Advertisement

New Technology: The Sutureless Valve Prostheses

  • Paolo Berretta
  • Marco Di EusanioEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The sutureless concept of aortic valve implantation was developed in the early 1960s; however, this approach fell out of favour due to frequent valve-related thromboembolic complications and severe paravalvular leakage. More recently, with the advent of bovine pericardial valve prostheses, new sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses have been reintroduced based on modern experience with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. There are two types of sutureless and rapid deployment aortic prostheses currently available on the market: the Perceval™ (LivaNova, Saluggia, Italy) and the Intuity Elite™ (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif., USA) valves. By avoiding the placement and tying of sutures, sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has shown to minimize operative times and facilitate minimally invasive approaches. Moreover, current evidence suggests that sutureless and rapid deployment valves provide excellent haemodynamic results. Nevertheless, there is still a paucity of robust evidence on long-term SU-AVR outcomes; thus, to adequately assess the encouraging haemodynamic profile and the durability of these prostheses, further clinical trials are warranted.

Keywords

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) Sutureless valve Rapid deployment prosthesis Minimally invasive 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

References

  1. 1.
    Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, Delahaye F, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Levang OW, Tornos P, Vanoverschelde J-L, Vermeer F, Boersma E. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1231–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osnabrugge RLJ, Mylotte D, Head SJ, Van Mieghem NM, Nkomo VT, LeReun CM, Bogers AJJC, Piazza N, Kappetein AP. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1002–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ross J, Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. Circulation. 1968;38:61–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;137:82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sundt TM, Bailey MS, Moon MR, Mendeloff EN, Huddleston CB, Pasque MK, Barner HB, Gay WA. Quality of life after aortic valve replacement at the age of >80 years. Circulation. 2000;102:S70–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. Survival in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis is dramatically improved by aortic valve replacement: results from a cohort of 277 patients aged 80 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30:722–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collart F, Feier H, Kerbaul F, Mouly-Bandini A, Riberi A, Mesana TG, Metras D. Valvular surgery in octogenarians: operative risks factors, evaluation of Euroscore and long term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27:276–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iung B, Cachier A, Baron G, Messika-Zeitoun D, Delahaye F, Tornos P, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Boersma E, Ravaud P, Vahanian A. Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery? Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2714–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Magovern GJ, Cromie HW. Sutureless ürpsthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1963;46:726–36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magovern GJ, Liebler GA, Park SB, Burkholder JA, Sakert T, Simpson KA. Twenty-five-year review of the Magovern-Cromie sutureless aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;48:S33–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Phan K, Tsai YC, Niranjan N, Bouchard D, Carrel TP, Dapunt OE, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:100–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flameng W, Herregods MC, Hermans H, Van der Mieren G, Vercalsteren M, Poortmans G, Van Hemelrijck J, Meuris B. Effect of sutureless implantation of the Perceval S aortic valve bioprosthesis on intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:1453–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ranucci M, Frigiola A, Menicanti L, Castelvecchio S, de Vincentiis C, Pistuddi V. Aortic cross-clamp time, new prostheses, and outcome in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012;21:732–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo A, Candolfi P, Mirza A, Loardi C, May M, El-Khoury R, Marchand M, Aupart M. Very long-term outcomes of the carpentier-edwards perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:831–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Sarraf N, Thalib L, Hughes A, Houlihan M, Tolan M, Young V, McGovern E. Cross-clamp time is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in low- and high-risk cardiac patients. Int J Surg. 2011;9:104–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salis S, Mazzanti VV, Merli G, Salvi L, Tedesco CC, Veglia F, Sisillo E. Cardiopulmonary bypass duration is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;22:814–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pollari F, Santarpino G, Dell’Aquila AM, Gazdag L, Alnahas H, Vogt F, Pfeiffer S, Fischlein T. Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:611–6. discussion 616-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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;96:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shrestha M, Folliguet TA, Pfeiffer S, Meuris B, Carrel T, Bechtel M, Flameng WJ, Fischlein T, Laborde F, Haverich A. Aortic valve replacement and concomitant procedures with the Perceval valve: results of European trials. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eichstaedt HC, Easo J, Härle T, Dapunt OE. Early single-center experience in sutureless aortic valve implantation in 120 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:370–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chandola R, Teoh K, Elhenawy A, Christakis G. Perceval sutureless valve—are sutureless valves here? Curr Cardiol Rev. 2015;11:220–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferrari E, Siniscalchi G, Marinakis S, Berdajs D, von Segesser L. ‘Fast-implantable’ aortic valve implantation and concomitant mitral procedures. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19:682–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Forcillo J, Bouchard D, Nguyen A, Perrault L, Cartier R, Pellerin M, Demers P, Stevens LM, Carrier M. Perioperative outcomes with sutureless versus stented biological aortic valves in elderly persons. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:1629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cosgrove DM, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:596–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phan K, Xie A, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:670–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Phan K, Zhou JJ, Niranjan N, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:15–25.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lim JY, Deo SV, Altarabsheh SE, Jung SH, Erwin PJ, Markowitz AH, Park SJ. Conventional versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: pooled analysis of propensity-matched data. J Card Surg. 2015;30:125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    König KC, Wahlers T, Scherner M, Wippermann J. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve in comparison with the stented Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 2014;23:253–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wahlers TCW, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Borger MA, Moustafine V, Conradi L, Knosalla C, Richter M, Merk DR, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilbring M, Alexiou K, Schumann E, Matschke K, Tugtekin SM. Isolated aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus-a high-risk group on long-term follow-up. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;61:379–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Guenzinger R, Bleiziffer S, Wagner I, Bauernschmitt R, Lange R. Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of the complete supraannular perimount magna bioprosthesis in the aortic position. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;53:226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, Guenzinger R, Wagner IM, Bauernschmitt R, Lange R. Hemodynamic comparison of bioprostheses for complete supra-annular position in patients with small aortic annulus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:2054–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rajappan K, Rimoldi OE, Camici PG, Bellenger NG, Pennell DJ, Sheridan DJ. Functional changes in coronary microcirculation after valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2003;107:3170–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beckmann E, Martens A, Alhadi F, Hoeffler K, Umminger J, Kaufeld T, et al. Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22:744–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kocher AA, Laufer G, Haverich A, Shrestha M, Walther T, Misfeld M, et al. One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:110–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Martens S, Sadowski J, Eckstein FS, Bartus K, Kapelak B, Sievers H-H, Schlensak C, Carrel T. Clinical experience with the ATS 3f Enable® Sutureless Bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:749–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Folliguet TA, Laborde F, Zannis K, Ghorayeb G, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Sutureless perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centers. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1483–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shrestha M, Maeding I, Höffler K, Koigeldiyev N, Marsch G, Siemeni T, Fleissner F, Haverich A. Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17:778–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shalabi A, Spiegelstein D, Sternik L, Feinberg MS, Kogan A, Levin S, Orlov B, Nachum E, Lipey A, Raanani E. Sutureless versus stented valve in aortic valve replacement in patients with small annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:118–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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;Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dedeilias P, Baikoussis NG, Prappa E, Asvestas D, Argiriou M, Charitos C. Aortic valve replacement in elderly with small aortic root and low body surface area; the Perceval S valve and its impact in effective orifice area. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;11:54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shrestha M, Fischlein T, Meuris B, Flameng W, Carrel T, Madonna F, et al. European multicentre experience with the sutureless Perceval valve: clinical and haemodynamic outcomes up to 5 years in over 700 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:234–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistrè G, Fischlein T. REDO aortic valve replacement: the sutureless approach. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013;22:615–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Fischlein T. Perceval sutureless approach in a patient with porcelain aorta unsuitable for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2012;155:168–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Folliguet TA, Laborde F. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve replacement in aortic homograft. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:1866–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nguyen A, Fortin W, Mazine A, Bouchard D, Carrier M, El Hamamsy I, Lamarche Y, Demers P. Sutureless aortic valve replacement in patients who have bicuspid aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:851–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gersak B, Fischlein T, Folliguet TA, Meuris B, Teoh KH, Moten SC, et al. Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an International Expert Consensus Panel. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:709–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sievers H-H, Schmidtke C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133:1226–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Jessl J, DellAquila AM, Pollari F, Pauschinger M, Fischlein T. 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;147:561–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vogt F, Pfeiffer S, Dell’Aquila AM, Fischlein T, Santarpino G. Sutureless aortic valve replacement with Perceval bioprosthesis: are there predicting factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22:253–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cao C, Ang SC, Indraratna P, Manganas C, Bannon P, Black D, Tian D, Yan TD. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:10–23.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nemoto S, Endo M, Kitamura M, Hirata K, Hatta M, Nakano S, Hashimoto A, Koyanagi H. Sutureless aortic valve replacement for peri-annular pseudoaneurysm and perivalvular leakage due to prosthetic valve endocarditis. Kyobu Geka. 1993;46:710–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gupta P, McCormack DJ, Szczeklik M, Ambekar S, Lall KS. Infected calcified homograft root: a sutureless solution. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:1789–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fleissner F, Molitoris U, Shrestha M, Martens A. Stent distortion after sutureless aortic valve implantation: a new complication seen with a novel surgical technique. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20:436–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Di Eusanio M, Saia F, Pellicciari G, Phan K, Ferlito M, Dall’Ara G, Di Bartolomeo R, Marzocchi A. In the era of the valve-in-valve: is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in sutureless valves feasible? Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:214–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Miceli A, Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Murzi M, Gilmanov D, Concistré G, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve: early outcomes and one-year survival from two European centers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2838–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Haverich A, Wahlers TC, Borger MA, Shrestha M, Kocher AA, Walther T, et al. Three-year hemodynamic performance, left ventricular mass regression, and prosthetic-patient mismatch after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in 287 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2854–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gilmanov D, Miceli A, Ferrarini M, Farneti P, Murzi M, Solinas M, Glauber M. Aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy: can sutureless technology improve clinical outcomes? Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1585–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Voigtländer T, Kahlert P, Erbel R, Mehta RH. Risk of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Généreux P, Webb JG, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, Satler LF, Fearon WF, et al. Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1043–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gotzmann M, Bojara W, Lindstaedt M, Ewers A, Bösche L, Germing A, et al. One-year results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1687–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, et al. PARTNER 2 Investigators. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ailawadi G, LaPar DJ, Speir AM, Ghanta RK, Yarboro LT, Crosby IK, Lim DS, Quader MA, Rich JB. Contemporary costs associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched cost analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:154–60. discussion 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rosato S, Santini F, Barbanti M, Biancari F, D’Errigo P, Onorati F, et al. OBSERVANT Research Group. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    D’Onofrio A, Salizzoni S, Rubino AS, Besola L, Filippini C, Alfieri O, et al. Italian Transcatheter Balloon-Expandable Registry and the Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation Research Groups. The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: a comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:99–109.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Jessl J, Dell’Aquila A, Vogt F, von Wardenburg C, et al. Clinical outcome and cost analysis of sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation with propensity score matching analysis. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiac Surgery Unit, Ospedali RiunitiPolytechnic University of MarcheAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Experimental and Clinical MedicinePolytechnic University of MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations