Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Root Surgery: Results of an Intermediate-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: We evaluate the outcome of aortic root surgery via an upper J: -shaped mini-sternotomy (MS) versus full sternotomy (FS) in an intermediate-volume center. METHODS: Between November 2011 and February 2019, 94 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery: 62 (66%) patients were operated via a J: -shaped MS (group A) and 32 (34%) patients via FS (group B). The primary endpoints were mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE), and reoperation in a 2-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and patient's satisfaction with the procedural results. RESULTS: Valve sparing root replacement (David procedure) was performed in 13 (21%) of the MS and 7 (22%) of the FS patients. The Bentall procedure in MS versus FS was 49 (79%) versus 25 (78%), respectively. Both groups presented similar mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cross-clamp times. Postoperative bleeding was 534 ± 300 and 755 ± 402 mL (p = 0.01) in MS and FS, respectively, erythrocyte concentrate substitution was 3 ± 3 and 5.3 ± 4.8 (p = 0.018) in MS and FS, respectively, and pneumonia rates were 0 and 9.4% (p = 0.03) in MS and FS, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0% in both groups, whereas MACCE was 1.6 and 3% (p = 0.45) in MS and FS, respectively. After 2 years, the mortality and MACCE were 4.6 and 9.5% (p = 0.11) and 4.6 and 0% (p = 0.66) in MS and FS, respectively. The number of patients who were satisfied with the surgical cosmetic results in groups A and B was 53 (85.4%) and 26 (81%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Aortic root surgery via MS is a safe alternative to FS even in an intermediate-volume center. It offers a shorter recovery time and similar midterm results.

Early-Term Results of Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement versus Standard Bioprosthesis Implantation Combined with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic stenosis is highly prevalent among patients with concomitant coronary artery disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting is usually the treatment of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome and hemodynamic results of the implantation of rapid-deployment valves (Rapid-Deployment Edwards Intuity Valve System [RDAVR]) versus conventional sutured valves (CSAVR) in combined surgery. METHODS: Between January 2012 and January 2017, 120 patients underwent replacement via RDAVR and 133 patients underwent replacement using CSAVR with concomitant coronary bypass grafting. Clinical and echocardiographic data were compared. RESULTS: The mean age was 76 ± 7 for RDAVR patients and 74 ± 6 years for CSAVR patients (p = 0.054); 48% in the RDAVR group were female versus 17% in the CSAVR group (p <0.002). Other characteristics such as diabetes mellitus, body-mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nicotine consumption, and extracardiac arteriopathy were similar. Coronary three-vessel disease was more common in the RDAVR group (42.5 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.017). Both mean EuroSCORE II (6.6 ± 5.4 vs. 4.3 ± 3.0, p = 0.001) and STS score (5.4 ± 4.4 vs. 3.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the RDAVR group. Mean cross-clamp time (82 ± 25 vs. 100 ± 30 minutes, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (119 ± 38 vs. 147 ± 53 minutes, p < 0.001) were shorter with RDAVR. The mean number of bypass grafts, length of hospital and ICU stays, and mechanical ventilation time were not statistically significant different. Hospital mortality was 2.5% for RDAVR and 9.7% for CSAVR (p = 0.019). There was a similar rate of stroke (5.8 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.990) and postoperative delirium (14.1 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.728). Mean gradients were 8.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg in the RDAVR group vs. 11.3 ± 4.6 mm Hg in the CSAVR group (p = 0.001) at discharge. CONCLUSION: RDAVR combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) can be performed extremely safely. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times can be significantly reduced with rapid deployment aortic valve system in the scenario of combined CABG. RDAVR resulted in lower gradients than CSAVR in patients implanted with prostheses of the same size.

Outcomes in Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Increased rates of postoperative left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) frequently occur after implantation of rapid deployment valves. The impact of LBBB on follow-up outcomes remains controversial. So far, no data regarding long-term outcomes exist. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of LBBB on postoperative outcomes after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR). METHODS: A total of 620 consecutive patients without preexisting LBBB or PPI who underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2019 were included. New-onset LBBB was defined as any new LBBB that persisted at hospital discharge. The median follow-up time for clinical data was 1.7 years post-RDAVR. RESULTS: At discharge, new-onset LBBB was seen in 109 patients (17.5%). There were no differences between the LBBB groups and no-LBBB groups regarding baseline characteristics. At a median follow-up of 1.7 years, no difference was found between LBBB groups and no-LBBB groups concerning all-cause mortality (12.8 vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.53; p = 0.54). Nevertheless, new-onset LBBB was associated with significant higher pacemaker implantation rates at follow-up (10.1 vs. 6.3%; HR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.89-6.81 p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After a median follow-up of 1.7 years, new-onset LBBB was not associated with increased mortality. Nevertheless, higher pacemaker implantation rates were observed in patients with new-onset LBBB after RDAVR.

