From asymptomatic adult patient to cardiopulmonary resuscitation - treatment of ALCAPA with total arterial myocardial revascularisation and mitral valve repair.

BACKGROUND: Anomalous left coronary artery originating from the pulmonary artery (ALCAPA), is a unique congenital anomaly, comprising only 0.24-0.46% of all congenital cardiac anomalies. Late presentations, ranging from asymptomatic cases to sudden cardiac arrest, are exceptionally rare. This unique case highlights the complexity of managing ALCAPA in adulthood and underscores the necessity of a comprehensive surgical approach addressing both coronary and valvular issues. PRESENTATION: A 34-year-old female patient, who had been diagnosed with ALPACA in her early childhood, suffered sudden cardiac arrest at work, followed by out-of-hospital resuscitation. The patient had been followed-up regularly until adolescence, however, she had refused surgery. In the diagnostic work-up following successful resuscitation severe mitral valve regurgitation was additionally revealed. Subsequently, the patient underwent surgery, involving coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), using bilateral internal mammary arteries, and mitral valve repair, with an excellent postsurgical result. At 16-month follow-up, the patient was asymptomatic and quality of life had significantly improved. CONCLUSION: This rare case initially presented as silent myocardial ischemia, resulting in reduced left ventricular function and secondary mitral incompetence. Surgical treatment of ALCAPA in adults poses greater challenges and a higher risk than in children. CABG procedure offers an excellent prognostic therapeutic strategy, since this procedure is a routine in adult cardiac surgery.

Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) via upper ministernotomy (MiniAVR) is a standard alternative to full sternotomy access. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been proven to provide a number of benefits to patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after MiniAVR versus conventional AVR via full sternotomy (FS) using a biological prosthesis in an elderly higher-risk population. METHODS: Between January 2006 and July 2009, 918 consecutive patients received AVR ± additional procedures with different prostheses at our center. Amongst them, 441 received isolated AVR using a biological prosthesis (median age of 74.5; range: 52-93 years; 50% females) and formed the study population (EuroSCORE II: 3.62 ± 5.5, range: 0.7-42). In total, 137 (31.1%) of the operations were carried out through FS, and 304 (68.9%) were carried out via MiniAVR. Follow-up was complete in 96% of the cases (median of 7.6 years, 6610 patient-years). Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in two groups of 68 patients with very similar baseline profiles. The primary endpoints were long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and endocarditis, and the secondary endpoints were early major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). RESULTS: FS led to shorter cardio-pulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp durations: 90 (47-194) vs. 100 (46-246) min (p = 0.039) and 57 (33-156) vs. 69 (32-118) min (p = 0.006), respectively. Perioperative stroke occurred in three patients (4.4%; FS) vs. one patient (1.5%; MiniAVR) (p = 0.506). The 30-day mortality was similar in both groups (2.9%, p = 1.000). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 94.1 ± 3% (FS and MiniAVR), 80.3 ± 5% vs. 75.7 ± 5%, and 45.3 ± 6% vs. 43.8 ± 6%, respectively (p = 0.767). There were two (2.9%) reoperations in each group and two thrombo-embolic events (2.9%) vs. one (1.5%) thrombo-embolic event in the MiniAVR and FS groups, respectively (p = 0.596). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to FS, MiniAVR provided similar short- and long-term outcomes in a higher-risk elderly population receiving biological prostheses. In particular, long-term survival, freedom from reoperation, and the incidence of endocarditis were comparable. These results clearly advocate for the routine use of MiniAVR as a standard procedure for AVR, even in a high-risk population.

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning.

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032-2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.

Correction: Hlavicka et al. Long-Term Outcomes after Aortic Valve and Root Replacement in a Very High-Risk Population. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2022, 9, 197.

The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published paper [...].

Right-Sided Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass: Clinical Experience and Perspectives.

