The triple-orifice repair: a new technique for the treatment of mitral regurgitation in severe Barlow's disease.

We report a case of severe Barlow's disease with a very complex pathology, in which we applied the "edge-to-edge" technique, creating a triple-orifice mitral valve. Different techniques should be used to correct a similar valve defect; the combination of different surgical procedures and the valve pathology may influence the post-repair recurrence of regurgitation. We believe that it is better to perform a simple and reproducible repair than to carry on with combined complex procedures that could increase the risk of a suboptimal outcome

A comparison of conventional surgery, transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and sutureless valves in "real-world" patients with aortic stenosis and intermediate- to high-risk profile.

Objective We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis and an intermediate- to high-risk profile treated by means of conventional surgery (surgical aortic valve replacement), sutureless valve implantation, or transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a multicenter evaluation. Methods Among 991 consecutive patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis and an intermediate- to high-risk profile (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score >4 and logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I >10), a propensity score analysis was performed on the basis of the therapeutic strategy: surgical aortic valve replacement (n = 204), sutureless valve implantation (n = 204), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 204). Primary end points were 30-day mortality and overall survival at 24-month follow-up; the secondary end point was survival free from a composite end point of major adverse cardiac events (defined as cardiac-related mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and major hemorrhagic events) and periprosthetic regurgitation greater than 2. Results Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement group (surgical aortic valve replacement = 3.4% vs sutureless = 5.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement = 9.8%; P =.005). The incidence of postprocedural was 3.9% in asurgical aortic valve replacement vs 9.8% in sutureless vs 14.7% in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (P<.001) and peripheral vascular complications occurred in 0% of surgicalaortic valve replacement vs 0% of sutureless vs 9.8% transcatheter aortic valve replacement (P<.001). At 24-month follow-up, overall survival (surgical aortic valve replacement = 91.3% ± 2.4% vs sutureless = 94.9% ± 2.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement = 79.5% ± 4.3%; P <.001) and survival free from the composite end point of major adverse cardiovascular events and periprosthetic regurgitation were significantly better in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement and sutureless valve implantation than in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (surgical aortic valve replacement = 92.6% ± 2.3% vs sutureless = 96% ± 1.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement = 77.1% ± 4.2%; P <.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified transcatheter aortic valve replacement as an independent risk factor for overall mortality hazard ratio (hazard ratio, 2.5; confidence interval, 1.1-4.2; P =.018). Conclusions The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk profile was associated with a significantly higher incidence of perioperative complications and decreased survival at short- and mid-term when compared with conventional surgery and sutureless valve implantation

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

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 valveswas 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 tomographic 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

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

To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement.status: publishe

Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an International Expert Consensus Panel

OBJECTIVES - After a panel process, recommendations on the use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in aortic valve replacement were given with special respect as an alternative to stented valves. METHODS - Thirty-one international experts in both sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprostheses constituted the panel. After a thorough literature review, evidence-based recommendations were rated in a three-step modified Delphi approach by the experts. RESULTS - Literature research could identify 67 clinical trials, 4 guidelines and 10 systematic reviews for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 28 recommendations. After rating by the experts, 12 recommendations were identified and degree of consensus for each was determined. Proctoring and education are necessary for the introduction of sutureless valves on an institutional basis as well as for the individual training of surgeons. Sutureless and rapid deployment should be considered as the valve prosthesis of first choice for isolated procedures in patients with comorbidities, old age, delicate aortic wall conditions such as calcified root, porcelain aorta or prior implantation of aortic homograft and stentless valves as well as for concomitant procedures and small aortic roots to reduce cross-clamp time. Intraoperative transoesophageal echocardiography is highly recommended, and in case of right anterior thoracotomy, preoperative computer tomography is strongly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19–27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for Type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. Careful but complete decalcification of the aortic root is recommended to avoid paravalvular leakage; extensive decalcification should be avoided not to create annular defects. Proximal anastomoses of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting should be placed during a single aortic cross-clamp period or alternatively with careful side clamping. Available evidence suggests that the use of sutureless and rapid deployment valve is associated with (can translate into) reduced early complications such as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions and renal replacement therapy, respectively, and may result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay in comparison with traditional valves. CONCLUSION - The international experts recommend various benefits of sutureless and rapid deployment technology, which may represent a helpful tool in aortic valve replacement for patients requiring a biological valve. However, further evidence will be needed to reaffirm the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves

Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an International Expert Consensus Panel

After a panel process, recommendations on the use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in aortic valve replacement were given with special respect as an alternative to stented valves.status: publishe

Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis

International audienceObjective: Sutureless aortic valves are a novel option for aortic valve replacement. We sought to demonstrate noninferiority of sutureless versus standard bioprostheses in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.Methods: The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients were randomized (March 2016 to September 2018) to aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or stented valve using conventional or minimally invasive approach. Primary outcome was freedom from major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention) at 1 year.Results: At 47 centers (12 countries), 910 patients were randomized to sutureless (n = 453) or conventional stented (n = 457) valves; mean ages were 75.4 ± 5.6 and 75.0 ± 6.1 years, and 50.1% and 44.9% were female, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were 2.4 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 1.3, and a ministernotomy approach was used in 50.4% and 47.3%, respectively. Concomitant procedures were performed with similar rates in both groups. Noninferiority was demonstrated for major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year, whereas aortic valve hemodynamics improved equally in both groups. Use of sutureless valves significantly reduced surgical times (mean extracorporeal circulation times: 71.0 ± 34.1 minutes vs 87.8 ± 33.9 minutes; mean crossclamp times: 48.5 ± 24.7 vs 65.2 ± 23.6; both P < .0001), but resulted in a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs 3.6% at 1 year). Incidences of perivalvular and central leak were similar.Conclusions: Sutureless valves were noninferior to stented valves with respect to major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (alone or with coronary artery bypass grafting). This suggests that sutureless valves should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program