Literature DB >> 24928678

Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis.

Francesco Pollari1, Giuseppe Santarpino2, Angelo Maria Dell'Aquila3, Laszlo Gazdag2, Husam Alnahas2, Ferdinand Vogt2, Steffen Pfeiffer2, Theodor Fischlein2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time. However, whether shorter operative times may also result in improved patient outcomes and have an effect on hospital costs remains to be established.
METHODS: From March 2010 to April 2013, 566 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses; of these, 166 received a sutureless valve, and 400 received a stented valve. Redo and associated procedures were included. A propensity-score analysis was used to create two groups (sutureless and stented) with 82 matched pairs with comparable preoperative characteristics. Hospital outcome, follow-up, and health care resource consumption were compared.
RESULTS: There were 3 hospital deaths in the stented group and 2 in the sutureless group (p=0.65). Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the sutureless group (p<0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (1.2±1.3 vs 2.5±3.7 units, p=0.005), with a similar need for reexploration for bleeding (2 vs 5, p=0.221). The sutureless group had a shorter intensive care unit stay (2.0±1.2 vs 2.8±1.3 days, p<0.001), hospital stay (10.9±2.7 vs 12.4±4.4 days, p=0.001) and intubation time (9.5±4.6 vs 16.6±6.4 hours, p<0.001), and a lower incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (p=0.015), pleura effusions (p=0.024), and respiratory insufficiency (p=0.016). Pacemaker implantation and occurrence of neurologic events were similar between groups (p>0.05). A lower rate of postoperative complications resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group for diagnostics (€2,153 vs €1,387), operating room (€5,879 vs €5,527), and hospital stay (€9,873 vs €6,584), with a total cost saving of approximately 25% (€17,905 vs €13,498).
CONCLUSIONS: A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.
Copyright © 2014 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24928678     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.04.072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  25 in total

1.  Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perceval S Bioprosthesis Through Ministernotomy: A Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Krishan Ramsaransing; Vikash Hindori; Athiná Kougioumtzoglou; Abdullah Kaya; Eva Verbeek
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-10-28

2.  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 3.  Sutureless aortic valve replacement.

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

Review 4.  Sorin Perceval S aortic valve implantation through a mini-sternotomy approach.

Authors:  Giuseppe Santarpino; Francesco Pollari; Steffen Pfeiffer; Theodor Fischlein
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

5.  Hospital cost savings and other advantages of sutureless vs stented aortic valves for intermediate-risk elderly patients.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Minami; Sarah Sainte; Herbert De Praetere; Filip Rega; Willem Flameng; Peter Verbrugghe; Bart Meuris
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 2.549

6.  Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: A clinical and economic analysis.

Authors:  Emmanuel Villa; Margherita Dalla Tomba; Antonio Messina; Andrea Trenta; Federico Brunelli; Marco Cirillo; Zean Mhagna; Giovanni Alfonso Chiariello; Giovanni Troise
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 2.737

7.  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

Review 8.  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

9.  Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients.

Authors:  Declan Lloyd; Jessica G Y Luc; Ben Elias Indja; Vannessa Leung; Nelson Wang; Kevin Phan
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.895

10.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses.

Authors:  Domenico Paparella; Giuseppe Santarpino; Marco Moscarelli; Pietro Guida; Adriano De Santis; Khalil Fattouch; Luigi Martinelli; Roberto Coppola; Elisa Mikus; Alberto Albertini; Mauro Del Giglio; Renato Gregorini; Giuseppe Speziale
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-07-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.