3f Enable Valve Research Articles

Sutureless vs. rapid-deployment valve: a systemic review and meta-analysis for a direct comparison of intraoperative performance and clinical outcomes.

Sutureless and rapid-deployment valves are bioprostheses anchoring within the aortic annulus with few sutures, and they act as a hybrid of conventional surgical and transcatheter valves under aortic valve replacement. Considering that the 3F Enable valve is now off-market, the only two sutureless and rapid-deployment valves available on the world marketplace are the Perceval and Intuity valves. However, a direct comparison of the function of these two valves eludes researchers. Against this background, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the intraoperative performance and early clinical outcomes between the Perceval valve and the Intuity valve under sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. We systematically searched electronic databases through PubMed/MEDLINE, OvidWeb, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from the establishment of the database to November 17, 2022, without language restriction) for studies comparing the sutureless valve (the Perceval) and the rapid-deployment valve (the Intuity) under aortic valve replacement. Our primary outcomes were early mortality and postoperative transvalvular pressure gradients. The secondary outcomes were defined to include aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time, paravalvular leak (any paravalvular leak, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak) after aortic valve replacement, need for pacemaker implantation, postoperative neurological events (stroke), and intensive care unit stay. This meta-analysis included ten non-randomized trials with 3,526 patients enrolled (sutureless group = 1,772 and rapid-deployment group = 1,754). Quality assessments were performed, with the mean scores of the studies reading 6.90 (SD = 0.99) out of 9 according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Compared with rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement, sutureless aortic valve replacement was associated with higher mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients postoperatively. In contrast, aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary time were needed less in sutureless aortic valve replacement vs. rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. There was no evidence of significant publication bias observed by the funnel plot and Egger's test. For postoperative hemodynamics, sutureless aortic valve replacement was associated with increased mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients compared with rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. In sharp contrast, sutureless aortic valve replacement significantly reduced the amount of time needed for fixing the aortic cross-clamp and the cardiopulmonary bypass procedure. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022343884.

Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis valve implantation and bicuspid valve anatomy: an unsolved dilemma?

Interest is growing in the clinical use of sutureless (SU) valves. However, indications in some anatomical sub-settings, like bicuspid aortic valves (BAV), have been so far limited. We discuss herein our initial experience with the implantation of the 3f Enable SU bioprosthesis in patients with a BAV. Patients with a BAV were selected in our unit between March 2011 and September 2014 for a SU 3f Enable valve implantation. Twenty of the 198 patients who underwent a 3f Enable valve implantation in our unit had a BAV. Procedural success was 100%, but reclamping was necessary in one (5%) case. Median size of implanted bioprosthesis was 23mm. After a mean follow-up of 13.8±10.7months, survival was 100%. Two patients (10%) showed an immediate grade 1 paravalvular leak (PVL) that progressed to grade 2 and 3+ (moderate/severe), respectively, during follow-up. Type of bicuspidy (Sievers classification) in these two patients was 0 and intraoperatively aortic annuli admitted the 25mm calibrator. Among the 18 patients without PVL, no one had a type 0 large BAV. At 1year, implantation of the 3f Enable SU bioprosthesis appears to be safe in patients with BAV type I and II, while in type 0 use of the SU valve seems to be safe only if the annular diameter is <25mm. Larger studies are necessary to confirm our findings in order to clarify the indications for SU technology in the subset of bicuspid patients.

Two Hundred Consecutive Implantations of the Sutureless 3f Enable Aortic Valve: What We Have Learned

In this article we present a consecutive single-center experience of implantation of the Medtronic 3f Enable aortic valve (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). Between March 2011 and October 2014, 200 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.4 ± 5.9 years; logistic EuroScore, 7.8% ± 7.0%) in our unit received the 3f Enable valve. This is a retrospective analysis of this prospective monocentric cohort. The 3f Enable valve could be implanted in all the scheduled 141 isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedures (14 full sternotomies, 73 ministernotomies, 44 minithoracotomies, and 10 thoracoscopic approaches) and 59 combined procedures (all using full sternotomy). Reclamping was necessary in 7 (3.5%) patients (paravalvular leakage [PVL] was ≥ grade 1 because of undersizing or prosthetic misalignment); mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were 65 ± 31 and 91± 39 minutes, respectively. Sixteen (8%) patients required early implantation of a pacemaker (PM). At a mean follow-up of 12.6 ± 8.1 months, mean transvalvular gradient and effective orifice area (EOA) were 9.8 ± 4.4 mm Hg and 1.87 ± 0.6 cm(2), respectively. Mild PVL was present in 7 (3.5%) patients and moderate PVL was present in 5 (2.5%) patients. No device migration was registered, and no moderate PVL was detected in the last 100 patients of the cohort. Overall, 3-year survival was 78%. The 3f Enable valve shows excellent results regarding PVL but in our experience required a learning curve and a refinement of the technique of implantation. Use of the prosthesis was possible in various less invasive approaches.