Early Results after Aortic Valve Replacement Using Last Generation Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve.

INTRODUCTION: Few data are available about the newest generation surgical bioprosthesis. We aimed to evaluate early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA). METHODS: Between July 2018 and April 2021, 80 patients underwent aortic valve replacement receiving the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve at our institution. Primary outcomes were the composite of early mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic performances of the valve, paravalvular leakage, and new pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 60.6 ± 8.3 years. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 2.9 ± 1.7%. In 43.7% of the patients, concomitant surgery was performed. The in-hospital mortality, all-stroke, and myocardial infarction rates were 2.5%, 1.2%, and 1.2%, respectively. No valve was explanted and no redo was performed. The mean postoperative trans-prosthetic gradient at discharge was 10.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg. There was no need for new pacemaker implantation. We registered only two cases with minimal (trace) paravalvular leakage. CONCLUSION: The use of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve in a young, low-risk population is safe and associated with very good early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes.

Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Patients scheduled for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment frequently present with concomitant aortic diseases, in which case they are usually considered to be at high interventional risk and, in particular, unable to undergo the transfemoral TAVI approach. Since the establishment of the 'transfemoral first' strategy for TAVI, there has been an evidence gap with regard to the outcomes of such patients. We aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes after transapical TAVI in patients with diverse aortic diseases. METHODS: Fifty-five consecutive elderly patients (78.4 years; standard deviation: 8.6 years) at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and aortic diseases (porcelain aorta 36%, ascending aneurysm 15%, descending aneurysm 26%, type-B dissection 4%, aortic thrombus 7%, Leriche syndrome 4%, aortic kinking 11%, aortic ulcer 2%, previous aortic operation 20%, aortic elongation/tortuosity 4%) underwent transapical TAVI treatment between January 2011 and November 2019 at our institution. We used the second-and third-generation self- and balloon-expanding valves. The follow-up time was 92.6 patient-years. RESULTS: The Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7% (standard deviation: 4%). The 30-day mortality and all-stroke rates were 6% and 4%, respectively. The median survival time was 24.9 months (95% confidence interval 17.6-32.3). The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardio-cerebral adverse events was 24.3 months (95% confidence interval 11.9-36.8). The rate of moderate/severe paravalvular leakage was 2%. The pacemaker rate was 10%. No early or late aortic syndrome occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Transapical TAVI is a safe method and shows very promising early and mid-term outcomes, without early/late aortic syndrome, in patients with aortic diseases for whom transfemoral TAVI as the first-line transcatheter method might be contraindicated or not feasible.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the SAPIEN 3 valve versus surgical aortic valve replacement using the rapid deployment INTUITY valve: Midterm outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Little data have been published on the midterm effect of transapical/transfemoral-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-/TF-TAVR) using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve (S3). We aimed to compare the outcomes after TA-/TF-TAVR utilizing the S3 (TA-/TF-S3) valve with those after surgical aortic valve replacement utilizing the rapid deployment Edwards INTUITY valve (RD-SAVR). METHODS: Between March 2012 and April 2018, 122 patients with aortic stenosis underwent TA-S3, 77 patients underwent TF-S3 and 182 patients underwent RD-SAVR through partial sternotomy at our institution. We conducted clinical and echocardiographic midterm follow-ups. The primary outcomes of the study were the incidence of new pacemakers permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), the occurrence of paravalvular leakage (PVL) and the hemodynamic performance of the valves. RESULTS: All study groups were at intermediate surgical risk. The 30-day all-cause mortality and stroke rates in the TA-S3, TF-S3, and RD-SAVR groups were 4.1% and 1.6%, 3.9% and 2.6%, and 3.8% and 2.2%, respectively. The RD-SAVR group had significantly smaller PVL and PPI rates than did the TA-/TF-S3 group (p < .0001). At the discharge, the one-year postprocedure mean gradients were 9 ± 5.1/10 ± 4.5 mmHg, 11 ± 4.1/12 ± 3.8 mmHg, and 10.1 ± 4.3/10.4 ± 2.6 mmHg in the TA-S3, TF-S3, and RD-SAVR groups, respectively. Midterm valve thrombosis, Re-TAVR/SVAR were low and similar among the study groups, whereas endocarditis was higher in the TAVR group. CONCLUSION: RD-SAVR was superior to TA-/TF-S3 in the PVL and PPI rates. We observed similar early outcomes and valve hemodynamics. The endocarditis was higher in the TAVR group.

Transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve.

BACKGROUND: Scarcely any data has been published on the mid-term effect of transapical-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve (S3; Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, CA, USA). We present mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after TA-TAVI utilizing S3. METHODS: Between 02/2014-06/2017, 122 elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent TA-TAVI utilizing S3 at our institution. We conducted clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. The mean follow-up was 15 months. All end-point-related outcomes were adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. RESULTS: The STS-score of the entire cohort was 6.26±4.6. More than one-third of the patients exhibited severe peripheral artery disease. The 30-d all-cause mortality, all-stroke rate, and myocardial infarction of the entire cohort were 4.1%, 1.6%, and 0.8% respectively. Median survival time of the entire cohort was 35 months. The cumulative mid-term myocardial infarction and stroke rate was 2.6% and 3.5%, respectively. The postoperative moderate/severe paravalvular leakage occurred in 1.6% of cases. At discharge, one-year and two-year postprocedure peak/mean gradients were 16.6±8.3/ 9±5.1 mmHg, 18±6.9/ 10±4.5 mmHg, and 22.2±5.4/ 12.8±4.6 mmHg, respectively. The rate of new pacemaker cases was 14.1%. Acute kidney injury network 2/3 appears, as an independent predictor of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We observed very promising early and mid-term clinical outcomes with a high degree of device success and good hemodynamic performance after TA-TAVI using the S3 in the intermediate risk patient profile.

Single-Center Outcomes with Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid-deployment valves can reduce procedural times and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery. In our institution, more than 500 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: A total of 510 patients underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2017, of whom 270 patients underwent isolated AVR and 240 underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The cumulative follow-up time was 1,444 patient-years, the median follow-up time 2.8 years, respectively RESULTS: An early all-cause mortality of 3.5% (n = 18) was seen with a cumulative survival of 91.9 ± 2.2% after 12 months. Mean cross-clamp times were 37 ± 19 minutes for isolated AVR and 93 ± 29 minutes for AVR with concomitant procedures. The rate of new pacemaker implantation was 7.8% (n = 40). No case of structural degeneration occurred in the follow-up. Three (0.6%) cases of endocarditis were registered. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment AVR can be performed safely with low complication rates and good hemodynamic results. Therefore, the relevance in aortic valve surgery can be stressed.

Minimally invasive aortic root surgery: Midterm results in a 2-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) via partial upper sternotomy (PUS) for aortic root surgery represents an alternative to the full median sternotomy (FMS). PUS offers less operative trauma. We analyzed the midterm outcome of root replacement (Bentall) or valve-sparing root replacement (David) via PUS to evaluate the safety of this access. METHODS: Between November 2011 to April 2017, a total of 47 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery with aortic aneurysm and/or localized aortic dissection through Bentall or David operation through PUS mean age (57.9 ± 10.5 years). Bentall operation was performed in 36 patients (77%), whereas 11 patients (23%) received a David procedure. The outcome was carried out in 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years-follow up. RESULTS: Mean operation time was 287.3 ± 72.6 minutes, mean cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time 174 ± 54.8 minutes, mean cross-clamp time 133 ± 33.1 minutes. Rethoracotomy-rate was (4.2%). Superficial wound healing disturbance was (2%) and no deep sternal infection or sternum instability occurred. Hospitalization-and intensive care unit-stay was 11.8 ± 4.4 and 1.9 ± 1.3 days with a total median ventilation-time of 10 (IQR 7.5-13.5) hours. There was no 30-day-mortality. After 2 years the total rate of mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and redo surgery was (6.3%, 4.2%, and 4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive aortic root surgery via partial upper sternotomy could be a safe alternative to the full median sternotomy. It requires longer operative times but reduces postoperative morbidity with good postoperative outcome.