Objective: Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) using the left internal thoracic artery to the left descending artery is a clinical routine in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Far less is known on right-sided MIDCAB (r-MIDCAB) using the right internal thoracic artery (RITA) to the right coronary artery (RCA). We aimed to present our experience in patients with complex coronary artery disease who underwent r-MIDCAB. Materials and Methods: Between October 2019 and January 2023, 11 patients received r-MIDCAB using RITA to RCA bypass in a minimally invasive technique via right anterior minithoracotomy without using a cardiopulmonary bypass. Underlying coronary disease was complex right coronary artery stenosis (n = 7) and anomalous right coronary artery (ARCA; n = 4). All procedure-related and outcome data were evaluated prospectively. Results: Successful minimally invasive revascularization was achieved in all patients (n = 11). There were no conversions to sternotomy and no re-explorations for bleeding. Furthermore, no myocardial infarction, no strokes, and, most importantly, no deaths were observed. During the follow-up period (median 24 months), all patients were alive and 90% were completely angina free. Two patients received a repeated revascularization after surgery but independently from the RITA-RCA bypass, which was fully competent in both patients. Conclusion: Right-sided MIDCAB can be performed safely and effectively in patients with expected technically challenging percutaneous coronary intervention of the RCA and in patients with ARCA. Mid-term results showed high freedom from angina in nearly all patients. Further studies with larger patient cohorts and more evidence are needed to provide the best revascularization strategy for patients suffering from isolated complex RCA stenosis and ARCA.

Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort.

Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been designed to overcome lead-related complications and device endocarditis. Lacking the ability for pacing or resynchronization therapy its usage is limited to selected patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). Objective: The aim of this single-center study was to assess clinical outcomes of S-ICD and single-chamber transvenous (TV)-ICD in an all-comers population. Methods: The study cohort comprised a total of 119 ICD patients who underwent either S-ICD (n = 35) or TV-ICD (n = 84) implantation at the University Hospital Frankfurt from 2009 to 2017. By applying an inverse probability-weighting (IPW) analysis based on the propensity score including the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to adjust for potential extracardiac comorbidities, we aimed for head-to-head comparison on the study composite endpoint: overall survival, hospitalization, and device-associated events (including appropriate and inappropriate shocks or system-related complications). Results: The median age of the study population was 66.0 years, 22.7% of the patients were female. The underlying heart disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy (61.4%) with a median LVEF of 30%. Only 52.9% had received an ICD for primary prevention, most of the patients (67.3%) had advanced heart failure (NYHA class II-III) and 16.8% were in atrial fibrillation. CCI was 5 points in TV-ICD patients vs. 4 points for patients with S-ICD (p = 0.209) indicating increased morbidity. The composite endpoint occurred in 38 patients (31.9 %), revealing no significant difference between patients implanted with an S-ICD or TV-ICD (unweighted HR 1.50, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.78-2.90; p = 0.229, weighted HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.61-1.50, p = 0.777). Furthermore, we observed no difference in any single clinical endpoint or device-associated outcome, neither in the unweighted cohort nor following inverse probability-weighting. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes of the S-ICD and TV-ICD revealed no differences in the composite endpoint including survival, freedom of hospitalization and device-associated events, even after careful adjustment for potential confounders. Moreover, the CCI was evaluated in a S-ICD cohort demonstrating higher survival rates than predicted by the CCI in young, polymorbid (S-)ICD patients.

Long-Term Outcomes after Aortic Valve and Root Replacement in a Very High-Risk Population.

Background: Aortic valve and root replacement (AVRR) is a standardised procedure to treat patients with aortic valve and root disease. In centres with a well-established aortic valve and root repair program (valve repairs and Ross operations), only patients with very complex conditions receive AVRR; this procedure uses a mechanical or biological composite valve graft (modified Bentall-de Bono procedure). The aim of the study was to evaluate the short- and long-term results after AVRR in a high-risk population with complex pathologies. Methods: Between 2005 and 2018, a total of 273 consecutive patients (mean age 64 ± 12.8 years; 23% female) received AVRR. The indication for surgery was an acute type A aortic dissection in 18%, infective endocarditis in 36% and other pathologies in 46% patients; 39% were redo procedures. The median EuroSCORE II was 11.65% (range 1.48-95.63%). Concomitant surgery was required in 157 patients (58%). Results: The follow-up extended to 5.2 years (range 0.1-15 years) and it was complete in 96% of the patients. The 30-day mortality was 17%. The overall estimated survival at 5 and 10 years was 65% ± 3% and 49% ± 4%, respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed the following risk factors for survival: perioperative neurological dysfunction (OR 5.45), peripheral artery disease (OR 4.4) and re-exploration for bleeding (OR 3.37). Conclusions: AVRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term results in a sick patient population. The Bentall-De Bono procedure may be determined to be suitable for only elderly or high-risk patients. Any other patients should receive an AV repair or the Ross procedure in well-established centres.

