Share this page on LinkedIn
Share This Page on Google+
Share This Page on Twitter
tell someone about this page print this page
You are here: Contents > 2012 > Volume 21 Number 6 November 2012 > DEVICE EVALUATION > Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: Catheter-Based Transapical versus Direct Transaortic Implantation

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: Catheter-Based Transapical versus Direct Transaortic Implantation

Mirko Doss, Estelle Buhr, Anton Moritz, Sven Martens
Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

Background and aim of the study: Catheter-based aortic valve implantation leaves the calcified native leaflets in the aortic root. Upon valve deployment, the leaflets are pushed to the side, potentially compromising coronary perfusion, exerting pressure on the conduction system, and limiting the maximum effective orifice area. The study aim was to evaluate the perioperative outcome of an alternative self-expanding sutureless valve that is inserted via a conventional aortotomy, allowing for complete debridement of any calcified native aortic leaflets and annulus.
Methods: A total of 56 patients, all of which required bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis, was included in the study. Twenty-nine patients underwent isolated catheter-based transapical aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN prosthesis, while 27 patients underwent direct transaortic valve replacement, using the self-expandable ATS 3F Enable prosthesis. Implantation of the latter device utilized cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), such that debridement of the calcified native leaflets was possible in all cases. The in-hospital echocardiographic findings and routine blood

laboratory parameters of all patients were evaluated to determine the clinical outcome.
Results: The 30-day mortality was 17% in the transapical group and 11% in the transaortic group. Two conversions were performed in each group. One valve migration, one complete heart block and two cases of coronary obstruction occurred in the transapical group. The implantation times were 8 min in the transapical group and 10 min in the transaortic group. Four paravalvular leaks occurred in the transapical group, but none occurred in the transaortic group.
Conclusion: Aortic valve replacement can be performed safely using either sutureless device. The transaortic approach has the additional advantage of allowing for the resection of native leaflets and for the performance of concomitant procedures. Laboratory investigations demonstrated an elevated creatine kinase MB fraction in the transapical group and comparable inflammatory parameters between groups, despite the use of CPB in the transaortic group.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2012;21:758-763

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: Catheter-Based Transapical versus Direct Transaortic Implantation

Click the above hyperlink to view the article, right click (Ctrl click on a Mac) to open in a new browser window or tab.

Purchase this Article

Please click the button below to purchase this article. Single article purchases are provided at $50.00 per article. Upon clicking the button below, single article user account subscription details are requested and, upon successful payment, a single article user account is created. Single articles are availble in your account for seven days after purchase.