scholarly journals Do rapid deployment aortic valves improve outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement?: Table 1:

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 814-820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reece A. Davies ◽  
Thilina D. Bandara ◽  
Nisal K. Perera ◽  
Yishay Orr
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
Rapid Deployment

scholarly journals Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement: a contemporary assessment of real-world outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (29) ◽  
pp. 2747-2755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer A Hirji ◽  
Edward D Percy ◽  
Cheryl K Zogg ◽  
Alexandra Malarczyk ◽  
Morgan T Harloff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Valve In Valve

Abstract Aims We sought to perform a head-to-head comparison of contemporary 30-day outcomes and readmissions between valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR) patients and a matched cohort of high-risk reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (re-SAVR) patients using a large, multicentre, national database. Methods and results We utilized the nationally weighted 2012–16 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves who underwent either VIV-TAVR (n = 3443) or isolated re-SAVR (n = 3372). Thirty-day outcomes were compared using multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (1:1). Unadjusted, VIV-TAVR patients had significantly lower 30-day mortality (2.7% vs. 5.0%), 30-day morbidity (66.4% vs. 79%), and rates of major bleeding (35.8% vs. 50%). On multivariable analysis, re-SAVR was a significant risk factor for both 30-day mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of VIV-SAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.81] and 30-day morbidity [aOR for VIV-TAVR (vs. re-SAVR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43–0.68]. After matching (n = 2181 matched pairs), VIV-TAVR was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74), 30-day morbidity (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.72), and major bleeding (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.85). Valve-in-valve TAVR was also associated with shorter length of stay (median savings of 2 days, 95% CI 1.3–2.7) and higher odds of routine home discharges (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61–2.78) compared to re-SAVR. Conclusion In this large, nationwide study of matched high-risk patients with degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, VIV-TAVR appears to confer an advantage over re-SAVR in terms of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and bleeding complications. Further studies are warranted to benchmark in low- and intermediate-risk patients and to adequately assess longer-term efficacy.

scholarly journals Sutureless and rapid deployment bioprosthetic valves: new perspectives.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Piperata ◽  
Tomaso Bottio ◽  
Martina Avesani ◽  
Gino Gerosa
Keyword(s):  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Bioprosthetic Valve ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Prostheses ◽  
Rapid Deployment ◽  
Bioprosthetic Valves

We carefully read the recent paper by Hammond et al. (1) on the use of sutureless bioprosthetic valve for homograft failure in the setting of infective endocarditis (IE). This article is the latest demonstration that new sutureless and rapid deployment (RD) valve prostheses are safe and easy-to-use devices for surgical aortic valve replacement, and indicates their suitability for different scenarios and peculiar surgical situations as infective endocarditis (IE).

scholarly journals Clinical impact of pathology-proven etiology of severely stenotic aortic valves on mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e0229721
Author(s):  
Shiro Miura ◽  
Katsumi Inoue ◽  
Hiraku Kumamaru ◽  
Takehiro Yamashita ◽  
Michiya Hanyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valves

scholarly journals Aortic Annulus Stabilization Technique for Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 360-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Ferrari ◽  
Giuseppe Siniscalchi ◽  
Piergiorgio Tozzi ◽  
Ludwig von Segesser
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Aortic Annulus ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
A New Technique ◽  
Stabilization Technique ◽  
Rapid Deployment

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) with the use of rapid deployment valve systems represents a smart alternative to the use of standard aortic bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement. Nevertheless, its use is still debatable in patients with pure aortic valve regurgitation or true bicuspid aortic valve because of the risk of postoperative paravalvular leak. To address this issue, an optimal annulus-valve size match seems to be the ideal surgical strategy. This article describes a new technique developed to stabilize the aortic annulus and prevent paravalvular leak after RDAVR. To confirm the feasibility, this technique was performed in six patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who were scheduled to undergo aortic valve replacement at our center. All patients survived surgery and were discharged from the hospital. There were no new intracardiac conduction system disturbances observed, and a permanent pacemaker implantation was not required in any of the patients. The intraoperative and postoperative echocardiogram confirmed successful positioning of the valve, and no paravalvular leak was observed. In this preliminary experience, RDAVR through a full sternotomy or an upper hemisternotomy approach with the use of aortic annulus stabilization technique was safe, and no leak was observed. Future studies on large series of patients are necessary to confirm the safety and effectiveness of this technique in preventing paravalvular leak in patients with true bicuspid aortic valves or pure aortic regurgitation.

scholarly journals The Aortic Annulus Stabilization Technique Prevents Paravalvular Leaks after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Implantation

