Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis.
cardiovascular research
valve repair/replacement
Journal
Journal of cardiac surgery
ISSN: 1540-8191
Titre abrégé: J Card Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8908809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
revised:
26
08
2021
received:
10
06
2021
accepted:
08
09
2021
pubmed:
8
10
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
7
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4734-4742Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Carabello BA, Paulus WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet. 2009;373(9667):956-966. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60211-7
Brown JM, O'Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JAH, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(1):82-90. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015
Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. clinical profile and natural history of 453 nonsurgically managed patients with severe aortic stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82(6):2111-2115. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.07.048
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. Circulation. 2017;135(25):e1159-e1195. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000503
Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1321-1331. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1700456
Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1706-1715. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1816885
Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1609-1620. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1514616
Powell R, Pelletier MP, Chu MWA, Bouchard D, Melvin KN, Adams C. The Perceval sutureless aortic valve. Innov Technol Tech Cardiothorac Vasc Surg. 2017;12(3):155-173. doi:10.1177/155698451701200301
Meco M, Miceli A, Montisci A, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of comparative matched studies using propensity score matching. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017;26(2):202-209. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivx294
Covidence Systematic Review Software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia; 2014. www.covidence.org
CLARITY Group. Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies; 2017.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer Program]. Version 5.3. The Nordic Cochrane Centre: Copenhagen. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Shahian DM, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, et al. The society of thoracic surgeons 2018 adult cardiac surgery risk models: part 1-background, design considerations, and model. Development. 2018;105:1411-1418. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.002
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
Gambaro A, Murphy M, Duncan A, et al. Abstract 17139: aortic valve replacement with Perceval sutureless valve is associated with lower postoperative stroke volume index compared to conventional stented valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved ventricular function: a propens. Circulation. 2018;136:A17139.
Repossini A, Fischlein T, Solinas M, et al. Stentless sutureless and transcatheter valves: a comparison of the hemodynamic performance of different prostheses concept. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018;66(2):180-190. doi:10.23736/S0026-4725.17.04564-9
Dalén M, Biancari F, Rubino AS, et al. Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2015;49(1):220-227. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv014
Forcillo J, Bouchard D, Nguyen A, et al. Perioperative outcomes with sutureless versus stented biological aortic valves in elderly persons. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(6):1629-1636. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.12.056
Andreas M, Wallner S, Habertheuer A, et al. Conventional versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a single-centre comparison between the Edwards Magna valve and its rapid-deployment successor. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22(6):799-805. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivw052
Bruno P, Farina P, Cammertoni F, et al. Mini-aortic surgery with percutaneous cannulation and rapid-deployment valve. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2016;24(6):535-540. doi:10.1177/0218492316654774
Pollari F, Santarpino G, Dell'aquila AM, et al. Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(2):611-617. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.04.072
Gilmanov D, Miceli A, Ferrarini M, et al. Aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy: Can sutureless technology improve clinical outcomes? Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(5):1585-1592. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.092
Rahmanian PB, Kaya S, Eghbalzadeh K, Menghesha H, Madershahian N, Wahlers T. Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: excellent results and increased effective orifice areas. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(1):24-30. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.07.047
Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistre G, Fischlein T. REDO aortic valve replacement: the sutureless approach. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013;22(5):615-620. Accessed January 16, 2021. http://www.icr-heart.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/?cid=3714%26g=3