Early- and longer-term outcomes of David versus Florida sleeve procedure: propensity-matched comparison.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare short- and longer-term outcomes of David (DV) versus Florida sleeve (FS) procedure in patients requiring valve-sparing aortic root replacement. METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2020 285 patients received a DV procedure (median age 60 years; 26% females) and 57 patients underwent an FS procedure (median age 64 years; 19% females) in our department. Propensity score matching using patient characteristics led to 58 (DV) versus 57 (FS) patients. End points were defined as primary: freedom from aortic valve and/or aortic root-related reoperation and freedom from aortic regurgitation ≥moderate and secondary: early and late survival. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 2% (DV) and 0% (FS) (P = 0.319). There was 1 early stroke in each group (P = 0.990). Follow-up was complete in 99% with only 1 patient (FS) lost. The 5- and 10-year freedom from aortic valve and/or aortic root related reoperation was 98 ± 2% and 96 ± 3% in the DV group and 92 ± 5% and 84 ± 9% in the FS group, respectively (P = 0.095). The 5- and 10-year freedom from aortic regurgitation ≥moderate was 88 ± 5% and 80 ± 8% in the DV group and 92 ± 5% and 78 ± 1% in the FS group, respectively (P = 0.782). The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 93 ± 4% and 82 ± 6% (DV) vs 75 ± 7% and 67 ± 10% (FS), respectively (P = 0.058). No case of endocarditis (DV) and 3 cases of endocarditis (FS) (P = 0.055) were observed during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both DV and FS resulted in similar early and longer-term outcomes with a trend to slightly better performance and survival in the DV group. Florida sleeve procedure might be an alternative approach for patients with higher-risk profiles requiring valve-sparing aortic root replacement.

Minimally Invasive Treatment of Kommerell's Diverticulum and Left Aberrant Subclavian Artery.

Kommerell's diverticulum is an aneurysmatic offspring of the left aberrant subclavian artery, which is a rare vascular anomaly of the aortic arch. Here, we present our less invasive approach to the repair of a symptomatic Kommerell's diverticulum in a 31-year-old patient, without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass.

Mitral Valve Surgery via Upper Ministernotomy: Single-Centre Experience in More than 400 Patients.

Background: Minimally invasive mitral valve (MV) surgery has emerged as an alternative to conventional sternotomy aiming to decrease surgical trauma. The aim of the study was to describe our experience with minimally invasive MV surgery through partial upper sternotomy (PUS) regarding short- and long-term outcomes. Methods: From January 2004 through March 2014, 419 patients with a median age of 58.9 years (interquartile range 18.7; 31.7% females) underwent isolated primary MV surgery using PUS. Myxomatous degenerative MV disease was the predominant pathology (77%). The patients' mean EuroSCORE II risk profile was 3.9 ± 3.6%. Results: Mitral valve repair was performed in 384 patients (91.6%) and replacement in 35 patients (8.4%). Thirty-day mortality was 3.1%. In total, 29 (6.9%) deaths occurred during the follow-up. The overall estimated survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 93.1 ± 1.3%, 87.1 ± 1.9%, and 81.1 ± 3.4%. Reoperation was necessary in 14 (3.3%) patients. The overall freedom from MV reoperation at 1, 5, and 10 years was 98.2 ± 0.7%, 96.1 ± 1.2%, and 86.7 ± 6.7% and the overall freedom from recurrent MV regurgitation > grade 2 in repaired valves at 1, 5, and 10 years was 98.8 ± 0.6%, 98.8 ± 0.6%, and 94.6 ± 3.3%. Conclusions: Minimally invasive MV surgery via PUS can be performed with particularly good early and late results. Thus, the PUS approach with the use of standard surgical instruments and cannulation techniques can be a valuable option for the MV surgery either in patients contraindicated or not suitable to minithoracotomy.

