Background
Suture-less aortic valves aim to achieve better outcomes and to aid and facilitate
the minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedure by tackling the issue of
cross-clamp time, which is an independent predictor of postoperative outcomes, especially
in patients with serious comorbidities. By reducing the number of sutures, the time
for suture placement is reduced. Our meta-analysis tried to assess the safety and
haemodynamic performance of the suture-less aortic valve prostheses to ascertain their
benefits as a viable alternative to current established measures.
Method
From their inceptions to February 2017, six electronic databases were searched. Relevant
studies using commercially accessible suture-free valves to replace the aortic valve
have been recognised. Based on the predefined endpoints, data were collected and analysed.
Results
For incorporation in qualitative and quantitative analyses, 24 studies were recognised,
with a total number of 5,073 patients undergoing suture-less aortic valve replacement.
Mortality incidence at the 30-day and 12-month follow-ups were 2.5% and 2.7%, respectively,
while the incidences of thromboembolic events (1.6%) and paravalvular leak (0.5%)
were acceptable.
Conclusions
Current available evidence indicates that sutureless aortic valve replacement is a
safe operation showing low mortality and complication rates, with satisfactory haemodynamic
performance.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Heart, Lung and CirculationAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population based study.Lancet. 2006; 368: 1005-1011
- Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in the adult.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011; 8: 162-172
- 2008 Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1988 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.Circulation. 2008; 118: e523-e661
- Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62: 1002-1012
- Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 137: 82-90
- Fourth EACTS Adult Cardiac Surgical Database Report: Towards Global Benchmarking.Dendrite Clinical Systems, Oxford2010
- Reliability of risk algorithms in predicting early and late operative outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 135: 180-187
- Risk stratification of patients with aortic stenosis.Eur Heart J. 2010; 31: 416-423
- Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery?.Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 2714-2720
- Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease).Circulation. 1998; 98: 1949-1984
- Aortic valve replacement in patients 80 years of age and older: survival and cause of death based on 1100 cases: collective results from the UK Heart Valve Registry.Circulation. 1997; 96: 3403-3408
- Quality of life in octogenarians after valve replacement due to aortic stenosis. A prospective comparison with younger patients.Eur Heart J. 1996; 17: 583-589
- Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized trial.J Heart Valve Dis. 2003; 12: 76-80
- Improved operative and recovery times with mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement.J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018; 14: 91
- Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions.Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 4: 26-32
- Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 4: 100-111
- Long-term outcomes of a rapid deployment aortic valve: data up to 5 years.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 52: 281-287
- Early outcomes with rapid- deployment vs stented biological valves: a propensity-match analysis.Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018; 30: 16-23
- Thrombocytopenia after sutureless aortic valve implantation: comparison between Intuity and perceval bioprostheses.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 152: 1631-1633
- Left bundle branch block after sutureless, transcatheter, and stented biological aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.EuroIntervention. 2017; 12: 1660-1666
- Sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative treatment for patients belonging to the “gray zone” between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conventional surgery: a propensity matched, multicenter analysis.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 144: 1010-1016
- Sutureless aortic valve replacement: an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation?.Curr Opin Cardiol. 2013; 28: 158-163
- Aortic cross-clamp time, newprostheses, and outcomein aortic valve replacement.J Heart Valve Dis. 2012; 21: 732-739
- Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve: Early outcomes and one-year survival from two European centers.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148: 2838-2843
- Sutureless aortic valve replacement.Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 4: 123-130
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 2: 10-23
- One-year outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018; 155: 575-585
- Haemodynamic benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive approach: 1-year results of a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 50: 713-720
- Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis:1-year outcomes in 150 patients.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017; 25: 68-74
- TRANSFORM (Multicenter Experience With Rapid Deployment Edwards INTUITY Valve System for Aortic Valve Replacement) US clinical trial: performance of a rapid deployment aortic valve.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017; 153: 241-251.e2
- Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: excellent results and increased effective orifice areas.Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 105: 24-30
- Rapid deployment valve system shortens operative times for aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy.J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 12: 27
- Five-year results of the pilot trial of a sutureless valve.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 150: 84-88
- Can Perceval sutureless valve reduce the rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch?.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 51: 1093-1099
- Early clinical results of Perceval sutureless aortic valve in 139 patients: freeman experience.Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2018; 33: 8-14
- Aortic valve replacement in elderly with small aortic root and low body surface area; the perceval S valve and its impact in effective orifice area.J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 11: 54
- Immediate outcome after sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Heart Vessels. 2016; 31: 427-433
- The sutureless aortic valve at 1 year: a large multicenter cohort study.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 151: 1617-1626.e4
- Perceval Less Invasive Aortic Replacement Register: multicentric Spanish experience with the Perceval S bioprosthesis in moderate–high-risk aortic surgery.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018; 26: 596-601
- Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a Canadian multicentre study.Can J Cardiol. 2015; 31: 63-68
- Initial experience with aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive approach: a comparison of stented, stentless and sutureless valves.Med Sci Monit. 2017; 23: 1645-1654
- 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.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 150: 1570-1579
- Sutureless versus stented valve in aortic valve replacement in patients with small annulus.Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102: 118-122
- Aortic valve replacement with Perceval bioprosthesis: single center experience with 617 implants.Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 105: 40-46
- Direct comparison of the Edwards Intuity Elite and Sorin Perceval S rapid deployment aortic valves.Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 105: 108-114
- A simple modification to lower incidence of heart block with sutureless valve implantation.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 152: 630-632
- Treating the patients in the ‘grey-zone’ with aortic valve disease: a comparison among conventional surgery, sutureless valves and transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015; 20: 90-95
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 08, 2020
Accepted:
February 15,
2020
Received in revised form:
January 23,
2020
Received:
September 17,
2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