Intermediate Outcomes after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in Multiple Valve Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Multiple valve surgery is associated with significant higher operative risks. Reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times in multiple valve surgery may potentially be beneficial as they can be considered independent risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality following cardiac surgery. We report first intermediate outcomes of the Edwards Intuity valve system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, United States) in combined procedures METHODS: Fifty-eight patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with concomitant mitral valve surgery between January 2014 and November 2017 in our institution. The valve was assessed echocardiographically after 12 months. The median follow-up was 1.7 years with a cumulative follow-up time of 115.3 patient years. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.5 ± 6.2 years and the mean logistic Euroscore was 11.6 ± 3.1%. Concomitant mitral valve repair was performed in 43 cases (74.1%), and mitral valve replacement in 15 cases (19.0%). The mean cross-clamp time was 93 ± 21 minutes along with a mean bypass time of 118 ± 24 minutes. All-cause mortality after 30 days was 8.6%. Overall actuarial survival at 1 year was 87.2 ± 4.5% and after 2 years 82.8 ± 5.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in multiple valve surgery can be performed safely with good intermediate outcomes in elderly, high-risk patients.

Mid-Term Outcomes after Transapical and Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis and Porcelain Aorta with a Systematic Review of Transfemoral versus Transapical Approach.

BACKGROUND: We have aimed to analyze early and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing transapical/transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-/TF-TAVI) for aortic stenosis and porcelain aorta (PAo) in our institution. Additionally, we postulated that the TA approach may be associated with a more favorable neurological outcome than the TF approach; hence, a systematic literature review was conducted. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2017, 15 patients with PAo underwent TA-TAVI and 4 patients with PAo TF-TAVI at our institution. The assessment of PAo was done either intraoperatively after aborted sternotomy or via computed tomography for elective TAVI. We conducted mid-term follow-up. Furthermore, a systematic review was performed to compare the mortality and neurological outcomes of TF and TA-TAVI approaches. RESULTS: TA/TF-TAVIs were performed with 100% device success, without paravalvular leakage ≥ 2 and without procedural death. The 30-day mortality/stroke rates were 6.6%/0% in TA-TAVI and 0%/25% in TF-TAVI, respectively. The 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year survival rates were in TA/TF-TAVI 93%/75%, 82%/66.6%, and 50%/0%, respectively.The pooled results derived from the literature review were as follows: The prevalence of PAo in the TAVI population is 9.74%; the mean logistic EuroSCORE is 41.9% in TA-TAVI versus 16.2% in TF-TAVI; the mean 30-day mortality is 5.9% in TA-TAVI versus 6.3% in TF-TAVI, and the mean stroke is 0.8% in TA-TAVI versus 9% in TF-TAVI. CONCLUSION: TA-TAVI shows promising early and mid-term outcomes in patients with PAo. TF-TAVI performed in patients with PAo is likely to be associated with higher rates of stroke than TA-TAVI.

Open transcatheter aortic valve implantation on a degenerated bioprosthetic valve conduit.

The degeneration of bioprosthetic aortic Conduit with hemodynamic dysfunction mostly requires a re-do surgery, which is associated with an increased perioperative risk. Considering this, an open implantation of a transcatheter aortic bioprothesis (TAVI) after resection of the degenerated valve leaflets could be of great benefit, reducing cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass duration, especially in combined surgery in high-risk patients. This is a case of a high-risk female (78 years, EuroScore 59%) treated with an open TAVI as an alternative to conventional valve or aortic conduit replacement for degenerative aortic valve due to endocarditis lente, 2 years following a bio-Bentall procedure.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in a minimal access setting: intermediate clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Transcatheter procedures have overtaken conventional operations in Germany. Considering that this is a highly competitive field, a rate of 25% for minimal access aortic valve replacement seems to be disappointingly low. One way to promote minimal access techniques is through the systematic use of rapid deployment valves. METHODS: A total of 143 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via upper right hemisternotomy between March 2012 and September 2015. All patients were followed up annually. Echocardiographic assessment of the valve was performed after 12 months. The cumulative follow-up time was 275.2 patient-years. The median follow-up time was 1.9 years. RESULTS: The mean age was 76.4 ± 6.2 years, and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 11.0 ± 4.3%. Early all-cause mortality was 2.8% (n = 4). Actuarial survival after 1 year was 91.6 ± 2.4%, and after 3 years, it was 84.4 ± 3.6%. Mean transprosthetic gradient after 12 months was 10.3 ± 3.8 mmHg. New onset of higher grade paravalvular leakage did not occur during the follow-up period. Perioperatively, higher grade paravalvular leakage (aortic insufficiency >1+) occurred in 2 cases (1.4%) . CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement can be performed safely in a minimal access setting with low complication rates and good haemodynamic results. Therefore, rapid deployment valves are a relevant option in minimal access surgery.

The Use of Rapid Deployment Valves in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Surgery: One-Year Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing multiple valve surgery represent a high-risk group who could potentially benefit from a reduction of cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times because prolonged bypass and cross-clamp times are considered independent risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Between July 2013 and November 2014, 16 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY valve system in the setting of concomitant mitral disease. Fifteen patients showed mitral regurgitation, whereas one patient had severe mitral stenosis. Fourteen patients received mitral valve repair and two patients received biological mitral valve replacement. Tricuspid valve repair was performed additionally in two patients. The mean ± SD age was 72.8 ± 8.4 years, and the mean ± SD logistic EuroSCORE II is 8.7% ± 3.4%. RESULTS: Within a 30-day perioperative period, no patient was lost (n = 0). The mean ± SD follow-up time was 11 ± 2 months. At 1 year, the overall survival was 81% (n = 13). A mean ± SD transaortic gradient of 10.7 ± 2.3 mm Hg and a mean ± SD effective orifice area of 1.7 ± 0.3 cm were measured echocardiographically. No higher-grade paravalvular leak (aortic insufficiency > 1+) occurred. Eight patients (61%) had no residual mitral regurgitation, four patients (30%) showed trivial regurgitation (1/4), and one patient (7.3%) had moderate mitral regurgitation (2/4). No interference of the subannular stent frame with the reconstructed valve or the biological mitral prosthesis was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY valve system in combined aortic and mitral valve surgery can be performed safely with reproducible results. One-year follow-up data of this small series shows encouraging results potentially justifying the extension of the indication for rapid deployment valves to patients with concomitant mitral disease. Especially elderly patients undergoing multiple valve surgery may benefit from a reduction of cardiopulmonary bypass and myocardial ischemic times.

Aortic Valve Replacement with the Labcor TLPB Supra™ Porcine Bioprosthesis: Intermediate Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Labcor TBLP Supra™ prosthesis is a second-generation tissue valve that has evolved from the Labcor TBLP™ prosthesis, first introduced in 1984. The Supra prosthesis is a triple-composite porcine valve, with no specific anticalcification treatment being used in its production other than standard tissue fixation with 0.4% glutaraldehyde. To date, more than 100,000 Supra valves have been implanted, mainly in South America. Despite this remarkably high number of implants, only marginal data exist concerning durability and safety issues. Hence, the study aim was to analyze short-term and intermediate outcomes relating to the clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Supra valve, as well as complication rates METHODS: A follow up study was initiated to evaluate outcomes and durability of the Labcor Supra prosthesis. Between September 2004 and October 2010, a total of 331 patients (mean age 75.8 ± 7.2 years; mean logistic EuroSCORE 8.5 ± 2.3%) underwent aortic valve replacement using the Supra porcine bioprosthesis. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 4.8% (n = 16). The overall actuarial five-year survival was 72.3 ± 4.9%, and eight-year survival was 60.4 ± 5.6%. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 96.3 ± 2.4% after five years, and 92.5 ± 3.5% after eight years. Actuarial freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) was 99.7 ± 0.3% at five years, and 97.2 ± 0.8% at eight years; actuarial freedom from thromboembolism was 97.5 ± 1.0% and 95.7 ± 1.6% at these times. Actuarial freedom from event rates for endocarditis were 99.5 ± 0.3% and 96.8 ± 0.6%, and 96.1 ± 0.9% and 93.0 ± 1.4% for reoperation CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of increased rates of SVD. All parameters studied were comparable to those examined for other second-generation porcine prostheses. Further long-term follow up investigations are required however, for the final judgment of this prosthesis.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in the setting of concomitant mitral valve procedures.

The technique of rapid deployment aortic valve implantation in patients with concomitant mitral valve surgery is described and the outcome of our first 25 patients reported.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement after Previous Mechanical Valve Implantation.

Recent studies report a reproducible reduction of myocardial ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times along with excellent hemodynamics and low rates of paravalvular leakage for rapid-deployment valves. A 68-year-old female patient with aortic stenosis and a mechanical mitral valve which was implanted in 2006 received rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. The procedure could be performed with a cross-clamp time of 45 minutes and a cardiopulmonary bypass time of 60 minutes. Postoperative course was uncomplicated and the patient was discharged to the referring hospital on postoperative day 8.