Randomized Trial of 2 Endoscopic Radial Artery Harvesting Devices-Immunofluorescence Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Various devices are available for endoscopic radial artery harvesting during coronary artery bypass grafting. Thermal spread and graft damage, however, are common concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the MiFusion TLS2 system (Endotrust, Nettetal Germany) with direct heat technique and the LigaSure Maryland system (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) using advanced bipolar technique in a prospective randomized study. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with endoscopic radial artery harvesting were prospectively included and randomized 1:1. The proximal (brachial) ends of the grafts were analyzed using fluorescence microscopy with focus on graft integrity. In addition, harvesting time, graft sealing, residual bleeding, and incidence of neurological disorders were compared. RESULTS: Patient age was 67 ± 8 years. Mean harvesting time was 26.5 ± 9 minutes for the TLS2 and 23.2 ± 8 minutes for the LigaSure (P = .049). Overall graft integrity was good in both groups. A significantly better graft integrity was observed in the LigaSure group (scale 0 to 3; 3 = best) with 2.5 ± 0.6 for TLS2 and 2.8 ± 0.4 for LigaSure (P = .031). LigaSure provided significantly better graft sealing (scale 0 to 2; 0 = best) with 0.6 ± 0.7 vs 1.0 ± 0.6 (TLS2) (P = .006) and less residual bleeding (scale 1 to 5; 1 = best) with 1.4 ± 0.6 vs 2.0 ± 0.9 (TLS2) (P < .001). Transient sensibility disorders were less frequently observed with LigaSure (2% vs 16%, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic radial artery harvesting can be performed with excellent results and good graft integrity using both devices. Compared with the MiFusion TLS2, the LigaSure device led to faster procedural times and resulted in better graft integrity. Along with providing a better seal, LigaSure was associated with less sensibility disorders.

Randomized (CO)mparison of (TRI)fecta and (P)erimount Magna Ease Supraannular Aortic Xenografts-CO.TRI.P Study.

BACKGROUND: Modern supraannular aortic xenografts offer a special design, thus providing maximized opening area for improved hemodynamics. The aim of this study was a prospectively randomized comparison of the Trifecta and the Perimount Magna Ease valves based on metric annulus sizing. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without concomitant procedures were prospectively included. After decalcification of the annulus, stratified intraoperative randomization was performed. The diameter of the aortic annulus was measured using metric Hegar dilators and randomization was based on this metric annulus diameter. Exercise echocardiography was performed at 10-month follow-up. RESULTS: Mean age was 69 years, with 36% female. Predominant implanted valve sizes were 23 mm (39%) and 25 mm (32%). Unadjusted mean pressure gradient was significantly lower and effective orifice area larger for the Trifecta group (10.8 ± 5 vs. 13.2 ± 4 mm Hg, p = 0.02 and 1.93 ± 0.39 vs. 1.70 ± 0.30 cm2, p = 0.002) at discharge. In patients with small annuli, based on the metric annulus size there were no significant differences in gradients or the orifice area. At exercise echocardiography follow-up, there were no significant hemodynamic differences between both prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: The Trifecta and the Perimount Magna Ease prostheses both show excellent hemodynamic performance after AVR. In patients with larger annuli, the Trifecta valve seems to be even superior to the Magna Ease, which may be advantageous in obese patients.

Reduction of drainage-associated complications in cardiac surgery with a digital drainage system: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic chest drains are placed after cardiac surgery allowing for the clearance of blood, fluid, and air to prevent post-operative complications. Despite its importance, there is little data on the application of digital chest drainage systems in cardiac surgery. Therefore, the differences between an analog and a digital chest drainage system in cardiac surgery patients were investigated in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 354 elective cardiac surgery patients were preoperatively randomized 1:1 between September 2016 and September 2017 to either an analog (Ocean) or a digital (Thopaz+) chest drainage system aiming to compare drainage-associated postoperative outcome parameters. RESULTS: A total of 340 patients were included in the analysis (analog: 188; digital: 152) with no significant differences in preoperative baseline parameters. Incidence of X-rays to detect air leaks was significantly lower in the digital group (analog: 20.2%; digital: 8.6%; P<0.01). Patients treated with the digital system showed a 3.3% reduction of re-thoracotomies, however, not statistically significant (analog: 5.3%; digital: 2.0%; P=0.19). Median total fluid amount did not significantly differ between study groups [median (P25; P75); analog: 705 (400; 1,333) mL; digital: 686 (404; 1,229) mL; P=0.83]; however, the use of the digital drainage system resulted in a quicker removal with a reduced median drainage duration of 16 hours (analog: 65 hours; digital: 49 hours; P≤0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that digital drainage systems can be safely applied in cardiac surgery patients. The use of the digital management system led to a decreased incidence of drainage-associated complications as well as to shortened chest tube duration. Findings require confirmation by additional studies.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2018: recent advances and future development.

