Journal of Chest Surgery

  • 제57권3호
  • /
  • Pages.255-262
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2765-1606(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-1614(eISSN)
대한심장혈관흉부외과학회 (The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical Midterm Results of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with Sutureless Valves

  • Soonchang Hong (Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine) ;
  • Jung-Woo Son (Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine) ;
  • Yungjin Yoon (Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2023.10.10
  • 심사 : 2024.01.18
  • 발행 : 2024.05.05
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: Sutureless aortic valves may enable shorter procedure times, which benefits patients with elevated surgical risk. We describe the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the sutureless Perceval aortic bioprosthesis. Methods: Data from a retrospective cohort were obtained from a clinical database. The study enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent surgical AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis between August 2015 and December 2020. In total, 113 patients were included (mean age, 75.3±8.4 years; 57.5% women; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 9.7%; mean follow-up period, 51.19±20.6 months). Of these patients, 41 were octogenarians (36.2%) and 3 were nonagenarians (2.6%). Transthoracic echocardiography was employed to assess changes in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and mean pressure gradient (MPG). Results: The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.6%, and 13 patients developed new-onset atrial fibrillation. A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 3 patients (2.6%). The median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2 days), and the median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR, 9.5-15 days). The overall survival rate at 5 years was 95.9%. LVMI and MPG were reduced postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period. No structural valve deterioration was observed, and no meaningful paravalvular leakage developed during follow-up. Conclusion: The use of a sutureless valve in the aortic position is safe and feasible, even for high-risk elderly patients requiring surgical AVR. LVMI and MPG decreased postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Powell R, Pelletier MP, Chu MW, Bouchard D, Melvin KN, Adams C. The perceval sutureless aortic valve: review of outcomes, complications, and future direction. Innovations (Phila) 2017;12:155-73. https://doi.org/10.1097/imi.0000000000000372 
  2. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistre G, Fischlein T. Perceval sutureless aortic valve prosthesis: easy, fast, and safe. Innovations (Phila) 2011;6:378-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/imi.0b013e31824705f3 
  3. Gerfer S, Mauri V, Kuhn E, et al. Comparison of self-expanding RDV perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021;69:420-7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1722692 
  4. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015;28:1-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2014.10.003 
  5. Villa E, Dalla Tomba M, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: a clinical and economic analysis. Cardiol J 2019;26:56-65. https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.a2018.0098 
  6. Laborde F, Folliguet T, Ghorayeb G, Zannis K. Sutureless valves reduce hospital costs compared to traditional valves. J Heart Valve Dis 2017;26:1-8. 
  7. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597-607. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1008232 
  8. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1609-20. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1514616 
  9. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet 2016;387:2218-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30073-3 
  10. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2477-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60308-7 
  11. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1686-95. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1200384 
  12. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187-98. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1103510 
  13. Mugnai G, Moran D, Nijs J, et al. Electrocardiographic and clinical predictors of permanent pacemaker insertion following Perceval sutureless aortic valve implantation. J Electrocardiol 2019;56:10-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.06.004 
  14. Erdogan HB, Kayalar N, Ardal H, et al. Risk factors for requirement of permanent pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg 2006;21:211-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8191.2006.00216.x 
  15. Dawkins S, Hobson AR, Kalra PR, Tang AT, Monro JL, Dawkins KD. Permanent pacemaker implantation after isolated aortic valve replacement: incidence, indications, and predictors. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85:108-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.08.024 
  16. Laborde F, Fischlein T, Hakim-Meibodi K, et al. Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the Perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective European multicentre study (the Cavalier Trial). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;49:978-86. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv257 
  17. Vogt F, Moscarelli M, Nicoletti A, et al. Sutureless aortic valve and pacemaker rate: from surgical tricks to clinical outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2019;108:99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.12.037 
  18. Gonzalez Barbeito M, Estevez-Cid F, Pardo Martinez P, et al. Surgical technique modifies the postoperative atrioventricular block rate in sutureless prostheses. J Thorac Dis 2019;11:2945-54. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.07.27 
  19. Jiritano F, Cristodoro L, Malta E, Mastroroberto P. Thrombocytopenia after sutureless aortic valve implantation: comparison between Intuity and Perceval bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;152:1631-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.07.054 
  20. Weerasinghe A, Taylor KM. The platelet in cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:2145-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(98)00749-8 
  21. Thitivaraporn P, Chiramongkol S, Muntham D, et al. Thrombocytopenia in moderate- to high-risk sutureless aortic valve replacement. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018;51:172-9. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2018.51.3.172 
  22. Ranucci M, Frigiola A, Menicanti L, Castelvecchio S, de Vincentiis C, Pistuddi V. Aortic cross-clamp time, new prostheses, and outcome in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 2012;21:732-9. 
  23. Shrestha M, Folliguet TA, Pfeiffer S, et al. Aortic valve replacement and concomitant procedures with the Perceval valve: results of European trials. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;98:1294-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.033 
  24. Treibel TA, Kozor R, Schofield R, et al. Reverse myocardial remodeling following valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:860-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.035