Haemodynamic benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive approach: 1-year results of a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may provide clinical benefits in patients with aortic valve disease. A new class of bioprosthetic valves that enable rapid deployment AVR (RDAVR) may facilitate MIS. We here report the 1-year results of a randomized, multicentre trial comparing the outcomes for MIS-RDAVR with those for conventional AVR via full sternotomy (FS) with a commercially available stented aortic bioprosthesis. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with aortic stenosis were enrolled in a prospective, multicentre, randomized comparison trial (CADENCE-MIS). Key exclusion criteria included AVR requiring concomitant procedures, ejection fraction of <25% and recent myocardial infarction or stroke. Patients were randomized to undergo MIS-RDAVR via upper hemisternotomy (EDWARDS INTUITY) or AVR via FS with a commercially available stented valve. Procedural, early and late clinical outcomes were assessed for both groups. Haemodynamic performance was evaluated by an echocardiography CoreLaboratory. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 94% of MIS-RDAVR patients. MIS-RDAVR was associated with significantly reduced cross-clamp times compared with FS (41.3 ± 20.3 vs 54.0 ± 20.3 min, P < 0.001). Clinical and functional outcomes were similar at 30 days and 1 year postoperatively for both groups. While both groups received a similarly sized implanted valve (22.9 ± 2.1 mm MIS-RDAVR vs 23.0 ± 2.1 mm FS-AVR; P = 0.91), MIS-RDAVR patients had significantly lower peak gradients 1 year postoperatively (16.9 ± 5.3 vs 21.9 ± 8.6 mmHg; P = 0.033) and a trend towards lower mean gradients (9.1 ± 2.9 vs 11.5 ± 4.3 mmHg; P = 0.082). In addition, MIS-RDAVR patients had a significantly larger effective orifice area 1 year postoperatively (1.9 ± 0.5 vs 1.7 ± 0.4 cm2; P = 0.047). Paravalvular leaks, however, were significantly more common in the MIS-RDAVR group (P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: MIS-RDAVR is associated with a significantly reduced cross-clamp time and better valvular haemodynamic function than FS-AVR. However, paravalvular leak rates are higher with MIS-RDAVR.

Simultaneous double valve-in-valve TAVI procedure for failed bioprostheses.

A 78-year-old female patient who had undergone double valve replacement in 2010 presented in 2014 with severe New York Heart Association grade IV dyspnea. The decision was made to perform a transapical valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedure in the mitral and aortic positions simultaneously. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was extubated 6 hours after the TAVI procedure.

A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical procedures (MIS) may offer several advantages over conventional full sternotomy (FS) aortic valve replacement (AVR). A novel class of aortic valve prostheses has been developed for rapid-deployment AVR (RDAVR). We report a randomized, multicenter trial comparing the outcomes for MIS-RDAVR with those of conventional FS-AVR. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with aortic stenosis were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, randomized comparison trial (CADENCE-MIS). Exclusion criteria included ejection fraction below 25%, AVR requiring concomitant procedures, and recent myocardial infarction or stroke. Patients were randomized to undergo MIS-RDAVR through an upper hemisternotomy (n = 51) or AVR by FS with a conventional stented bioprosthesis (n = 49). Three patients were excluded before the procedure, and 3 more patients who were randomized to undergo RDAVR were excluded because of their anatomy. Procedural, early clinical outcomes, and functional outcomes were assessed for the remaining 94 patients. Hemodynamic performance was assessed by an echocardiography core laboratory. RESULTS: Implanted valve sizes were similar between groups (22.9 ± 2.1 vs 23.0 ± 2.1 mm, p = 0.9). MIS-RDAVR was associated with significantly reduced aortic cross-clamp times compared with FS-AVR (41.3 ± 20.3 vs 54.0 ± 20.3 minutes, p < 0.001), although cardiopulmonary bypass times were similar (68.8 ± 29.0 vs 74.4 ± 28.4 minutes, p = 0.21). Early clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups, including quality of life measures. The RDAVR patients had a significantly lower mean transvalvular gradient (8.5 vs 10.3 mm Hg, p = 0.044) and a lower prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (0% vs 15.0%, p = 0.013) 3 months postoperatively compared with the FS-AVR patients. CONCLUSIONS: RDAVR by the MIS approach is associated with significantly reduced myocardial ischemic time and better valvular hemodynamic function than FS-AVR with a conventional stented bioprosthesis. Rapid deployment valves may facilitate the performance of MIS-AVR.