortic Root Enlargement ◽  
Valve Implantation

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with a small aortic annulus is a challenging issue. The importance of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) post aortic valve replacement (AVR) is controversial but has to be avoided. Many studies support the fact that PPM has a negative impact on short and long term survival. In order to avoid PPM, aortic root enlargement may be performed. Alternatively and keeping in mind that often some comorbidities are present in old patients with small aortic root, the Perceval S suturelles valve implantation could be a perfect solution. The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis provides reasonable hemodynamic performance avoiding the PPM and providing the maximum of aortic orifice area. We would like to see in the near future the role of the aortic root enlargement techniques in the era of surgical implantation of the sutureless valve (SAVR) and the transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI).

Rescue Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty After Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Paravalvular Leak

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 476-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eiki Nagaoka ◽  
Keita Sato ◽  
Ali Hage ◽  
Rodrigo Bagur ◽  
Christopher Harle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Balloon Valvuloplasty ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Aortic Cross Clamp ◽  
Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty ◽  
Sutureless Valve ◽  
The Right

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a wide-spreading new technology that provides short clamping time and excellent hemodynamic outcomes. However, among its possible complications is the risk of paravalvular leak. We present the case of a 63-year-old woman who underwent minimally invasive right mini-thoracotomy AVR) with Perceval S sutureless valve (LivaNova, London, UK). Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography revealed severe paravalvular leak with stent distortion. Rescue balloon valvuloplasty was performed through the right femoral artery, and resulted in the resolution of the paravalvular leak. This case illustrates the utility and feasibility of balloon valvuloplasty in trouble-shooting sutureless aortic valve stent distortion, thus avoiding a repeat aortic cross-clamp and valve replacement.

Early Clinical Experiences of Robotic Assisted Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis with Sutureless Aortic Valve

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eiki Nagaoka ◽  
Jill Gelinas ◽  
Marco Vola ◽  
Bob Kiaii
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Experiences ◽  
Robotic Arms ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Sutureless Valve ◽  
Valve Position ◽  
The Right ◽  
Da Vinci Si

Robotic assisted aortic valve surgery is still challenging and debatable. We retrospectively reviewed our cases of robotic assisted aortic valve replacement utilizing sutureless aortic valve with following surgical technique: 3 ports, 1 for endoscope and 2 for the robotic arms were inserted in the right chest and da Vinci Si robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was adapted to these ports. Cardiopulmonary bypass was initiated through peripheral cannulations. A vent cannula was placed through the right superior pulmonary vein and a cardioplegia cannula in the ascending aorta. After cardioplegic arrest following aortic cross-clamp, the aortic valve was exposed through a clam shell aortotomy. Valvectomy along with decalcification was performed. Next using 3 guiding sutures the Perceval S valve (LivaNova, London, UK) was parachuted down and deployed. After confirming valve position, the aortotomy was closed. There were no major complications during the procedures and no conversion to sternotomy. Exposure of aortic valve was of high quality. Valvectomy required assistance with long scissors by the bedside surgeon for excision of the severely calcified valve cusps and effective decalcification of annulus. Postoperative convalescence was uncomplicated except for postoperative atrial fibrillation in 1 patient. Robotic assistance in aortic valve procedure enabled excellent exposure of the aortic valve and improved manipulation and suturing of the aortic annulus and aorta. There needs to be improvement of instrumentation for valve debridement and removal of calcium from the annulus. In addition, the sutureless valve technology contributes to the feasibility and the efficacy of this procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document