Does Quicker Mean Better? Comparison of Rapid Deployment Versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement.

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes in patients who underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional bio prosthetic aortic valve replacement (CAVR).We performed a literature search by August 2018. The primary outcomes were hospital and 1-year mortality, and the secondary endpoints included the aortic cross-clamp (ACC), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and postoperative and valve-related complications.Two randomized controlled trials and 13 propensity score-matched studies were included. There was no difference between RDAVR and CAVR in hospital mortality (2.5% versus 2.1%; risk ratio (RR) 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.68]) or 1-year mortality (2.9% versus 4.1%; RR 0.69 [95% CI 0.34-1.34]). RDAVR significantly reduced the ACC time ( (mean difference (MD) -24.33 [95% CI -28.35 to -20.32]) and CPB time (MD -21.51 [95% CI -22.83 to -20.20]). The pooled analysis showed that RDAVR doubled the occurrence of permanent pacemaker implantation (8.6% versus 4.3%; RR 2.05 [95% CI 1.62-2.60]). Meanwhile, the blood transfusion amount (MD -1.54 [95% CI -2.22 to -0.86]) and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) occurrence (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.69-0.99]) was reduced. The difference of paravalvular leakage frequency between RDAVR and CAVR was marginal (RR 1.77 [95% CI 1.00-3.17]; P = 0.05). Furthermore, RDAVR was related to larger valves (MD 0.70 cm [95% CI 0.33-1.07]) and lower mean pressure gradients (MD -1.93 mmHg [95% CI -3.58 to -0.28]).The hospital and 1-year survival rates between RDAVR and CAVR are comparable. RDAVR reduces POAF occurrence and blood transfusion but is associated with a higher occurrence of pacemaker implantation.