Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement with stented biological and mechanical aortic prostheses

Abstract

Abstract Background Endoscopic mitral valve surgery has become the gold standard of care in many expert centres around the globe. The aortic valve has not met the same popularity mainly due to the very confined space in the aortic root, and to the close proximity with the sternum which restricts the movement of the endoscopic instruments. When endoscopic aortic valve replacement is practiced in expert centres, is usually performed with the use of sutureless bioprostheses. We hereby present our experience of totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement (TEAVR) with conventional mechanical and biological prostheses. Methods Since January 2019, fifty-two consecutive patients with significant aortic stenosis and/or aortic regurgitation, who were operated with TEAVR with conventional prostheses were studied. 7,69% of the cases were REDOs. The prostheses used were either stented bovine pericardial in 84,6% of the patients and bileaflet mechanical in 15,4%. The operations were performed through a 3 to 4 cm working incision in the 3rd intercostal space (ICS) right parasternally (where an extra small soft tissue protector was deployed), a 10 mm port for the 3D, 30°, endoscope, and a 5 mm port for the left atrial vent. On full cardiopulmonary bypass, the heart was arrested with cardioplegia which was administered either in the aortic root or directly in the coronary ostia. A transverse aortotomy was performed 3 cm above the right coronary ostium. The native valve (tricuspid or bicuspid) was excised, the annulus was sized and the prostheses were inserted using twelve to fifteen annular sutures who were secured using an automated suture-fastening device. In order to facilitate exposure in the aortic root, a metal self-expandable net was used. Results The average age of the patients treated was 68,3 years (range 36–81, median 72). The mean EuroSCORE2 was 3,22 (0,9–12,01, SEM:0,71). The mean size of the prostheses inserted was 23,72 mm (21–27, median 23) and the mean postoperative peak gradient was 12,15 (5–19, SEM: 1,00). Mean cross clamp and CPB times were 75,38 min (SEM:5,87) and 116,30 (SEM:8,63). There was no case of paravalvular leak or pacemaker insertion. There was no mortality in this cohort of patients. There was one case of cerebrovascular accident. Conclusions TEAVR can be performed safely with conventional aortic prostheses. There are several advantages of the technique over the other aortic valve replacing approaches. Over the other surgical techniques has the advantage of not fracturing the sternum or spreading or dislodging the ribs and increased patient satisfaction. Over the TAVI has the advantages of fully removing the diseased native valve, securing the prosthesis at the exact annular level without any paravalvular leaks or need for pacemaker insertion and the ability of using mechanical prostheses. The main disadvantages of the technique are the relatively prolonged cross clamp and CPB times and the steep learning curve. TEAVR Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None