Sanchez E, Corrales J-A, Fantidis P, et al. Thrombocytopenia after aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2016;25(1):75-81. Accessed January 16, 2021. http://www.icr-heart.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/?cid=4223%26g=3
Hanedan MO, Yuruk MA, Parlar AI, et al. Sutureless versus conventional aortic valve replacement: outcomes in 70 high-risk patients undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures. Texas Hear Inst J. 2018;45(1):11-16. doi:10.14503/THIJ-16-6092
D'Onofrio A, Rizzoli G, Messina A, et al. Conventional surgery, sutureless valves, and transapical aortic valve replacement: What is the best option for patients with aortic valve stenosis? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;146(5):1065-1071. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.06.047
Shalabi A, Spiegelstein D, Sternik L, et al. Sutureless versus stented valve in aortic valve replacement in patients with small annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102(1):118-122. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.01.003
Pfeiffer S, Dell'aquila AM, Vogt F, et al. Efficacy of sutureless aortic valves in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: an evolution of the surgical technique. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58(5):731-738. doi:10.23736/S0021-9509.16.09503-3
Laborde F, Folliguet T, Ghorayeb G, Zannis K. Sutureless valves reduce hospital costs compared to traditional valves. J Heart Valve Dis. 2017;26:1-8. http://www.icr-heart.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/?cid=4419%26g=3
Kamperidis V, van Rosendael PJ, de Weger A, et al. Surgical sutureless and transcatheter aortic valves. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(5):670-677. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.10.029
Bruno P, Di Cesare A, Nesta M, et al. Rapid-deployment or transcatheter aortic valves in intermediate-risk patients? Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2017;25(4):264-270. doi:10.1177/0218492317704773
Santarpino G, Vogt F, Pfeiffer S, et al. Sutureless versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implant: a propensity score matching study. J Heart Valve Dis. 2017;26(3):255-261. http://www.icr-heart.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/?cid=4505%26g=3
Biancari F, Barbanti M, Santarpino G, et al. Immediate outcome after sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Vessels. 2015;31(3):427-433. doi:10.1007/s00380-014-0623-3
D'Onofrio A, Salizzoni S, Rubino AS, et al. The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: a comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(1):99-109.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.11.041
Kapralik J, Boodhwani M, Chan V, et al. Outcomes with sutureless intuity versus stented biological aortic edwards perimount. Can J Cardiol. 2015;31(Suppl):S217-S217.
Muneretto C, Alfieri O, Cesana BM, et al. A comparison of conventional surgery, transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and sutureless valves in “real-world” patients with aortic stenosis and intermediate- to high-risk profile. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(6):1570-1579. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.052
Ensminger S, Fujita B, Bauer T, et al. Rapid deployment versus conventional bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(13):1417-1428. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.065
Nguyen A, Stevens L-M, Bouchard D, Demers P, Perrault LP, Carrier M. Early outcomes with rapid-deployment vs stented biological valves: a propensity-match analysis. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;30(1):16-23. doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2017.09.002
Wahlers TCW, Andreas M, Rahmanian P, et al. Outcomes of a rapid deployment aortic valve versus its conventional counterpart. Innov Technol Tech Cardiothorac Vasc Surg. 2018;13(3):177-183. doi:10.1177/155698451801300304
Belluschi I, Moriggia S, Giacomini A, et al. Can Perceval sutureless valve reduce the rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch?†. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2017;51(6):1093-1099. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx009
Rubino AS, Mignosa C. Sutureless valves and the quality of perfusion: towards a goal directed aortic valve replacement. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018;66(2):163-169. doi:10.23736/S0026-4725.17.04590-X
Glauber M, Miceli A. Encouraging durability results for sutureless aortic valve: The new gold standard for aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(1):88-90. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.04.047
Mujtaba SS, Ledingham SM, Shah AR, Pillay T, Schueler S, Clark S. Aortic valve replacement with a conventional stented bioprosthesis versus sutureless bioprosthesis: a study of 763 patients. Brazilian J Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;33(2):122-128. doi:10.21470/1678-9741-2017-0088
Villa E, Dalla Tomba M, Messina A, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: a clinical and economic analysis. Cardiol J. 2019;26(1):56-65. doi:10.5603/cj.a2018.0098
Doss M, Buhr E, Moritz A, Martens S. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: catheter-based transapical versus direct transaortic implantation. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012;21(6):758-763. http://www.icr-heart.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/?cid=1005
Boeken U, Akhyari P, Weber A, et al. Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via partial sternotomy: A reasonable option in times of TAVI? Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;65(Suppl 1):S1-S110.