Sutureless Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 Bicuspid Annuli: A Word of Caution.

We describe a series of 3f Enable sutureless prostheses implanted in bicuspid valves. Between March 2011 and April 2014, five patients with Sievers type 0 bicuspid valves were selected to receive the sutureless 3f Enable prosthesis . Exclusion criteria were: intraoperative calibration of the aortic annulus >27 mm, left ventricle ejection fraction <50%, age <70 years. All the implantations could be performed without the necessity to re-deploy the prosthesis . The perioperative transesophageal echocardiogragram detected two moderate paravalvular leakages (PVL) in two patients who received a large size of prosthesis (25 and 27 mm, respectively). The two leakages, at a follow-up of 32 and 24 months, respectively, increased to grade II and II +. No PVL appeared in the other three patients. This experience should warn about the inadequate performance of the 3f Enable valve in Sievers type 0 large aortic bicuspid annuli. In this subset any minor intraoperative residual leakage should not be accepted.

Sutureless 3f Enable valve implantation concomitant with mitral valve surgery.

Interest in aortic sutureless bioprostheses is growing. Here, we evaluate the feasibility of performing aortic sutureless valve replacement concomitant with mitral valve surgery using the 3f Enable prosthesis. Of the 198 3f Enable® valve implantation procedures carried out in our unit between March 2011 and October 2014, 15 were performed concomitant with mitral valve surgery (8 bioprosthetic replacements and 7 annuloplasties). The mean age and logistic EuroSCORE were 76 ± 6 years and 10.2 ± 4.8, respectively. The procedural success rate of aortic sutureless valve implantation was 100%. Mean cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 113.9 ± 35 and 150- ± 43 min, respectively. No reclamping in response to a sutureless paravalvular leakage (PVL) was needed. One grade 1 leak was observed at the time of discharge. There was no perioperative mortality. Pacemaker implantation was required in 1 case (6.6%). Initial follow-up (median = 8 months, range 1-6) showed no new aortic PVL; mean and peak transprosthetic gradients and the orifice area were 11.1 ± 2.5 and 18.4 ± 4.9 mmHg and 1.7 ± 0.4 cm(2), respectively. One grade 2 and two grade 1 mitral valve leaks were detected following annuloplasty. 3f Enable® sutureless valve implantation combined with mitral valve surgery appears feasible and the results presented here are encouraging. This procedure has the potential to simplify surgery in a cohort of high-risk patients for whom transcatheter aortic valve replacement is not an effective option. Larger studies should be conducted to confirm these observations.

Sutureless Prostheses and Less Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement: Just an Issue of Clamping Time?

Recently, sutureless aortic bioprostheses have been increasingly adopted to facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. We aimed at evaluating the impact of the transition from conventional bioprostheses to the routine use of the 3f Enable prosthesis (Medtronic ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN) for aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy. Between November 2009 and November 2012, 83 consecutive minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedures were performed in our institution by the same surgeon through an upper T-shaped ministernotomy. The earliest 42 patients (group A) received a conventional bioprosthesis, and the later 41 patients (group B) received the sutureless 3f Enable valve. Aortic clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times, early outcomes, and valve hemodynamics were compared. There was no statistical intergroup difference in baseline characteristics. In-hospital mortality was 1% (a single nonvalve-related death). Average aortic clamping times in group A and group B were, respectively, 85 ± 17 and 47 ± 11 minutes (p < 0.0001); the cardiopulmonary bypass time was 108 ± 21 and 69 ± 15 minutes, respectively (p < 0.0001). There were three paravalvular leakages in group A (grade I) and four in group B (two grade I, and two grade II); three pacemaker implantations occurred in group B (p = 0.07); mean transvalvular gradient at discharge was 16.9 ± 9.1 mm Hg in group A and 11.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg in group B (p = 0.0007). During follow-up (average 25.5 ± 12.9 months), one structural valve deterioration was registered in group A, and was treated with a valve-in-valve procedure. In our initial experience, the sutureless 3f Enable technology significantly reduced the clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times, as well as the mean transvalvular gradient in aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy.

