Changes in Left Ventricular Torsion Early Postoperatively After Aortic Valve Replacement and at Long-Term Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE In patients with aortic stenosis, left ventricular systolic torsion (pT) is increased to overcome excessive afterload. This study assessed left ventricular torsion before and immediately after surgical valve replacement and tested the instant effect of fluid loading. DESIGN Prospective, clinical single-center study. SETTING Intensive care unit of a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS 12 patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. INTERVENTIONS Echocardiography was performed on the day before surgery, within 18 hours after surgery including a fluid challenge, and after 2.5 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS pT decreased early postoperatively by 21.2% (23.4° ± 5.6° to 18.4° ± 6.9°; p = 0.012) and reached preoperative values at 2.5 years follow-up (24 ± 7). Peak diastolic untwisting velocity occurred later early postoperatively (13% ± 8% to 21% ± 9.4%; p = 0.019) and returned toward preoperative values at follow-up (10.2 ± 4.7°). The fluid challenge increased central venous pressure (8 ± 4 mmHg to 11 ± 4 mmHg; p = 0.003) and reduced peak systolic torsion velocity (138.7 ± 37.6/s to 121.3 ± 32/s; p = 0.032). pT decreased in 3 and increased in 8 patients after fluid loading. Patients whose pT increased had higher early mitral inflow velocity postoperatively (p = 0.04) than those with decreasing pT. Patients with reduced pT after fluid loading received more fluids (p = 0.04) and had a higher positive fluid balance during the intensive care unit stay (p = 0.03). Torsion after fluid loading correlated with total fluid input (p = 0.001) and cumulative fluid balance (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS pT decreased early after aortic valve replacement but remained elevated despite elimination of aortic stenosis. After 2.5 years, torsion had returned to preoperative levels.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SU-AVR-IR): design and rationale from the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG).

BACKGROUND Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) is an innovative approach which shortens cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp durations and may facilitate minimally invasive approach. Evidence outlining its safety, efficacy, hemodynamic profile and potential complications is replete with small-volume observational studies and few comparative publications. METHODS Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and high-volume SU-AVR replacement centers were contacted for recruitment into a global collaborative coalition dedicated to sutureless valve research. A Research Steering Committee was formulated to direct research and support the mission of providing registry evidence warranted for SU-AVR. RESULTS The International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG) was formed under the auspices of the Research Steering Committee, comprised of 36 expert valvular surgeons from 27 major centers across the globe. IVSSG Sutureless Projects currently proceeding include the Retrospective and Prospective Phases of the SU-AVR International Registry (SU-AVR-IR). CONCLUSIONS The global pooling of data by the IVSSG Sutureless Projects will provide required robust clinical evidence on the safety, efficacy and hemodynamic outcomes of SU-AVR.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has emerged as an innovative alternative for treatment of aortic stenosis. By avoiding the placement of sutures, this approach aims to reduce cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) duration and thereby improve surgical outcomes and facilitate a minimally invasive approach suitable for higher risk patients. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of SU-AVR approach in the current literature. METHODS Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to January 2014. Relevant studies utilizing sutureless valves for aortic valve implantation were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints. RESULTS Twelve studies were identified for inclusion of qualitative and quantitative analyses, all of which were observational reports. The minimally invasive approach was used in 40.4% of included patients, while 22.8% underwent concomitant coronary bypass surgery. Pooled cross-clamp and CPB duration for isolated AVR was 56.7 and 46.5 minutes, respectively. Pooled 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 2.1% and 4.9%, respectively, while the incidences of strokes (1.5%), valve degenerations (0.4%) and paravalvular leaks (PVL) (3.0%) were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation of current observational evidence suggests that sutureless aortic valve implantation is a safe procedure associated with shorter cross-clamp and CPB duration, and comparable complication rates to the conventional approach in the short-term.

Mechanical versus biological aortic valve replacement strategies.

