Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 147 No. 2728 (2017)

Impact of new technologies and experience on procedural aspects of surgical aortic valve replacement – a process analysis

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2017.14464
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2017;147:w14464
Published
10.07.2017

Summary

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the treatment of choice in severe symptomatic aortic valve disease. New techniques and prostheses have been recently developed to facilitate the procedure and reduce aortic cross-clamp time (AOx). The aim of this study was to analyse the different procedural steps in order to identify the most time-consuming part during aortic clamping time and to compare impact of experience on procedural aspects.

METHODS

AOx during SAVR was divided into five consecutive steps. Duration of each step was measured. The first procedural step started with clamping of the aorta and ended with the beginning of the second step starting with the resection of the native aortic valve. The third step started with placement of the first valve anchoring suture, the fourth step started with tying of the first suture and the fifth and final step started after the cut of the last suture and ended with removal of the aortic clamp. Surgeons were divided into two groups based on their experience, which in our analysis was defined as a total SAVR experience of more than 100 procedures.

RESULTS

From March 2013 to August 2015 57 nonconsecutive patients (33% female; age, median 71.0 years, interquartile range 65.0–76.0) undergoing isolated SAVR for severe aortic valve stenosis in our institution were included in this process analysis. Two different prostheses were implanted. Forty-eight (84%) patients received a tissue valve (Perimount Magna Ease, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, USA) and 9 (16%) patients received a mechanical prosthesis (Medtronic AP 360, St-Paul, MN, USA). The mean estimated risk of mortality was 1.1% (0.7–1.6) according to the logistic EUROScore II. Overall duration of AOx was 50.5 ± 13.8 min, with 32.3% (16.4 ± 5.9 min) accounting for placing the sutures into the native annulus and the prosthetic sewing ring and 18.5% (9.2 ± 3.0min) accounting for tying and cutting the sutures. Surgeons with more experience performed 35 operations (61.4%) and needed an average of 44.1 ± 11.5 min versus 60.6 ± 11.0 min (p <0.001) for less experienced surgeons. Surgeons with more experience needed 14.0 ± 5.0 min for the suturing step and 8.4 ± 2.8 min for tying the sutures compared with 20.2 ± 5.2 min and 10.5 ± 3.0 min, respectively, for the less experienced surgeons with (p <0.001 and p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

Placing and tying sutures in the prostheses accounts for over half (50.8%) of AOx during isolated SAVR. Experienced surgeons have significantly reduced AOx. This shortening is equally distributed between all five procedural steps.

References

  1. Eveborn GW, Schirmer H, Heggelund G, Lunde P, Rasmussen K. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. the Tromsø study. Heart. 2013;99(6):396–400. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302265
  2. Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, Delahaye F, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Levang OW, et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(13):1231–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00201-X
  3. Czarny MJ, Resar JR. Diagnosis and management of valvular aortic stenosis. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2014;8(Suppl 1):15–24. https://doi.org/10.4137/CMC.S15716
  4. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, 3rd, Guyton RA, et al.; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(22):e57–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.536
  5. Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(3):670–679.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.010
  6. Gilmanov D, Bevilacqua S, Murzi M, Cerillo AG, Gasbarri T, Kallushi E, et al. Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(3):837–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.04.102
  7. Neely RC, Boskovski MT, Gosev I, Kaneko T, McGurk S, Leacche M, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women’s Hospital experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4(1):38–48.
  8. Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73(2):460–5, discussion 465–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03402-6
  9. Aris A, Cámara ML, Montiel J, Delgado LJ, Galán J, Litvan H. Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(6):1583–7, discussion 1587–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00362-8
  10. Melly L, Huber C, Delay D, Stumpe F. Chirurgische Behandlung der Aortenklappenfehler. Schweiz Med Forum. 2009;9(4):73-8. German.
  11. Chalmers J, Pullan M, Mediratta N, Poullis M. A need for speed? Bypass time and outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19(1):21–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu102
  12. Doenst T, Borger MA, Weisel RD, Yau TM, Maganti M, Rao V. Relation between aortic cross-clamp time and mortality--not as straightforward as expected. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;33(4):660–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.01.001
  13. Al-Sarraf N, Thalib L, Hughes A, Houlihan M, Tolan M, Young V, et al. Cross-clamp time is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in low- and high-risk cardiac patients. Int J Surg. 2011;9(1):104–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.10.007
  14. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Barón-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, et al.; Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. 2012;33(19):2451–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs109
  15. Aymard T, Kadner A, Walpoth N, Göber V, Englberger L, Stalder M, et al. Clinical experience with the second-generation 3f Enable sutureless aortic valve prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140(2):313–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.10.041
  16. Kocher AA, Laufer G, Haverich A, Shrestha M, Walther T, Misfeld M, et al. One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(1):110–5, discussion 115–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.108
  17. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistré G, Grossmann I, Hinzmann M, Fischlein T. The Perceval S aortic valve has the potential of shortening surgical time: does it also result in improved outcome? Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(1):77–81, discussion 81–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.03.083
  18. Permanyer E, Estigarribia AJ, Ysasi A, Herrero E, Semper O, Llorens R. The 3f Enable sutureless bioprosthesis: Early results, safeguards, and pitfalls. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(6):1578–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.10.055
  19. Englberger L, Carrel TP, Doss M, Sadowski J, Bartus K, Eckstein FF, et al. Clinical performance of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: five-year results of the 3f Enable long-term follow-up study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(4):1681–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.03.054
  20. Hurley ET, O’Sullivan KE, Segurado R, Hurley JP. A Meta-Analysis Examining Differences in Short-Term Outcomes Between Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Prostheses. Innovations (Phila). 2015;10(6):375–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/IMI.0000000000000221
  21. Phan K, Tsai YC, Niranjan N, Bouchard D, Carrel TP, Dapunt OE, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4(2):100–11.
  22. Lee CY, Sauer JS, Gorea HR, Martellaro AJ, Knight PA. Comparison of strength, consistency, and speed of COR-KNOT versus manually hand-tied knots in an ex vivo minimally invasive model. Innovations (Phila). 2014;9(2):111–6, discussion 116. https://doi.org/10.1097/IMI.0000000000000051
  23. Grapow MT, Mytsyk M, Fassl J, Etter P, Matt P, Eckstein FS, et al. Automated fastener versus manually tied knots in minimally invasive mitral valve repair: impact on operation time and short- term results. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;10(1):146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-015-0344-4

Most read articles by the same author(s)