Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprosthesis in case of infective endocarditis: a literature review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Recently, the use of rapid deployment (RD) aortic valve prostheses has been introduced for the treatment of aortic valve replacement (AVR), showing excellent hemodynamic performances.

According to these data, some groups have proposed new RD valves as an alternative solution in the case of infective aortic endocarditis (IAE) to reduce the use of foreign materials, and the manipulation of the annulus.

The aim of this review is to report the results of early clinical experiences with the use of RD bioprostheses in the case of IAE, in order to discuss technical and clinical aspects of this emerging strategy to better elucidate its advantages and limitations as a potential therapeutic solution.

Methods

An in-depth search of PubMed from January to March 2023 was performed. English-language articles were selected independently by authors following the criteria in order to consider all available experiences (full papers, case reports, and case series) that have investigated the use of RD in case of IAE.

Results

The use of rapid deployment bioprosthesis represents a bailout strategy in case of severe aortic valve endocarditis and should be evaluated with caution in selected cases. This review collects the first, initial, and pioneering experiences of the use of the RD prosthesis in case of infective endocarditis, particularly when the fragility of the annular tissues precludes a secure anchoring of sutured prostheses.

The reduced use of foreign materials by minimizing the number of stitches, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times, and the excellent hemodynamic performances associated with the use of RD bioprosthesis represent the most important advantages that could justify their use in the setting of aortic valve endocarditis.

Conclusion

Although there are few anecdotal experiences, surgical aortic valve replacement with the use of RD represents an emerging strategy in case of aortic valve endocarditis. Its advantages, pros, and cons are under debate, and robust clinical trials are needed to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data cannot be shared.

References

  1. Delgado V, Ajmone Marsan N, de Waha S, Bonaros N, Brida M, Burri H, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 2023;44:3948–4042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cahill TJ, Prendergast BD. Infective endocarditis. Lancet. 2016;387:882–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kang DH, Kim YJ, Kim SH, Sun BJ, Kim DH, Yun SC, et al. Early surgery versus conventional treatment for infective endocarditis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2466–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kang DH, Lee S, Kim YJ, Kim SH, Kim DH, Yun SC, et al. Long-term results of early surgery versus conventional treatment for Infective Endocarditis Trial. Korean Circ J. 2016;46:846.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Öner A, Hemmer C, Alozie A, Löser B, Dohmen PM. Introduction of the rapid deployment aortic valve system use in elderly patients with endocarditis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;22:774189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Belyaev S, Herrmann FEM, Dashkevich A, Wenke K, Vlachea P, von der Linden J, et al. Evaluation of a rapid deployment prosthesis strategy for the treatment of aortic valve endocarditis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;61:1109–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Piperata A, Kalscheuer G, Metras A, Pernot M, Albadi W, Taymoor S, et al. Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe endocarditis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2020;61:769–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Piperata A, Bottio T, Avesani M, Folino G, Bellanti E, Gerosa G. Use of rapid-deployment aortic valve prosthesis and patch reconstruction in complex endocarditis. J Card Surg. 2020;35:2056–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sawadogo A, Bui-Duc AV, D’Ostrevy N, Camilleri L, Azarnoush K. Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients: A case-control study. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2021;13:23–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yun T, Kim KH, Sohn SH, Kang Y, Kim JS, Choi JW. Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement in a real-world all-comers population. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;71:511–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Di Eusanio M, Phan K, Berretta P, Carrel TP, Andreas M, Santarpino G, et al. Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR): early results from 3343 patients†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;54:768–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Borger MA, Dohmen P, Misfeld M, Mohr FW. Current trends in aortic valve replacement: development of the rapid deployment EDWARDS INTUITY valve system. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10:461–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wahlers TC, Haverich A, Borger MA, Shrestha M, Kocher AA, Walther T, et al. Early outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:1639–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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;105:24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Andreas M, Wallner S, Habertheuer A, Rath C, Schauperl M, Binder T, 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;22:799–805.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bottio T, Piperata A, Guariento A, Lorenzoni G, Cavicchiolo AG, Gemelli M, et al. Standard versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement and concomitant myocardial revascularization: 5-year bi-centre clinical outcomes. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;62:ezac476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beach JM, Mihaljevic T, Svensson LG, Rajeswaran J, Marwick T, Griffin B, et al. Coronary artery disease and outcomes of aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:837–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Berretta P, Meuris B, Kappert U, Andreas M, Fiore A, Solinas M, et al. Sutureless versus rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: results from a multicenter registry. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;114:758–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. D’Onofrio A, Tessari C, Cibin G, Lorenzoni G, Martinelli GL, Solinas M, et al. Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of rapid-deployment aortic bioprostheses. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;34:453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen H, Zhan Y, Zhang K, Gao Y, Chen L, Zhan J, et al. The global, regional, and national burden and trends of infective endocarditis from 1990 to 2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:774224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. DeSimone DC, Tleyieh IM, Correa de Sa DD, Anavekar NS, Lahr BD, Sohail MR, et al. Incidence of infective endocarditis due to viridans group streptococci before and after publication of the 2007 american heart association endocarditis prevention guidelines. Circulation. 2012;126:60–4.

