Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with active infective endocarditis

Alina Zubarevich; Arian Arjomandi Rad; Marcin Szczechowicz; Arjang Ruhparwar; Alexander Weymann

doi:10.21037/jtd-22-486

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with active infective endocarditis

J Thorac Dis. 2022 Sep;14(9):3178-3186. doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-486.

Authors

Alina Zubarevich¹, Arian Arjomandi Rad², Marcin Szczechowicz¹, Arjang Ruhparwar¹, Alexander Weymann¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, West German Heart and Vascular Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
² Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Abstract

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement remains the gold standard of treatment in patients with active infective endocarditis. Such procedures tend to carry a significantly higher operative risk when compared to the conventional aortic valve replacement for a non-infective aortic valve disease. Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has been introduced into cardiac surgery to allow for a simpler implementation of minimally invasive procedures. Although SU-AVR in several extended indications has proven to be successful, the data on the implementation of SU-AVR in patients with infective aortic valve endocarditis remain scarce. The aim of the study was to examine the feasibility of SU-AVR in high-risk patients with active infective aortic valve endocarditis.

Methods: Between December 2019 and March 2022, a total of 151 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. Of those, in 13 consecutive high-risk patients SU-AVR was indicated because of infective aortic valve endocarditis. In all cases Perceval S aortic valve prosthesis (Corcym, Saluggia, Italy) was used and the implantation has been performed with Snugger-method.

Results: The mean age of the patients at operation was 74.05±11.6 years. Eight of the patients suffered from prosthesis endocarditis while the other five patients presented with the endocarditis of the native aortic valve. All patients suffered from multiple comorbidities, as reflected by a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 47.9%±23.1% and EuroSCORE II of 28.7%±22.0%. In 8 patients (61.5%) a concomitant procedure was necessary. Also 8 patients (61.5%) underwent a redo procedure. Bypass- and cross-clamp (CC) times were 89.8±33.6 and 59.1±27.8 minutes, respectively. We observed no paravalvular leakage and no cases of left-ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Postoperative mean gradients after SU-AVR implantation were 8.1±4.8 mmHg.

Conclusions: SU-AVR in patients presenting with active infective endocarditis is a safe and feasible surgical alternative to the conventional operation. Clearly, this operative approach should be considered particularly for high-risk patients in whom successful operative outcomes are determined by a reduction in bypass and CC time. SU-AVR provides excellent hemodynamic performance with a low risk of paravalvular leakage and low transvalvular gradients, whilst simplifying the surgical procedure.

Keywords: Infective endocarditis; Perceval; sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).