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.

scholarly journals International Expert Consensus on Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves in Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive Approaches

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattia Glauber ◽  
Simon C. Moten ◽  
Eugenio Quaini ◽  
Marco Solinas ◽  
Thierry A. Folliguet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Cross Clamp Time ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Attractive Option ◽  
Rapid Deployment ◽  
International Experts

Objective To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach. Results No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed to-mographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs. Conclusions Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.

scholarly journals 780 Rapid Deployment or Sutureless Valves as An Alternative to Conventional Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Aljanadi ◽  
N Moawad ◽  
M Jones
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Pressure Gradients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Rapid Deployment ◽  
Peak Gradient

Abstract Aim Rapid deployment valves are being used widely. We wanted to compare outcomes for rapid-deployment valves and conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements in order to assess if their use is justifiable. Method Outcomes of the last 120 patients who received a rapid-deployment AVR (RDAVR) between Sept 2014-Sept 2019 were compared to the last 120 patients who had conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (Conv AVR). Results Age of RDAVR 77.5±4.93 was compared to Conv AVR 67.9±11.9 years (p &gt; 0.05). Other baseline characteristics were similar. RDAVR group included more elderly (&gt;80 years; 40 vs 11, p &lt; 0.05) and females (83 vs 36, p &lt; 0.05). RDAVR group had shorter cross clamp time (68 vs 89 min, p &lt; 0.05) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (97 vs 110 min, p &lt; 0.05) for isolated AVR. Mortality was equal in both groups (1.7%). Post-operative pressure gradients were similar (mean gradient 10.4±4.44 vs 11±5.31 mmHg and peak gradient 20.32±8.64 vs 22.95±9.72 mmHg). Additionally, patients were divided into size matched subgroups and post-operative pressure gradients were comparable. Hospital length of stay and early post-operative results were similar between the two groups. Early permanent pacemaker rate was similar in both groups (9 vs 5, p &gt; 0.05). Survival rates in group 1 and 2 were 97.5% vs 99.2% at 1 year, 95.8% vs 96.7% at 2 years. and 95% vs 96.7% at 3 years, respectively. Conclusions RDAVR had similar haemodynamic outcomes and survival. Where shorter cross clamp and pump times may be desirable RDAVR may be preferred in older high-risk patients.

Pulmonary Homografts for Aortic Valve Replacement: Long-term Comparison with Aortic Grafts

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferdinand Vogt ◽  
Anke Kowert ◽  
Andres Beiras-Fernandez ◽  
Martin Oberhoffer ◽  
Ingo Kaczmarek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Aortic Graft ◽  
Valve Prostheses ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study

<p><b>Objective:</b> The use of homografts for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an alternative to mechanical or biological valve prostheses, especially in younger patients. This retrospective comparative study evaluated our single-center long-term results, with a focus on the different origins of the homografts.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> Since 1992, 366 adult patients have undergone AVR with homografts at our center. We compared 320 homografts of aortic origin and 46 homografts of pulmonary origin. The grafts were implanted via either a subcoronary technique or the root replacement technique. We performed a multivariate analysis to identify independent factors that influence survival. Freedom from reintervention and survival rates were calculated as cumulative events according to the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were tested with the log-rank test.</p><p><b>Results:</b> Overall mortality within 1 year was 6.5% (21/320) in the aortic graft group and 17.4% (8/46) in the pulmonary graft group. In the pulmonary graft group, 4 patients died from valve-related complications, 1 patient died after additional heterotopic heart transplantation, and 1 patient who entered with a primary higher risk died from a prosthesis infection. Two patients died from non-valve-related causes. During the long-term follow-up, the 15-year survival rate was 79.9% for patients in the aortic graft group and 68.7% for patients in the pulmonary graft group (<i>P</i> = .049). The rate of freedom from reoperation was 77.7% in the aortic graft group and 57.4% in the pulmonary graft group (<i>P</i> < .001). The reasons for homograft explantation were graft infections (aortic graft group, 5.0%; pulmonary graft group, 6.5%) and degeneration (aortic graft group, 7.5%; pulmonary graft group, 32.6%).</p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> Our study demonstrated superior rates of survival and freedom from reintervention after AVR with aortic homografts. Implantation with a pulmonary graft was associated with a higher risk of redo surgery, owing to earlier degenerative alterations.</p>

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 Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: really tolerable?

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
R FUSTER ◽  
J MONTEROARGUDO ◽  
O ALBAROVA ◽  
F SOS ◽  
S LOPEZ ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Patient Prosthesis Mismatch
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document