Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Sutureless Valves:Results From an International Prospective Registry

Objective: To report the early and mid-term results of patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) with a sutureless prosthesis from an international prospective registry. Methods: Between March 2011 and September 2018, among 957 patients included in the prospective observational SURE-AVR (Sorin Universal REgistry on Aortic Valve Replacement) registry, 480 patients underwent MI-AVR with self-expandable Perceval aortic bioprosthesis (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) in 29 international institutions through either minithoracotomy (n = 266) or ministernotomy (n = 214). Postoperative, follow-up, and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed for all patients. Results: Patient age was 76.1 ± 7.1 years; 64.4% were female. Median EuroSCORE I was 7.9% (interquartile range [IQR], 4.8 to 10.9). Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 81 minutes (IQR 64 to 100) and 51 minutes (IQR 40 to 63). First successful implantation was achieved in 97.9% of cases. Two in-hospital deaths occurred, 1 for noncardiovascular causes and 1 following a disabling stroke. In the early (≤30 days) period, stroke rate was 1.4%. Three early explants were reported: 2 due to nonstructural valve dysfunction (NSVD) and 1 for malpositioning. One mild and 1 moderate paravalvular leak were reported. In 16 patients (3.3%) pacemaker implantation was needed. Mean follow-up was 2.4 years (maximum = 7 years). During follow-up 5 explants were reported, 3 due to endocarditis and 2 due to NSVD. Follow-up stroke rate was 2.5%. Three structural valve deteriorations not requiring reintervention were reported. Five-year survival was 91.45%. Conclusions: In this large prospective international registry, MI-AVR with Perceval valve confirmed to be safe, reproducible, and effective in an intermediate-risk population, providing excellent clinical recovery both in early and mid-term follow-up

Sutureless and rapid deployment implantation in bicuspid aortic valve: results from the sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement international registry.

Background Benefits of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) bioprostheses in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are controversial. The aim of this study is to report the outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for BAV from the Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR). Methods Of the 4,636 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2007 and 2018, 191 (4.1%) BAV patients underwent AVR with SURD valve. Results Overall 30-day mortality was 1.6%. The Intuity valve was implanted in 53.9% of cases, whereas the Perceval was implanted in 46.1%. Rate of stroke for isolated AVR was 4.2%. No case of endocarditis, thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, valve dislocation or structural valve deterioration was reported in the early phase. Rate of pacemaker implantation and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR) were 7.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Conclusions BAV is not considered a contraindication for the implantation of SURD valves. However, detailed information of aortic root geometry as well as the knowledge of some technical considerations are mandatory for a good outcome

Extracorporeal life support in mitral papillary muscle rupture: Outcome of multicenter study

Background: Post-acute myocardial infarction papillary muscle rupture (post-AMI PMR) may present variable clinical scenarios and degree of emergency due to result of cardiogenic shock. Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (V-A ECLS) has been proposed to improve extremely poor pre- or postoperative conditions. Information in this respect is scarce.Methods: From the CAUTION (meChanical complicAtion of acUte myocardial infarcTion: an InternatiOnal multiceNter cohort study) database (16 different Centers, data from 2001 to 2018), we extracted adult patients who were surgically treated for post-AMI PMR and underwent pre- or/and postoperative V-A ECLS support. The end-points of this study were in-hospital survival and ECLS complications.Results: From a total of 214 post-AMI PMR patients submitted to surgery, V-A ECLS was instituted in 23 (11%) patients. The median age was 61.7 years (range 46-81 years). Preoperatively, ECLS was commenced in 10 patients (43.5%), whereas intra/postoperative in the remaining 13. The most common V-A ECLS indication was post-cardiotomy shock, followed by preoperative cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. The median duration of V-A ECLS was 4 days. V-A ECLS complications occurred in more than half of the patients. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 39.2% (9/23), compared to 22% (42/219) for the non-ECLS group.Conclusions: In post-AMI PMR patients, V-A ECLS was used in almost 10% of the patients either to promote bridge to surgery or as postoperative support. Further investigations are required to better evaluate a potential for increased use and its effects of V-A ECLS in such a context based on the still high perioperative mortality