Literature DB >> 25441065

A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement.

Michael A Borger1, Vadim Moustafine2, Lenard Conradi3, Christoph Knosalla4, Markus Richter5, Denis R Merk6, Torsten Doenst5, Robert Hammerschmidt4, Hendrik Treede3, Pascal Dohmen6, Justus T Strauch2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical procedures (MIS) may offer several advantages over conventional full sternotomy (FS) aortic valve replacement (AVR). A novel class of aortic valve prostheses has been developed for rapid-deployment AVR (RDAVR). We report a randomized, multicenter trial comparing the outcomes for MIS-RDAVR with those of conventional FS-AVR.
METHODS: A total of 100 patients with aortic stenosis were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, randomized comparison trial (CADENCE-MIS). Exclusion criteria included ejection fraction below 25%, AVR requiring concomitant procedures, and recent myocardial infarction or stroke. Patients were randomized to undergo MIS-RDAVR through an upper hemisternotomy (n = 51) or AVR by FS with a conventional stented bioprosthesis (n = 49). Three patients were excluded before the procedure, and 3 more patients who were randomized to undergo RDAVR were excluded because of their anatomy. Procedural, early clinical outcomes, and functional outcomes were assessed for the remaining 94 patients. Hemodynamic performance was assessed by an echocardiography core laboratory.
RESULTS: Implanted valve sizes were similar between groups (22.9 ± 2.1 vs 23.0 ± 2.1 mm, p = 0.9). MIS-RDAVR was associated with significantly reduced aortic cross-clamp times compared with FS-AVR (41.3 ± 20.3 vs 54.0 ± 20.3 minutes, p < 0.001), although cardiopulmonary bypass times were similar (68.8 ± 29.0 vs 74.4 ± 28.4 minutes, p = 0.21). Early clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups, including quality of life measures. The RDAVR patients had a significantly lower mean transvalvular gradient (8.5 vs 10.3 mm Hg, p = 0.044) and a lower prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (0% vs 15.0%, p = 0.013) 3 months postoperatively compared with the FS-AVR patients.
CONCLUSIONS: RDAVR by the MIS approach is associated with significantly reduced myocardial ischemic time and better valvular hemodynamic function than FS-AVR with a conventional stented bioprosthesis. Rapid deployment valves may facilitate the performance of MIS-AVR.
Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25441065     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.09.022

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


  42 in total

Review 1.  Mini-Bentall procedure.

Authors:  Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

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.  Minimally invasive rapid deployment Edwards Intuity aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Michael A Borger
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

Review 5.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using the Perceval S sutureless valve.

Authors:  Martin Misfeld
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

6.  A mechanistic investigation of the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve's hemodynamic performance.

Authors:  Vahid Sadri; Charles H Bloodworth; Immanuel David Madukauwa-David; Prem A Midha; Vrishank Raghav; Ajit P Yoganathan
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-06-27

Review 7.  Aortic Valve Surgery: Minimally Invasive Options.

Authors:  Basel Ramlawi; Kareem Bedeir; Joseph Lamelas
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

Review 8.  Cardiac surgery 2015 reviewed.

Authors:  Torsten Doenst; Constanze Strüning; Alexandros Moschovas; David Gonzalez-Lopez; Yasin Essa; Hristo Kirov; Mahmoud Diab; Gloria Faerber
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 9.  Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Bilal H Kirmani; Sion G Jones; S C Malaisrie; Darryl A Chung; Richard Jnn Williams
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-10

10.  Conventional versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a single-centre comparison between the Edwards Magna valve and its rapid-deployment successor.

Authors:  Martin Andreas; Stephanie Wallner; Andreas Habertheuer; Claus Rath; Martin Schauperl; Thomas Binder; Dietrich Beitzke; Raphael Rosenhek; Christian Loewe; Dominik Wiedemann; Alfred Kocher; Guenther Laufer
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-03-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.