Literature DB >> 27523460

Rapid-Deployment Versus Conventional Bio-Prosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

Andrew L Smith1, William Y Shi1, Alexander Rosalion2, Michael Yii2, Michael O'Keefe2, Andrew E Newcomb3, Philip Davis1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RD-AVR) has burgeoned in recent years. There are few studies comparing RD-AVR to conventional aortic valve replacement (cAVR) and no studies where both were inserted via full sternotomy. As such, we reviewed our experience and compared the two approaches.
METHODS: From 2008 to 2015, 597 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement ± coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at a single centre. During this period, 41 (7%) patients received RD-AVR and 556 (93%) received cAVR. Of those receiving RD-AVR, surgical access was via full median sternotomy in 40 (98%). Propensity score matching yielded 41 matched pairs. Perioperative outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the RD-AVR group had shorter aortic cross clamp (X-clamp) (RD-AVR: 71±33min vs. cAVR: 106±42min, p<0.01) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (95±42min vs. 134±47min, p<0.01). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (RD-AVR: 2% vs. cAVR: 2%, p>0.99). RD-AVR patients required shorter mean ventilation (17±25 vs. 63±131hrs, p<0.01) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (51±45 vs. 108±157hrs, p=0.03) times. RD-AVR also had reduced rates of new postoperative atrial arrhythmias (8% vs. 20%, p=0.02). Total length of postoperative hospital stay was similar. Haemodynamic performance for the RD-AVR was within acceptable limits.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of RD-AVR results in shorter X-clamp and CPB times and is associated with reductions in perioperative morbidity. RD-AVR is becoming a valuable component of the surgeon's armamentarium in selected patients. Long-term follow-up will reveal the full potential of these devices. Crown
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic stenosis; Aortic valve; Cardiac surgical procedures; Cardiopulmonary bypass.; Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement; Thoracic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27523460     DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.06.1202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Lung Circ        ISSN: 1443-9506            Impact factor:   2.975


  4 in total

1.  Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kei Woldendorp; Mathew P Doyle; Paul G Bannon; Martin Misfeld; Tristan D Yan; Giuseppe Santarpino; Paolo Berretta; Marco Di Eusanio; Bart Meuris; Alfredo Giuseppe Cerillo; Pierluigi Stefàno; Niccolò Marchionni; Jacqueline K Olive; Tom C Nguyen; Marco Solinas; Giacomo Bianchi
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-09

2.  Direct comparison of rapid deployment versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Suk Ho Sohn; Yoonjin Kang; Ji Seong Kim; Jae Woong Choi; Myoung-Jin Jang; Ho Young Hwang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Mohammad Yousuf Salmasi; Sruthi Ramaraju; Iqraa Haq; Ryan A B Mohamed; Taimoor Khan; Faruk Oezalp; George Asimakopoulos; Shahzad G Raja
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 1.778

4.  Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes of Sutureless versus Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Yesim Guner; Ayse Çiçek; Mehmet Karacalilar; Burak Ersoy; Mugisha Kyaruzi; Burak Onan
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2022-05-23
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.