  22. Tleyjeh IM, Steckelberg JM, Murad HS, Anavekar NS, Ghomrawi HM, Mirzoyev Z, et al. Temporal trends in infective endocarditis: a population-based study in Olmsted County Minnesota. JAMA. 2005;293:3022–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rajani R, Klein JL. Infective endocarditis: a contemporary update. Clin Med (Lond). 2020;20:31–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang A, Gaca JG, Chu VH. Management considerations in infective endocarditis: a review. JAMA. 2018;320:72–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murdoch DR, Corey GR, Hoen B, Miró JM, Fowler VG Jr, Bayer AS, et al. Clinical presentation, etiology and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on EndocarditisProspective Cohort Study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:463–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cabell CH, Jollis JG, Peterson GE, Corey GR, Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, et al. Changing patient characteristics and the effect on mortality in endocarditis. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:90–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Correa DD, Tleyjeh IM, Anavekar NS, Schultz JC, Thomas JM, Lahr BD, et al. Epidemiological trends of infective endocarditis: a populationbased study in Olmsted County Minnesota. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:422–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Writing C, Pettersson GB, Coselli JS, Hussain ST, Griffin B, Blackstone EH, et al. 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) consensus guidelines: surgical treatment of infective endocarditis: executive summary. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153:1241-58.e29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kytö V, Ahtela E, Sipilä J, Rautava P, Gunn J. Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with infective endocarditis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;29:386–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, Iorio F, Pepino P, Spampinato N, et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1862–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD, Mullany CJ, Sundt TM, Dearani JA, et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:878–84; discussion 84.

  32. Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, O’Brien S, Booth ME, Dokholyan RS, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. Circulation. 2013;127:1647–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chiang YP, Chikwe J, Moskowitz AJ, Itagaki S, Adams DH, Egorova NN. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA. 2014;312:1323–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Piperata A, Fiocco A, Cavicchiolo A, Ponzoni M, Pesce R, Gemelli M. Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease bioprosthesis: a multicentre clinical experience and 12-year durability. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;61:888–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Savage EB, Saha-Chaudhuri P, Asher CR, Brennan JM, Gammie JS. Outcomes and prosthesis choice for active aortic valve infective endocarditis: analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:806–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yankah AC, Klose H, Petzina R, Musci M, Siniawski H, Hetzer R. Surgical management of acute aortic root endocarditis with viable homograft: 13-year experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21:260–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Perrotta S, Aljassim O, Jeppsson A, Bech-Hanssen O, Svensson G. Survival and quality of life after aortic root replacement with homografts in acute endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:1862–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sabik JF, Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Marullo AG, Pettersson GB, Cosgrove DM. Aortic root replacement with cryopreserved allograft for prosthetic valve endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:650–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schneider AW, Hazekamp MG, Versteegh MI, Bruggemans EF, Holman ER, Klautz RJ, et al. Stentless bioprostheses: a versatile and durable solution in extensive aortic valve endocarditis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:1699–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Siniawski H, Grauhan O, Hofmann M, Pasic M, Weng Y, Yankah C, et al. Aortic root abscess and secondary infective mitral valve disease: results of surgical endocarditis treatment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27:434–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roselló-Díez E, Cuerpo G, Estévez F, Muñoz-Guijosa C, Tauron M, Cuenca JJ, et al. Use of the perceval sutureless valve in active prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1168–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weymann A, Konertz J, Laule M, Stangl K, Dohmen PM. Are sutureless aortic valves suitable for severe high-risk patients suffering from active infective aortic valve endocarditis? Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:2782–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardio-thoracic Center of Monaco, 11 bis Avenue d Ostende, 98000, Monaco, Monaco

    Antonio Piperata, Alexandre Azmoun & Armand Eker

Authors
  1. Antonio Piperata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandre Azmoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Armand Eker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Antonio Piperata: conceptualization, writing original draft, data research.

Alexandre Azmoun: supervisor, validation, data research.

Armand Eker: conceptualization, supervisor.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Piperata.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not required.

Informed consent statement

Not needed.

Conflict of interest

The author does not have any conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Piperata, A., Azmoun, A. & Eker, A. Aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprosthesis in case of infective endocarditis: a literature review. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 40 (Suppl 1), 93–99 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-024-01736-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-024-01736-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation