Literature DB >> 22974713

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.

Augusto D'Onofrio1, Antonio Messina, Roberto Lorusso, Ottavio R Alfieri, Melissa Fusari, Paolo Rubino, Mauro Rinaldi, Roberto Di Bartolomeo, Mattia Glauber, Giovanni Troise, Gino Gerosa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this propensity-matched, multicenter study was to compare early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-TAVI) versus patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) for severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis.
METHODS: We reviewed 468 TA-TAVIs performed in 20 centers from April 2008 to May 2011, and 51 SU-AVRs performed in 3 centers from March to September 2011. Based on a propensity score analysis, 2 groups with 38 matched pairs were created. Variables used in the propensity analysis were age, sex, body surface area, New York Heart Association class, logistic EuroSCORE, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aortic valve area, mitral regurgitation, and left ventricular ejection fraction.
RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable. Hospital mortality was 5.3% and 0% in the TA-TAVI and SU-AVR groups, respectively (P = .49). We did not observe stroke or acute myocardial infarction in the 2 groups. Permanent pacemaker implantation was needed in 2 patients of each group (5.3%, P = 1.0). Dialysis was required in 2 patients (5.3%) in the SU-AVR group and in 1 patient (2.7%) in the TA-TAVI group (P = 1.0). Predischarge echocardiographic data showed that the incidence of paravalvular leak (at least mild) was greater in the TA-TAVI group (44.7% vs 15.8%, P = .001), but there were no differences in terms of mean transprosthetic gradient (10.3 ± 5 mm Hg vs 11 ± 3.7 mm Hg, P = .59).
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary experience showed that, in patients at high risk for conventional surgery, SU-AVR is as safe and effective as TA-TAVI and that it is associated with a lower rate of postprocedural paravalvular leak.
Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22974713     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  27 in total

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

Authors:  Marco Di Eusanio; Kevin Phan; Denis Bouchard; Thierry P Carrel; Otto E Dapunt; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Harald C Eichstaedt; Theodor Fischlein; Thierry Folliguet; Borut Gersak; Mattia Glauber; Axel Haverich; Martin Misfeld; Peter J Oberwalder; Giuseppe Santarpino; Malakh Lal Shrestha; Marco Solinas; Marco Vola; Francesco Alamanni; Alberto Albertini; Gopal Bhatnagar; Michel Carrier; Stephen Clark; Federic Collart; Utz Kappert; Alfred Kocher; Bart Meuris; Carmelo Mignosa; Ahmed Ouda; Marc Pelletier; Parwis Baradaran Rahmanian; David Reineke; Kevin Teoh; Giovanni Troise; Emmanuel Villa; Thorsten Wahlers; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

Review 2.  Sutureless aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Marco Di Eusanio; Kevin Phan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

Review 3.  Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Yi-Chin Tsai; Nithya Niranjan; Denis Bouchard; Thierry P Carrel; Otto E Dapunt; Harald C Eichstaedt; Theodor Fischlein; Borut Gersak; Mattia Glauber; Axel Haverich; Martin Misfeld; Peter J Oberwalder; Giuseppe Santarpino; Malakh Lal Shrestha; Marco Solinas; Marco Vola; Tristan D Yan; Marco Di Eusanio
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

4.  Immediate outcome after sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Fausto Biancari; Marco Barbanti; Giuseppe Santarpino; Wanda Deste; Corrado Tamburino; Simona Gulino; Sebastiano Immè; Emanuela Di Simone; Denise Todaro; Francesco Pollari; Theodor Fischlein; Keiichiro Kasama; Bart Meuris; Magnus Dalén; Ulrik Sartipy; Peter Svenarud; Jarmo Lahtinen; Jouni Heikkinen; Tatu Juvonen; Giuseppe Gatti; Aniello Pappalardo; Carmelo Mignosa; Antonino S Rubino
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 5.  Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions.

Authors:  Mattia Glauber; Matteo Ferrarini; Antonio Miceli
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-01

6.  Surgical Approaches to Aortic Valve Replacement and Repair-Insights and Challenges.

Authors:  Basel Ramlawi; Mahesh Ramchandani; Michael J Reardon
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2014-03

7.  eComment. Incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with a Perceval S valve.

Authors:  Jamil Hajj-Chahine
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-11

8.  Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: Outcomes in 70 High-Risk Patients Undergoing Concomitant Cardiac Procedures.

Authors:  Muhammet Onur Hanedan; Mehmet Ali Yuruk; Ali Ihsan Parlar; Ugur Ziyrek; Ali Kemal Arslan; Ufuk Sayar; Ilker Mataraci
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2018-02-01

9.  Experimental Study and Early Clinical Application Of a Sutureless Aortic Bioprosthesis.

Authors:  Walter J Gomes; João Carlos Leal; Fabio Biscegli Jatene; Nelson A Hossne; Renata Gabaldi; Glaucia Basso Frazzato; Guilherme Agreli; Domingo M Braile
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct

Review 10.  Advances in the management of severe aortic stenosis.

Authors:  K E O'Sullivan; S Bargenda; D Sugrue; J Hurley
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 1.568

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.