Search

Background: In elderly high-risk surgical patients, sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) should be an alternative to standard AVR. The potential advantages of sutureless aortic prostheses include reducing cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and facilitating minimally invasive surgery and complex cardiac interventions, while maintaining satisfactory hemodynamic outcomes and low rates of paravalvular leakage. The current study reports our single-center experience regarding the early outcomes of sutureless aortic valve implantation. Methods: Between October 2012 and June 2015, 65 patients scheduled for surgical valve replacement with symptomatic aortic valve disease and New York Heart Association function of class II or higher were included to this study. Perceval S (Sorin Biomedica Cardio Srl, Sallugia, Italy) and Edwards Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) valves were used. Results: The mean age of the patients was 71.15±8.60 years. Forty-four patients (67.7%) were female. The average preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 56.9±9.93. The CPB time was 96.51±41.27 minutes and the cross-clamping time was 60.85±27.08 minutes. The intubation time was 8.95±4.19 hours, and the intensive care unit and hospital stays were 2.89±1.42 days and 7.86±1.42 days, respectively. The mean quantity of drainage from chest tubes was 407.69±149.28 mL. The hospital mortality rate was 3.1%. A total of five patients (7.69%) died during follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 687.24±24.76 days. The one-year survival rate was over 90%. Conclusion: In the last few years, several models of valvular sutureless bioprostheses have been developed. The present study evaluating the single-center early outcomes of sutureless aortic valve implantation presents the results of an innovative surgical technique, finding that it resulted in appropriate hemodynamic conditions with acceptable ischemic time.

In elderly, high-risk surgical patients, sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) can often be an alternative to conventional AVR; shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times are the chief advantages. We compared the outcomes of sutureless AVR with those of conventional AVR in 70 elderly patients who underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. We retrospectively analyzed the cases of 42 men and 28 women (mean age, 70.4 ± 10.3 yr; range, 34–93 yr) who underwent cardiac operations plus AVR with either a sutureless valve (group 1, n=38) or a conventional bioprosthetic or mechanical valve (group 2, n=32). Baseline patient characteristics were similar except for worse New York Heart Association functional status and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in group 1. In group 1, the operative, cross-clamp, and cardiopulmonary bypass times were shorter (all P=0.001), postoperative drainage amounts were lower (P=0.009), hospital stays were shorter (P=0.004), and less red blood cell transfusion was needed (P=0.037). Echocardiograms before patients' discharge from the hospital showed lower peak and mean aortic gradients in group 1 (mean transvalvular gradient, 8.4 ± 2.8 vs 12.2 ± 5.2 mmHg; P=0.012). We found that elderly, high-risk patients who underwent multiple cardiac surgical procedures and sutureless AVR had better hemodynamic outcomes and shorter ischemic times than did patients who underwent conventional AVR.