Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient–prosthesis mismatch?

• Published in: Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 2016-06, Vol.22 (6), p.744-749
• Main Authors: Beckmann, Erik, Martens, Andreas, Alhadi, Firas, Hoeffler, Klaus, Umminger, Julia, Kaufeld, Tim, Sarikouch, Samir, Koigeldiev, Nurbol, Cebotari, Serghei, Schmitto, Jan Dieter, Haverich, Axel, Shrestha, Malakh
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve - diagnostic imaging; Aortic Valve - surgery; Aortic Valve Stenosis - diagnosis; Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery; Bioprosthesis; Echocardiography, Doppler; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Operative Time; ORIGINAL ARTICLES; Postoperative Complications - prevention & control; Prosthesis Design; Retrospective Studies; Survival Rate; Suture Techniques; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1569-9293; 1569-9285
• DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivw041

OBJECTIVES Aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic annulus may result in patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can reduce PPM, but leads to extended cardiac ischaemia times. Sutureless valves have the potential to prevent PPM while reducing cardiac ischaemia times. METHODS Between January 2007 and December 2011, a total of 128 patients with a small aortic annulus underwent surgery for aortic valve stenosis at our centre. Thirty-six (17% male, n = 6) patients received conventional valve replacement with ARE and 92 (16% male, n = 18) subjects received sutureless valve implantation (Sorin Perceval). We conducted a comparative, retrospective study with follow-up. RESULTS The sutureless group showed a significantly higher age (79 years) than the ARE patients (62 years, P < 0.001) and received significantly more concomitant cardiac procedures (33%, n = 30 vs 6%, n = 2, P = 0.001). The mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were significantly lower in sutureless patients (147 ± 42, 67 ± 26 and 35 ± 13 min, respectively) than in ARE patients (181 ± 41, 105 ± 29 and 70 ± 19 min, respectively, P < 0.001). The mean postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to the body surface area was 0.91 ± 0.2 cm2/m2 in ARE patients and 0.83 ± 0.14 cm2/m2 in sutureless patients (P = 0.040). The rate of patients with severe PPM was 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients and 11% (n = 8%) in sutureless patients (not significant, n.s.). The 30-day mortality rates were 2% (n = 2) in sutureless patients and 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients (n.s.). The 1- and 5-year survival rates of the sutureless group were 92 and 54% years, respectively, whereas the 1- and 5-year survival rates of the ARE group were 76% (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS Although the sutureless valve patients received significantly more concomitant procedures, all operation-associated times were significantly shorter. Despite sutureless valve patients being older, the 30-day mortality and survival rates were comparable in the two groups. Since the indexed EOA was only slightly lower and the incidence of severe PPM was not significantly higher in the sutureless valve patients, we conclude that sutureless valve implantation is an alternative to conventional ARE to treat a small aortic annulus and avoid PPM, especially in geriatric patients who benefit from the quick implantation process.