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 5776
Author(s):  
Elena Caporali ◽  
Roberto Lorusso ◽  
Tiziano Torre ◽  
Francesca Toto ◽  
Alberto Pozzoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valve Implantation ◽  
Stabilization Technique ◽  
Valve Implantation ◽  
Rapid Deployment

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment bioprosthesis guarantees good hemodynamic results but carries the risk of paravalvular leaks. To address this issue, an annulus stabilization technique has been recently developed. Methods: Clinical and hemodynamic parameters from patients treated for aortic valve replacement with the rapid deployment bioprosthesis and a concomitant annulus stabilization technique were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Echocardiographic data at discharge and at 1-year follow-up were collected and analysed. Results: A total of 57 patients (mean age 74.3 ± 6.1 years) with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement with the rapid deployment bioprosthesis and concomitant annulus stabilization technique (mean valve size: 23.8 ± 1.9 mm). Combined procedures accounted for 56.1%. Hospital mortality was 1.8% and a new pacemaker for conduction abnormalities was implanted in 10 patients. The pre-discharge echocardiographic control showed absence of paravalvular leaks of any degree in all patients with mean valve gradient of 9.6 ± 4.0 mmHg. The 1-year echocardiographic control confirmed the good valve hemodynamic (mean gradient of 8.0 ± 2.8 mmHg) and absence of leaks. Conclusion: In this preliminary clinical experience, the annulus stabilization technique prevents postoperative paravalvular leaks after rapid deployment aortic valve implantation, up to 1-year postoperatively. Studies on larger series are of paramount importance to confirm the long-term efficacy of this new surgical technique.

Abstract 14140: The Weight of the Evidence: Comparison of Operatively Excised Aortic Valve Weights in Patients With High Gradient versus Low Gradient Aortic Stenosis and Overall Survival Following Aortic Valve Replacement

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara M Negrotto ◽  
Jeremy J Thaden ◽  
Rakesh M Suri ◽  
Joseph J Maleszewski ◽  
Sorin V Pislaru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Peripheral Resistance ◽  
Stroke Volume Index ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
High Gradient

Introduction: Excised aortic valve weight (AVW) correlates with severity of AS. There is some debate about the true severity of AS in low gradient AS (LGAS) compared to high gradient AS (HGAS). We sought to compare patient characteristics and operatively excised AVW in patients with LGAS vs HGAS vs moderate AS. Methods: 916 patients with EF ≥50% undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for AS between 2010-2012 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of LGAS patients (AVA≤1cm 2 , MnG<40mmHg; N=68) were compared to HGAS patients (AVA≤1cm 2 , MnG≥40mmHg; N=745) and operatively excised AVW were compared to moderate AS (AVA>1cm 2 , MnG<40mmHg; N=102). Results: Compared to HGAS, LGAS patients were older (mean age 77 ± 10 vs 73 ± 10 years; p=0.001), often female (56% vs 38%; p=0.006), but without differences in diabetes (26% vs 29%; p=0.78), hyperlipidemia (85% vs 86%, p=0.86), coronary artery disease (49% vs 44%; p=0.53), or hypertension (81% vs 76%; p=0.38). LGAS patients predominantly had trileaflet aortic valves (91% vs 71%; p<0.001), smaller LVOT diameter (2.16 ± 0.15 vs 2.25 ± 0.20 cm; p=0.002), lower stroke volume index (42.1 ± 7.3 vs 49.0 ± 8.8 cc/m 2 ; p<0.001), lower systemic compliance (0.77 ± 0.30 vs 0.93 ± 0.33 ; p<0.001), but no difference in valvulo-arterial impedance (3.96 ± 0.76 vs. 3.84 ± 0.80, p=0.24) compared to HGAS. Excised AVW were lower in patients with LGAS vs HGAS (1.77 ± 0.76 vs 2.69 ± 1.26 g, p<0.001), but not different from moderate AS (1.77 ± 0.76 vs 2.04 ± 0.94 g; p=0.1). This relationship held true when AVW was indexed to body surface area. Three-year mortality post-valve replacement was significantly higher in LGAS compared to HGAS (22% vs 11%, p=0.02). Conclusions: LGAS occurs mostly in older female patients with trileaflet aortic valves. Excised AVW in LGAS is similar to moderate AS but lower than HGAS. However, systemic compliance is higher in LGAS vs HGAS contributing to increased afterload. Poorer outcomes after surgery in LGAS patients may be attributed to noncompliant vasculature which is not corrected with valve replacement and evaluation of patients with LGAS should include assessment of peripheral resistance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document