Stegmeier P, Schlomicher M, Laczkovics A, Strauch J, Bechtel M. Deja vu? Evidence for thrombocytopenia following implantation of the Perceval S aortic bioprosthesis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;66(Suppl 1):S1-S110.
Ahmadov K, Myers P, Karaca S, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: early clinical and echocardiographic results. Eur Surg Res. 2015;55(suppl 1):11.
Gerfer S, Liakopoulos O, Mauri V, et al. Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison of two self-expanding and stented aortic bio-prostheses. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;66(Suppl 1):S1-S110.
Iacovelli F, Guigliano G, Bortone A, et al. The haemodynamic performance of the aortic bioprosthesis in the elderly: a comparison between transcatheter and sutureless implantation. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(Suppl):Euro15A-P0S280.
Konertz J, Zhigalov K, Weymann A, Dohmen PM. Initial experience with aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive approach: a comparison of stented, stentless and sutureless valves. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:1645-1654. doi:10.12659/msm.901780
Ferrari E, Roduit C, Salamin P, et al. Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus standard bioprosthesis implantation. J Card Surg. 2017;32(6):322-327. doi:10.1111/jocs.13139
Bening C, Hamouda K, Oezkur M, et al. Rapid deployment valve system shortens operative times for aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;12(1):27. doi:10.1186/s13019-017-0598-0
Parlar AI, Hanedan Muhammet Onur, Mataraci I, et al. Immediate outcomes of aortic valve replacement with sutureless versus stentless bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2016;25(1):21-27. http://www.icr-heart.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/?cid=4214%26g=3
Beckmann E, Martens A, Alhadi F, et al. Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: Better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22(6):744-749. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivw041
Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistré G, Grossmann I, Hinzmann M, Fischlein T. The Perceval S aortic valve has the potential of shortening surgical time: Does it also result in improved outcome? Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(1):77-82. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.03.083
Ghoneim A, Bouhout I, Demers P, et al. Management of small aortic annulus in the era of sutureless valves: a comparative study among different biological options. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(4):1019-1028. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.058
Olivier Dionne P, Poulin F, Bouchard D, et al. Early hemodynamic results in patients with small aortic annulus after aortic valve replacement. Innov Technol Tech Cardiothorac Vasc Surg. 2017;12(4):254-258. doi:10.1177/155698451701200404
Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Jessl J, et al. Sutureless replacement versus transcatheter valve implantation in aortic valve stenosis: a propensity-matched analysis of 2 strategies in high-risk patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(2):561-567. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.025
D'Onofrio A, Messina A, Lorusso R, et al. 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. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(5):1010-1018. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.040
Muneretto C, Bisleri G, Moggi A, et al. Treating the patients in the ‘grey-zone’ with aortic valve disease: a comparison among conventional surgery, sutureless valves and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;20(1):90-95. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivu340
Glauber M, Gilmanov D, Farneti PA, et al. Right anterior minithoracotomy for aortic valve replacement: 10-year experience of a single center. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(3):548-556.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.06.045
Thitivaraporn P, Chiramongkol S, Muntham D, et al. Thrombocytopenia in moderate- to high-risk sutureless aortic valve replacement. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;51:172-179.
Caporali E, Torre T, Trunfio R, et al. Rapid-deployment intuity aortic valve replacement vs perimount magna ease bioprosthesis: clinical and hemodynamic results in a matched population. Kardiovask Medizin. 2017;20(5):S42.
Choi JW, Kim HJ, Kim JB, et al. Early and two-year outcomes after sutureless and conventional aortic valve replacement: a nationwide population-based study. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(9):e57.
Erfe JM, Malaisrie SC, Andrei AC, et al. Outcomes of sutureless/rapid deployment valves compared to traditional bioprosthetic aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;111(6):1884-1891.