Transcather aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a safe and indispensable treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high or prohibitive surgical risk. In the past years, outcomes after TAVI have improved significantly and TAVI has emerged as a qualified alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the treatment of intermediate risk patients. Besides optimized patient screening, advanced imaging and increased examiner experience, transcatheter heart valve (THV) design addressed several key issues like vascular complications, pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leakage rates and improved considerably over time. Currently, several trials are investigating the role of TAVI in low surgical risk patients, novel indications and peri-operative management. In this review we give an overview on 1) current generation TAVI devices; on 2) recent clinical trial results and guidelines; and on 3) future trends and novel developments in the field of interventional treatment of AS.

TAVI risk scoring using established versus new scoring systems: role of the new STS/ACC model.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to validate the recently developed STS/ACC TAVR in-hospital mortality risk score for predicting in-hospital mortality after transcatheter aotic valve implantation (TAVI) and to compare its ability to predict 30-day mortality with that of four other established risk models (EuroSCORE I, EuroSCORE II, STS-PROM, and German AV Score). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study cohort included 946 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI between 2013 and 2015. Each of the five scores was fitted as a continuous linear variable into a logistic regression model estimating 30-day mortality. The STS/ACC TAVR score was additionally analysed for in-hospital mortality. C-statistics and likelihood ratio (LR) test p-values were estimated for each model to describe the model fit. The ability of the STS/ACC score to predict in-hospital mortality was similar to the reported STS/ACC TVT registry data (this study's C-statistic 0.65 vs. STS/ACC TVT registry 0.66). The STS-PROM score (C-statistic=0.68; LR p<0.0001) and the new STS/ACC TAVR score (C-statistic=0.68; LR p<0.0001) were superior to the other scores (EuroSCORE I [C-statistic=0.55; LR p=0.02], EuroSCORE II [C-statistic=0.58; LR p=0.02], German AV Score [C-statistic=0.62; LR p<0.01]) for prediction of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: These data show the superiority of the STS-PROM and STS/ACC TAVR scores compared with other existing risk calculation models in predicting 30-day mortality after TAVI in a German all-comers population. The STS/ACC TAVR score, however, is easier to calculate (12 vs. 28 variables), and may thus gain wider acceptance and be accompanied by improved inter-observer reliability.

Managing Stroke During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the default treatment option for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. There are, however, concerns regarding strokes during TAVR. Reported stroke rates vary strongly depending on the type of study, stroke definition, cohort and study period. Furthermore, stroke after TAVR occurs in three distinct phases: 1) early high-risk, directly procedure related; 2) elevated risk interval between day 2 and day 30; 3) late hazard interval. Each of these phases is caused by the different aetiologies of stroke. This review summarises the different aetiologies and potential strategies for managing stroke during TAVR.

Simplified Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation Using the SAPIEN 3 Valve Without Preballooning.

OBJECTIVE: Preballooning (PB) of the stenotic aortic valve can be considered common standard during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (T-AVI). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation without preballooning (noPB) using the Edwards SAPIEN XT prosthesis has been described previously. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of next-generation SAPIEN 3 valve implantation without PB. METHODS: Since January 2013, a total of 66 patients received SAPIEN 3 valve implantation at our center using the transapical approach. Patients were treated using the standard PB technique (n = 17 [25.8%]) or no PB (n = 49 [74.2%]). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of patient groups were comparable (38% women; mean age, 83 years; STS score, 8%, logistic EuroSCORE I and II, 30% and 8%, respectively). Patients in the PB group were exclusively treated in our earlier experience with this device. Overall 30-day mortality was 4.5% (6.1% for noPB vs. 0% PB; P = ns). Aortic regurgitation was grade 1 or less in 100% (PB) versus 93.9% (noPB); P = ns Median contrast use was 70 (60-95) mL (PB) versus 50 (40-50) mL (noPB); P < 0.001; and median radiation dose was 32.0 (17-57) Gy × cm (PB) versus 26.6 (16-36) Gy × cm (noPB); P < 0.001. Postdilatation was required in one patient only (noPB). The rate of new pacemaker implantations was 41.2% (PB) versus 12.2% (noPB); P = 0.03. Periprocedural stroke occurred in one patient in each group (6% PB vs 2.0% no-PB); P = ns. CONCLUSIONS: Direct transapical SAPIEN 3 valve implantation without PB is feasible and safe. The no-PB technique leads to further simplification of the procedures.