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.

Minimally Invasive Implantation of the EDWARDS INTUITY Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve via a Right Minithoracotomy

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aristidis Lenos ◽  
Anno Diegeler
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Hemodynamic Performance ◽  
Invasive Techniques ◽  
Rapid Deployment

During the past decade, many surgeons have focused their interest on the development and improvement of minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement. Although the minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of mitral valve disease have been standardized, the preferred route for aortic valve replacement remains a matter of debate. Access through a right minithoracotomy avoids opening the sternum; however, it requires a greater surgical ability and a learning period, even for experienced surgeons. This enhances the role of sutureless prostheses because these devices are associated with easier placement, excellent hemodynamic performance, and acceptable rates of pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak. Herein, we report a series of 10 consecutive patients who received an EDWARDS INTUITY rapid deployment valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA USA) by a right minithoracotomy.

Comparison of Self-Expanding RDV Perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Mauri ◽  
Stephen Gerfer ◽  
Elmar Kuhn ◽  
Matti Adam ◽  
Kaveh Eghbalzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Implantation Rate ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Cerebrovascular Events ◽  
Transcatheter Heart Valve ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Rapid Deployment

Abstract Background Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have emerged as increasingly used alternatives to conventional aortic valve replacement to treat patients at higher surgical risk. Therefore, in this single-center study, we retrospectively compared clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of two self-expanding biological prostheses, the sutureless and rapid deployment valve (RDV) Perceval-S (PER) and the transcatheter heart valve (THV) ACURATE neo/TF (NEO) in a 1:1 propensity-score-matching (PSM) patient cohort. Methods A total of 332 consecutive patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent either singular RDAVR with PER (119) or TAVI with NEO (213) at our institutions between 2012 and 2017. To compare the unequal patient groups, a 1:1 PSM for preoperative data and comorbidities was conducted. Afterward, 59 patient pairs were compared with regard to relevant hemodynamic parameter, relevant paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent postoperative pacemaker (PPM) implantation rate, and clinical postoperative outcomes. Results Postoperative clinical short-term outcomes presented with slightly higher rates for 30-day all-cause mortality (PER = 5.1% vs. NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.619) and major adverse cardiocerebral event in PER due to cerebrovascular events (transient ischemic attack [TIA]-PER = 3.4% vs. TIA-NEO = 1.7%, p = 0.496 and Stroke-PER = 1.7% vs. Stroke-NEO = 0.0%, p = 1). Moreover, we show comparable PPM rates (PER = 10.2% vs. NEO = 8.5%, p = 0.752). However, higher numbers of PVL (mild—PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 55.9%, p = 0.001; moderate or higher—PER = 0.0% vs. NEO = 6.8%, p = 0.119) after TAVI with NEO were observed. Conclusion Both self-expanding bioprostheses, the RDV-PER and THV-NEO provide a feasible option in elderly and patients with elevated perioperative risk. However, the discussed PER collective showed more postoperative short-term complications with regard to 30-day all-cause mortality and cerebrovascular events, whereas the NEO showed higher rates of PVL.

scholarly journals Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
pp. 685-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Romano ◽  
Michael Koeckert ◽  
Mubashir A. Mumtaz ◽  
Frank N. Slachman ◽  
Himanshu J. Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Rapid Deployment

scholarly journals Predicting the Ideal Valve Size During Aortic Valve Replacement with Rapid Deployement Bioprosthetic Valves. Is Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiogram Reliable?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Al-Alameri ◽  
Alejandro Macias ◽  
Daniel Buitrago ◽  
Alvaro Montoya ◽  
Evan Markell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Transesophageal Echocardiography ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Annulus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Valve Size ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Rapid Deployment ◽  
Bioprosthetic Valves

Objective: To describe experience with using intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography to reliably predict the size of the rapid deployment prosthetic valve by measuring the native aortic annulus Methods: Retrospective review of single institution series of patients undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with Rapid Deployement Bioprosthetic Valves. Included were patients that had their native aortic valve replaced either isolated or as part of any additional procedure. Aortic annulus was measured prior to initiation of the operation using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Correlation analysis was conducted between Echocardiographic annular measurements and actual implanted valve sizes. Results: Twenty five patients underwent rapid deployment valve implantation in the aortic position. Of these, 36% of patients had the same size valve as the measured aortic annulus, 48% of patients had a valve implanted that was 1 mm different, and 16% of patients had 2 mm difference. The mean annular size based was 22.4 mm (range: 21-28 mm). The mean valve size implanted was 23.3 mm (range: 21-27 mm). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean annular measurement and the valve size selected (0.9 mm , p = 0.8). Conclusion: TEE can further enhance valve sizing and guidance through a proper and safe deployment. Although evident in our experience, larger scale studies are needed to further elucidate conclusions on the importance of avoiding under-sizing valves.

P3853Mortality of surgical redo aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in patients with degenerated aortic bioprosthesis: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Sanchez Recalde ◽  
A Pardo ◽  
L Salido Tahoces ◽  
J L Mestre ◽  
R Hernandez Antolin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Permanent Pacemaker ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Valve In Valve ◽  
Long Term Mortality

Abstract Background Transcatheter valve-in-valve (tVIV) implantation for degenerated aortic bioprosthesis has become an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) in the past few years. However, some concerns have been raised regarding to the long-term safety and efficacy of tVIV. The objective was to compare the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of tVIV implantation with redo cAVR. Methods After an extensive search of PubMed we included 7 observational studies (3 used propensity score matching) comparing tVIV versus sAVR in 762 patients The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality determined from the longest available survival data. Other outcomes of interest were stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, hospital stay and postoperative aortic valve gradient. The review was conducted according to the MOOSE recomendations. Der Simonian and Laird random effects model was used to estimate summary measures and their 95% CI. Results Patients in the tVIV group were significantly older (78 vs 73 y.o.) and had a higher baseline risk compared to those in the re-sAVR group (Euroscore 19.7 vs 14.3). There was no statistical difference in procedural or 30-day mortality 5.4% vs 5.3% in tVIV and sAVR, respectively (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54–1.80; p=0.96], and long-term mortality (from 6 month to 5 years) 18.7% versus 16.5% (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80–1.60; P=0.50). The risk of stroke was similar (1.5% in tVIV vs 2.4% in sAVR, p=0.47). tVIV was associated with a significantly lower rate of permanent pacemaker implantations 6.9% vs 12.1% (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36–0.94; P=0.03) and shorter hospital length stay (7 days vs 12 days, p=0.02). However, echocardiographic postoperative aortic valve gradients were lower in sAVR group than in tVIV (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75–2.91, p<0.001). 30-day and long-term mortality Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that patients with aortic degenerated bioprosthesis treated with tVIV have similar 30-day and long-term mortality with lower need of permanent pacemaker and length stay than sAVR. Thus tVIV is a valid alternative to standard surgical treatment.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Results from the Radar Registry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Bautista-Hernandez ◽  
M. Gonzalez Barbeito ◽  
A. Vazquez ◽  
M. Carnero ◽  
J. A. Sarralde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Rapid Deployment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document