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the most frequently performed procedure in valve surgery. The controversy about the optimal choice of the prosthetic valve is as old as the technique itself. Currently there is no perfect valve substitute available. The main challenge is to choose between mechanical and biological prosthetic valves. Biological valves include pericardial (bovine, porcine or equine) and native porcine bioprostheses designed in stented or stentless versions. Homografts and pulmonary autografts are reserved for special indications and will not be discussed in detail in this review. We will focus on the decision making between artificial biological and mechanical prostheses, respectively. The first part of this article reviews guideline recommendations concerning the choice of aortic prostheses in different clinical situations while the second part is focused on novel strategies in the treatment of patients with aortic valve pathology.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).

Cerebral Microembolization During Aortic Valve Replacement Using Minimally Invasive or Conventional Extracorporeal Circulation: A Randomized Trial.

To compare intraoperative cerebral microembolic load between minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) during isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we conducted a randomized trial in patients undergoing primary elective SAVR at a tertiary referral hospital. The primary outcome was the procedural phase-related rate of high-intensity transient signals (HITS) on transcranial Doppler ultrasound. HITS rate was used as a surrogate of cerebral microembolism in pre-defined procedural phases in SAVR using MiECC or CECC with (+F) or without (-F) an oxygenator with integrated arterial filter. Forty-eight patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to MiECC or CECC. Due to intraprocedural Doppler signal loss (n = 3), 45 patients were included in final analysis. MiECC perfusion regimen showed a significantly increased HITS rate compared to CECC (by a factor of 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.56). This was due to different HITS rates in procedural phases from aortic cross-clamping until declamping [phase 4] (P = 0.01), and from aortic declamping until stop of extracorporeal perfusion [phase 5] (P = 0.05). Post hoc analysis revealed that MiECC-F generated a higher HITS rate than CECC+F (P = 0.005), CECC-F (P = 0.05) in phase 4, and CECC-F (P = 0.03) in phase 5, respectively. In open-heart surgery, MiECC is not superior to CECC with regard to gaseous cerebral microembolism. When using MiECC for SAVR, the use of oxygenators with integrated arterial line filter appears highly advisable. Only with this precaution, MiECC confers a cerebral microembolic load comparable to CECC during this type of open heart surgery.

Safety and Use of Anticoagulation After Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprostheses: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend 3 months of anticoagulation after replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis. However, there remains great variability in the current clinical practice and conflicting results from clinical studies. To assist clinical decision making, we pooled the existing evidence to assess whether anticoagulation in the setting of a new bioprosthesis was associated with improved outcomes or greater risk of bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched the PubMed database from the inception of these databases until April 2015 to identify original studies (observational studies or clinical trials) that assessed anticoagulation with warfarin in comparison with either aspirin or no antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. We included the studies if their outcomes included thromboembolism or stroke/transient ischemic attacks and bleeding events. Quality assessment was performed in accordance with the Newland Ottawa Scale, and random effects analysis was used to pool the data from the available studies. I(2) testing was done to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. After screening through 170 articles, a total of 13 studies (cases=6431; controls=18210) were included in the final analyses. The use of warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.08; P<0.0001) or bleeding risk at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.34; P<0.0001) compared with aspirin or placebo. With regard to composite primary outcome variables (risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or transient ischemic attack) at 3 months, no significant difference was seen with warfarin (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P=0.67). Moreover, anticoagulation was also not shown to improve outcomes at time interval >3 months (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.58; P=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the current guidelines, a meta-analysis of previous studies suggests that anticoagulation in the setting of an aortic bioprosthesis significantly increases bleeding risk without a favorable effect on thromboembolic events. Larger, randomized controlled studies should be performed to further guide this clinical practice.

Aortic valve replacement through the upper ministernotomy. Preliminary experience with modified technique

Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve surgery has been developed since 1995, reducing the complications related to the full sternotomy. We have introduced a new method for central cannulation that reduces the length of surgical incision for the aortic valve replacement through upper mini-sternotomy. To improve the surgical view without enlargement of the incision, two small additional incisions are performed for both arterial and atrial cannulation. We have used the modified technique in 60 patients without sternal infection or other surgical complications and with good cosmetic results. Cardiac surgery - Aortic valve replacement - Minimally invasive approach.