Search

Aims: In low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) may be an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population is incompletely characterized. This study aims to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of HFH in patients undergoing SU-SAVR versus TAVI., Methods and Results: Patients referred for AVR between 2013 and 2020 at two centres were consecutively included. The decision for SU-SAVR or TAVI was determined by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Cox regression and competing risk analysis were conducted to assess adverse events. Of 594 patients (mean age 77.5 ± 6.4, 59.8% male), 424 underwent SU-SAVR, while 170 underwent TAVI. Following a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 23.1 months, HFH occurred in 112 (27.8%) SU-SAVR patients and in 8 (4.8%) TAVI patients (P < 0.001). The SU-SAVR cohort exhibited higher all-cause mortality (138 [32.5%] patients compared with 30 [17.6%] in the TAVI cohort [P < 0.001]). These differences remained significant after sensitivity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline variables. SU-SAVR with HFH was associated with increased all-cause mortality (61.6% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Independent associates of HFH in SU-SAVR patients included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower glomerular filtration rate and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. SU-SAVR patients with HFH had a 12-month LVEF of 59.4 ± 12.7., Conclusions: In low-risk AS, SU-SAVR is associated with a higher risk of HFH and all-cause mortality compared to TAVI. In patients with severe AS candidate to SU-SAVR or TAVI, TAVI may be the preferred intervention., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Objective: To evaluate the incidence, predictive factors and prognostic value of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) in patients undergoing sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR)., Methods: A total of 329 consecutive patients without baseline conduction disturbances or previous permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) who underwent SU-SAVR with the Perceval valve (LivaNova Group, Saluggia, Italy) in two centres from 2013 to 2019 were included. Patients were on continuous ECG monitoring during hospitalisation and 12-lead ECG was performed after the procedure and at hospital discharge. NOP-LBBB was defined as a new postprocedural LBBB that persisted at hospital discharge. Baseline, procedural and follow-up clinical and echocardiography data were collected in a dedicated database., Results: New-onset LBBB was observed in 115 (34.9%) patients, and in 76 (23.1%) persisted at hospital discharge. There were no differences in baseline and procedural characteristics between patients with (n=76) and without (n=253) NOP-LBBB. After a median follow-up of 3.3 years (2.3-4.4 years), patients with NOP-LBBB had a higher incidence of PPI (14.5% vs 6.3%, p=0.016), but exhibited similar rates of all-cause mortality (19.4% vs 19.2%, p=0.428), cardiac mortality (8.1% vs 9.4%, p=0.805) and heart failure readmission (21.0% vs 23.2%, p=0.648), compared with the no/transient LBBB group. NOP-LBBB was associated with a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 1-year follow-up (delta: -5.7 vs +0.2, p<0.001)., Conclusions: NOP-LBBB occurred in approximately a quarter of patients without prior conduction disturbances who underwent SU-SAVR and was associated with a threefold increased risk of PPI along with a negative impact on LVEF at follow-up., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JR-C is consultant for and has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Boston Scientific., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) compared with conventionally implanted aortic bioprostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors and mid-term prognostic impact of PPM after Perceval (Livanova, London, UK) SU-SAVR in low-risk patients., Methods: A total of 400 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II < 4%) patients without prior pacemaker who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perceval prosthesis from 2013 to 2019 in 2 centres were included. Baseline, clinical and electrocardiographic parameters, procedural characteristics and follow-up data were collected., Results: PPM was required in 36 (9%) patients after SU-SAVR, with a median time between the procedure and PPM implantation of 7.5 (4.5-10.5) days. Older age and prior right bundle branch block (RBBB) were associated with an increased risk of PPM (P < 0.05 for all), but only baseline RBBB was found to be an independent predictor of new PPM requirement (odds ratio: 2.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-5.81; P = 0.022). At a median follow-up of 3.4 (2.3-4.5) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality (PPM: 36%, no PPM: 22%, P = 0.105) or heart failure rehospitalization (PPM: 25%, no PPM: 21%, P = 0.839)., Conclusions: About 1 out of 10 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing SU-SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis required PPM implantation. Prior RBBB determined an increased risk (close to 3-fold) of PPM following the procedure. PPM was not associated with a higher risk of clinical events at 3-year follow-up., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)