Gotzmann M, Wilbring M, Charitos E, Treede H, Silaschi M. Hemodynamic comparison of sutureless and rapid-deployment valves with conventional bioprostheses. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;68(7):584-594.
Hartrumpf M, Kuehnel R-U, Schroeter F, et al. Clinical short-term outcome and hemodynamic comparison of six contemporary bovine aortic valve prostheses. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;68(07):557-566. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1676853
Herry M, Laghlam D, Touboul O, et al. Pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement: rapid-deployment Intuity R compared to conventional bioprostheses. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2020;58(2):335-342.
Paparella D, Santarpino G, Moscarelli M, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021;33(2):188-194. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivab070
White A, Bozso SJ, Lakey O, et al. Rapid deployment valves versus conventional tissue valves for aortic valve replacement. Jouranl Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020.
Fischlein T, Folliguet T, Meuris B, et al. Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;161(3):920-932.
Abdel-Wahab M, Fujita B, Frerker C, et al. Transcatheter versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched analysis from the german aortic valve registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(22):2642-2654.
Ferrara J, Deharo P, Resseguier N, et al. Rapid deployment versus trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. J Card Surg. 2021. 2021 Jun;36(6):2004-2012. doi:10.1111/jocs.15483
Gerfer S, Mauri V, Kuhn E, et al. Comparison of self-expanding RDV Perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;69(05):420-427. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1722692
Arif R, Farag M, Veres G, et al. Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valves versus ta-tavi: a matched pairs analysis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;67(S1).
Muneretto C, Solinas M, Folliguet T, et al. Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valves in elderly patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: a multi-institutional study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020
Glauber M, Moten SC, Quaini E, et al. International expert consensus on sutureless and rapid deployment valves in aortic valve replacement using minimally invasive approaches. Innovations (Phila). 2016;11(3):165-173. doi:10.1097/IMI.0000000000000287
Shrestha M, Maeding I, Höffler K, et al. Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: Are sutureless valves the future? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17(5):778-782. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivt291
Lloyd D, Luc JGY, Indja BE, Leung V, Wang N, Phan K. Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(1):188-199. doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.12.27
Qureshi SH, Boulemden A, Szafranek A, Vohra H. Meta-analysis of sutureless technology versus standard aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2017;53(2):463-471. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx307
Takagi H, Ando T, Umemoto T. Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of perioperative mortality after sutureless or rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2017;228:327-334. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.253
Takagi H, Umemoto T. Sutureless aortic valve replacement may improve early mortality compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Cardiol. 2016;67(6):504-512. doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2015.09.009
Shinn SH, Altarabsheh SE, Deo SV, Sabik JH, Markowitz AH, Park SJ. A systemic review and meta-analysis of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(3):924-929. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.059
Wang N, Tsai YC, Niles N, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8(11):3283-3293. doi:10.21037/jtd.2016.11.100
Meco M, Montisci A, Miceli A, et al. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve versus conventional stented bioprostheses: meta-analysis of postoperative and midterm results in isolated aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(4):e006091. doi:10.1161/JAHA.117.006091
Fischlein T, Gersak B, Pfeiffer S. How to prevent a pacemaker implantation after sutureless bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(2):635-636. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.03.055
Yanagawa B, Cruz J, Boisvert L, Bonneau D. A simple modification to lower incidence of heart block with sutureless valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(2):630-632. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.02.034
Forrest JK, Mangi AA, Popma JJ, et al. Early outcomes with the Evolut PRO repositionable self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve with pericardial wrap. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(2):160-168. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2017.10.014
Rahmanian PB, Kwiecien G, Langebartels G, Madershahian N, Wittwer T, Wahlers T. Logistic risk model predicting postoperative renal failure requiring dialysis in cardiac surgery patients. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2011;40:701-707. doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2010.12.051
Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1695-1705. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1814052