Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement: First 50 Cases

Abstract

BackgroundExisting management challenges in selecting transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) include bicuspid stenosis, low clinical risk, horizontal valve position, aortic insufficiency (AI), and need for concomitant procedures or mechanical valves. To address these gaps, we present our early experience with fully robotic-assisted aortic valve replacement (RAVR). MethodsBetween January 2020 and February 2021, 50 consecutive RAVR operations were performed using a 3- to 4-cm lateral mini-thoracotomy 3-port technique with transthoracic aortic clamping, similar to our robotic mitral platform. Conventional SAVR prostheses were implanted with interrupted braided sutures in all cases. ResultsThe 50 patients were a median age of 67.5 years, body mass index was 29 kg/m2, calcified bicuspid disease was present in 28 (56%), and severe AI in 8 (16%). Ejection fraction was 0.55 ± 0.08 (mean ± SD), and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 1.54% ± 0.7%. Mechanical prostheses were used in 16 of 50 (32%), and 7 required concomitant procedures, including Cox maze in 3, aortic root enlargement in 2, and left atrial appendage clipping, mitral repair, and left atrial myxoma excision in 1 each. Median times (minutes) were 166 for cardiopulmonary bypass, 117 for cross-clamp, 4 for valvectomy, 20 for annular sutures, and 31 for aortotomy closure. All times plateaued after the initial 5 cases. Extubation occurred in 42 of 50 patients (84%) in the operating room, and within 4 hours in the remaining 8 (16%). There was no 30-day operative mortality or stroke. All had 30-day echocardiography demonstrating no valvular or perivalvular abnormalities. ConclusionsRAVR appears to have procedural safety and short-term outcomes to rival alternatives. Incremental experience may facilitate the safe performance of concomitant procedures as deemed necessary.