Right anterior minithoracotomy aortic valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis: Early outcomes and 1-year follow-up from 2 European centers

BackgroundA sutureless aortic valve can be inserted through a right anterior minithoracotomy (RAMT) with consistent decreased cross-clamping time and ease of insertion. We report the experience of RAMT implantation of the 3f Enable (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) self-expanding sutureless bioprosthesis, performed in 2 European cardiac surgery centers. MethodFrom September 2012 to April 2014, a total of 71 patients with severe aortic stenosis were selected to receive an aortic valve replacement via RAMT using the sutureless valve. Hemodynamic parameters and clinical outcome were assessed at discharge and up to 16 months postoperatively. ResultsAll the patients received the prosthesis with success. One conversion to median sternotomy was necessary, owing to severe pleural adhesions. Overall in-hospital mortality was 2.8%. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping time were, respectively, 91 ± 29 minutes and 66 ± 19 minutes. Reclamping was necessary in 4 cases (5.6%). Early incidences of grade I or lower paravalvular leakages and pacemaker implantation were, respectively, 4.2% and 5.6%. No paravalvular leakage greater than grade I was registered. The mean follow-up time was 8.1 months; the mean transvalvular gradient was, at discharge and at 6-12 months, respectively, 10.7 ± 4.3 mm Hg and 9.6 ± 3.1 mm Hg. The degree of regurgitation remained stable in all cases. Freedom from all-cause and valve-related mortality was 97% and 99%, respectively, at 1 year. ConclusionsAortic valve replacement via RAMT with the 3f Enable valve is a reproducible procedure, as it provides satisfactory hemodynamics, and a low valve-related complication rate. Greater experience is needed to compare the performance of the 3f Enable valve with that of other sutureless valves implanted via the same RAMT procedure.

The 3f Enable sutureless bioprosthesis: Early results, safeguards, and pitfalls

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and hemodynamic performance of the 3f Enable (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) sutureless bioprosthesis in the early postoperative period. Its implantation technique was also evaluated highlighting the modifications in regard to the original technique and mistakes made throughout the learning curve. This is a prospective, nonrandomized study. From February 2011 to March 2014, a total of 60 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable valve at the Hospiten Rambla. All intraoperative and postoperative data were prospectively collected. The mean age was 81.3 ± 3.78 years. Mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I was 13.78%. An associated concomitant procedure was performed in 23 patients (38.3%). The extracorporeal circulation and crossclamping times were 49.8 ± 15.7 minutes and 35.4 ± 8.9 minutes, respectively. The average stay in the intensive care unit was 34.7 hours. Mean systolic pressure gradients ranged from 8.01 mm Hg (size 19 valve) to 7.2 mm Hg (size 25 valve). Mean effective orifice area ranged from 1.9 cm(2) (size 19 valve) to 2.5 cm(2) (size 25 valve). Severe mismatch (<0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) did not occur in any patient. Only 1.66% of patients had more than mild aortic insufficiency at discharge. The early (30-day) mortality was 6.6% (n = 4). The 3f Enable bioprosthesis is an important alternative to conventional prostheses, with reduction of surgery times and good hemodynamic results on discharge. It is especially useful for high-risk patients and octogenarians. Studies on a greater number of patients and long-term follow-ups are necessary.

Clinical performance of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: Five-year results of the 3f Enable long-term follow-up study

Sutureless valves are designed to facilitate surgical implantation, including less-invasive techniques in aortic valve replacement, by maintaining surgical precision of implantation compared with transcatheter techniques. Long-term clinical experience with sutureless valves is lacking. We report the 5-year follow-up results of an international, prospective, multicenter study evaluating the clinical performance and safety of the 3f Enable valve (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn). Between March 2007 and December 2009, 141 patients (54 male; mean age, 76.1±5.7 years) undergoing aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable valve were enrolled in 10 European sites. The mean follow-up was 2.76 years (range, 2 days to 5.1 years; total, 388.7 patient-years). Echocardiographic valvular hemodynamic and morphologic analyses were performed by an independent core laboratory. The mean systolic gradient was 10.4±4.4 mm Hg at discharge and 7.7±4.1 mm Hg at 5 years. The mean effective orifice area was 1.7±0.5 cm2 at discharge and 1.6±0.2 cm2 at 5 years. Freedom from all-cause and valve-related mortality was 87.6%±2.9% and 96.8%±1.6% at 1 year (113 patients at risk) and 77.0%±7.5% and 93.8%±4.8% at 5 years (24 patients at risk), respectively. Six patients underwent reoperation (4 because of major paravalvular leakage and 2 because of endocarditis). Freedom from reoperation was 95.4%±1.9% at 1 year and 95.4%±6.1% at 5 years. No structural valve deterioration occurred during the follow-up period. The sutureless 3f Enable valve represents a safe and effective treatment for aortic valve stenosis, providing an excellent hemodynamic profile. This study represents the longest follow-up study for a sutureless bioprosthesis. Sutureless valves may become an option for all patients with indicated biological aortic valve replacement.

