Abstract

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

Highlights

  • Sutureless bioprostheses (SBs) were introduced in clinical practice in the early 2000s [1]; such devices, by avoiding anchoring sutures, were conceived with the aim of shortening the overall surgical and ischemic times during aortic valve replacement (AVR)

  • SBs were subsequently followed by rapid-deployment bioprostheses (RDB), which allow for the reduction of the duration of AVR by using only three guiding sutures tied down after implantation [2]

  • The data of a total of 17 patients in whom a failing stentless bioprosthesis was replaced with an SB (n = 14) [14,15,16,17,18,19,20] or an RDB (n = 3) [21,22] were collected

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Sutureless bioprostheses (SBs) were introduced in clinical practice in the early 2000s [1]; such devices, by avoiding anchoring sutures, were conceived with the aim of shortening the overall surgical and ischemic times during aortic valve replacement (AVR). The reduction of total CPB time is still an important issue, as it appears to be beneficial for fragile, elderly patients referred with increasing frequency for AVR. In this particular patient subset, the use of tissue valves for AVR has been demonstrated to be advantageous, coupling the benefits of avoidance of chronic anticoagulation and the extended durability of the current generation of bioprostheses [12,13]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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