Abstract
Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in intermediate-risk (IR) patients is particularly challenging when determining the type of prosthesis to use. Rapid-deployment valves (RD-V) are emerging as a potential alternative in this patient population. Objectives: To compare early mortality, postoperative complications, and transvalvular hemodynamic parameters between AVR with conventional valves and RD-V in IR patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive IR patients (STS-Prom score 4-8) undergoing AVR with conventional prostheses and RD-V between 2007 and 2023. Results: A total of 205 patients were included (140 AVR vs. 65 RD-V). Surgical risk was similar between both groups (STS-Prom 5.07 % vs. 5.7 % respectively, p = 0.211). The minimally invasive approach was more common in the RD-V group (32.3% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001). The cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in the RD-V group (134.5 vs. 100 min and 104 vs. 73 min, respectively, p < 0.001). There was a trend to lower incidence of pacemaker implantation in the conventional valve group (4.3% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.075). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications, and a strong trend to lower 30-dat mortality with RD-V (0% vs. 5.7% for conventional valves, p = 0.057). The mean postoperative gradient across the prosthesis was significantly lower in the RD-V group (7.90 ± 3.3 mm Hg vs. 12.74 ± 6.07 mm Hg, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the incidence of valve thrombosis or prosthetic endocarditis. Conclusions: Rapid deployment valves demonstrated trend to lower mortality, shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time, improved hemodynamic profile, and were easier to implant via a minimally invasive approach.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call