Recent developments for surgical aortic valve replacement: The concept of sutureless valve technology

Aortic stenosis has become the most frequent type of valvular heart disease in Europe and North America and presents in the large majority of patients as calcified aortic stenosis in adults of advanced age. Surgical aortic valve replacement has been recognized to be the definitive therapy which improves considerably survival for severe aortic stenosis since more than 40 years. In the most recent period, operative mortality of isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis varies between 1–3% in low-risk patients younger than 70 years and between 4 and 8% in selected older adults. Long-term survival following aortic valve replacement is close to that observed in a control population of similar age. Numerous observational studies have consistently demonstrated that corrective surgery in symptomatic patients is invariably followed by a subjective improvement in quality of life and a substantial increase in survival rates. More recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been demonstrated to be feasible in patients with high surgical risk using either a retrograde transfemoral or transsubclavian approach or an antegrade, transapical access. Reported 30-day mortality ranges between 5 and 15%) and is acceptable when compared to the risk predicted by the logistic EuroSCORE (varying between 20 and 35%) and the STS Score, although the EuroScore has been shown to markedly overestimate the effective operative risk. One major concern remains the high rate of paravalvular regurgitation which is observed in up to 85% of the patients and which requires further follow-up and critical evaluation. In addition, long-term durability of these valves with a focus on the effects of crimping remains to be addressed, although 3-5 year results are promising. Sutureless biological valves were designed to simplify and significantly accelerate the surgical replacement of a diseased valve and allow complete excision of the calcified native valve. Until now, there are 3 different sutureless prostheses that have been approved. The 3f Enable valve from ATS-Medtronic received CE market approval in 2010, the Perceval S from Sorin during Q1 of 2011 and the intuity sutureless prosthesis from Edwards in 2012. All these devices aim to facilitate valve surgery and therefore have the potential to decrease the invasivness and to shorten the conventional procedure without compromise in term of excision of the diseased valve. This review summarizes the history and the current knowledge of sutureless valve technology.

First clinical experience and 1-year follow-up with the sutureless 3F-Enable aortic valve prosthesis☆☆☆

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) with extracorporeal circulation (ECC) is currently the treatment of choice for symptomatic aortic stenosis. However, patients with multiple high-risk comorbid conditions may benefit from reduced ECC time and thus, reduced myocardial ischemia, by the use of sutureless AVR. We describe the initial experience and 1-year results of our first 3F-Enable AVR implants. Between 09/05 and 12/05, six patients (age 74+/-1.8 years; three females) with symptomatic aortic stenosis (NYHA III) underwent AVR with an equine pericardial and nitinol-stented sutureless prosthesis. For additional safety up to three stay sutures were placed. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, intraoperatively, at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Clinical data, adverse events and patient outcome were recorded prospectively. Prosthesis sizes were 27 mm (n=3), 25 mm (n=1), 23 mm (n=1) and 21 mm (n=1). ECC time was 87+/-32 min; aortic clamp time was 56+/-24 min. Prosthesis deployment time was 148 +/- 173 s. There were no intraoperative deaths or complications. At 12-month follow-up mean pressure gradients (MPG) were 6.8+/-3.5 mmHg and aortic valve area (AVA) was 2.2 +/- 0.5 cm(2). One patient underwent successful redo AVR after 8 months due to severe paravalvular leakage (PVL), and one patient died due to lung cancer 10 months after surgery. At 12 months follow-up four out of six patients are alive and asymptotic (NYHA I) with the 3F-Enable aortic valve prosthesis, however, one patient showed mild paravalvular leakage. These first 1-year follow-up data suggest the feasibility of this new concept of sutureless aortic valve implantation. However, severe aortic insufficiency at 8 months and paravalvular leakage at 1-year follow-up should prompt further procedural and device enhancements.