The First 100 Cases of Two Innovations Combined: Video-Assisted Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy Using a Novel Aortic Prosthesis.
Aortic valve replacement
INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve
Minimally invasive valve surgery
Journal
Advances in therapy
ISSN: 1865-8652
Titre abrégé: Adv Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8611864
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
17
02
2021
accepted:
10
03
2021
pubmed:
1
4
2021
medline:
22
5
2021
entrez:
31
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) is less traumatic than via other surgical routes; using a novel aortic valve may confer long-term resistance against valve deterioration, and thus be useful in younger, more active patients. Here we aim to validate using the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve with minimally invasive RAMT. Between April 2017 and June 2019, 100 patients underwent video-assisted minimally invasive AVR by RAMT, using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. Cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was through femoral vessels. Clinical data were prospectively entered into our institutional database. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping times were 79 ± 38 and 41 ± 17 min. Surgical access was successful in 100% of cases. There were no cases of intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular events, rethoracotomy for bleeding, valve-related reoperation, right internal mammary artery injury, or conversion to sternotomy. Intensive care and hospital stays were 2 ± 1 and 6 ± 3 days, respectively. One patient had a pacemaker fitted. Postoperative dialysis was necessary in one patient. Trace to mild aortic valve regurgitation occurred in two patients. No structural valve deterioration (SVD) and paravalvular leak were seen. At 1-year follow-up mean effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.8 ± 0.1 cm Our preliminary experience suggests that RAMT for AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve is safe, effective, and reproducible. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and durability of this new valve.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33788152
doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01705-x
pii: 10.1007/s12325-021-01705-x
pmc: PMC8010499
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
2435-2446Références
Wang Q, Xi W, Gao Y, et al. Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve repair: a propensity-matched comparison. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018;26(5):805–12.
doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivx402
Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10034):2218–25.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30073-3
Olds A, Saadat S, Azzolini A, et al. Improved operative and recovery times with mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;14(1):91.
doi: 10.1186/s13019-019-0912-0
Ribeiro IB, Ruel M. Right anterior minithoracotomy for aortic valve replacement: a widely applicable, simple, and stepwise approach. Innovations (Phila). 2019;14(4):321–9.
doi: 10.1177/1556984519844745
Del Giglio M, Mikus E, Nerla R, et al. Right anterior mini-thoracotomy vs. conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(3):1588–95.
De La Fuente AB, Wright GA, Olin JM, et al. Advanced integrity preservation technology reduces bioprosthesis calcification while preserving performance and safety. J Heart Valve Dis. 2015;24(1):101–9.
Flameng W, Hermans H, Verbeken E, Meuris B. A randomized assessment of an advanced tissue preservation technology in the juvenile sheep model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(1):340–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.09.062
Puskas JD, Bavaria JE, Svensson LG, et al. The COMMENCE Trial: 2-year outcomes with an aortic bioprosthesis with RESILIA tissue. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52(3):432–9.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx158
Bartus K, Litwinowicz R, Bilewska A, et al. Intermediate-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a novel RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(7):3039–46.
doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.07.33
Bartus KBA, Bochenek M, et al. Five-year outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a bioprosthetic valve with the novel RESILIA tissue: final study results. Struct Heart. 2019;3(sup1):18.
doi: 10.1080/24748706.2019.1588539
Johnston DR, Griffith BP, Puskas JD, Bavaria JE, Svensson LG. Intermediate-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement using a bioprosthesis with a novel tissue. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.01.095 .
Glauber M, Miceli A, Gilmanov D, et al. Right anterior minithoracotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(5):1222–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.03.064
Chang C, Raza S, Altarabsheh SE, et al. Minimally invasive approaches to surgical aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(6):1881–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.018
Miceli A, Murzi M, Gilmanov D, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using right minithoracotomy is associated with better outcomes than ministernotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(1):133–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.07.060
Hahn RT, Pibarot P, Stewart WJ, et al. Comparison of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis: a longitudinal study of echocardiography parameters in cohort a of the PARTNER trial (placement of aortic transcatheter valves). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(25):2514–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.087
Holmes DR Jr, Nishimura RA, Grover FL, et al. Annual outcomes with transcatheter valve therapy: from the STS/ACC TVT registry. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(2):789–800.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.10.049
Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2187–98.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510
Pibarot P, Borger MA, Clavel MA, et al. Study design of the prospective non-randomized single-arm multicenter evaluation of the durability of aortic bioprosthetic valves with RESILIA tissue in subjects under 65 years old (RESILIENCE trial). Structural Heart. 2020;4(1):46–52.
Meuris B, Borger MA, Bourguignon T, et al. Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients under the age of 60 years - rationale and design of the international INDURE registry. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):119.
doi: 10.1186/s13019-020-01155-6
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(2):252–89.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011
Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;143(5):e35–e71.
Falk V, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52(4):616–64.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx324
Head SJ, Celik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(28):2183–91.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141
Puvimanasinghe JP, Steyerberg EW, Takkenberg JJ, et al. Prognosis after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis: predictions based on meta-analysis and microsimulation. Circulation. 2001;103(11):1535–41.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.103.11.1535
Biancari F, Valtola A, Juvonen T, et al. Trifecta versus PERIMOUNT Magna Ease aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;110(3):879–88.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.12.071
Lam KY, Koene B, Timmermans N, Soliman-Hamad M, van Straten A. Reintervention after aortic valve replacement: comparison of 3 aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;110(2):615–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.10.060
Theologou T, Harky A, Shaw M, et al. Mitroflow and PERIMOUNT Magna 10 years outcomes a direct propensity match analysis to assess reintervention rates and long follow-up mortality. J Card Surg. 2019;34(11):1279–87.
doi: 10.1111/jocs.14250
Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo AL, Candolfi P, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(3):831–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.09.030
Bourguignon T, El Khoury R, Candolfi P, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT aortic valve in patients aged 60 or younger. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(3):853–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.03.105
al-Khaja N, Belboul A, Rashid M, et al. The influence of age on the durability of Carpentier-Edwards biological valves. Thirteen years follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1991;5(12):635–40.
Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(4):1152–8.
doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00834-2
Potter DD, Sundt TM 3rd, Zehr KJ, et al. Operative risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(1):94–103.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.08.023
LaPar DJ, Yang Z, Stukenborg GJ, et al. Outcomes of reoperative aortic valve replacement after previous sternotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139(2):263–72.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.09.006
Chan V, Malas T, Lapierre H, et al. Reoperation of left heart valve bioprostheses according to age at implantation. Circulation. 2011;124(11 Suppl):S75-80.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.011973
Milewski RK, Habertheuer A, Bavaria JE, et al. Selection of prosthetic aortic valve and root replacement in patients younger than age 30 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;157(2):714–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.06.102