Rapid deployment or sutureless versus conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Suk Ho Sohn¹  Myoung-jin Jang² 

[1] Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea;Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

关键词: rapid deployment;    sutureless;    aortic valve replacement;    meta-analysis;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.01.084

学科分类：心脏病和心血管学

来源: Mosby, Inc.

【 摘 要 】

ObjectivesThis meta-analysis was conducted to compare the early and follow-up outcomes of aortic valve replacement using rapid deployment or sutureless (RD) valves (RDAVR group) with aortic valve replacement using conventional bioprostheses (CAVR group).MethodsA literature search of 5 online databases was conducted. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and the secondary outcomes included the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times and early mortality and all-cause mortality during follow-up.ResultsTwenty-one articles (RDAVR group = 1297 patients; CAVR group = 1488 patients) were selected. The pooled analyses showed that the ACC and CPB times were significantly shorter in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (mean difference, −26.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], −31.86 to −20.82 and mean difference, −25.33; 95% CI, −30.79 to −19.87, respectively). The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of any paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion were significantly higher in the RDAVR group than in the CAVR group (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.53-3.51 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49-2.90, respectively). The pooled analysis showed that the risk of a paravalvular leak grade ≥2 in the RDAVR group did not significantly differ between the RDAVR and CAVR groups (RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.71-5.93). The risk of PPM insertion remained significant when only studies reporting adjusted outcomes were pooled. The risks of other postoperative complications, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up were not significantly different between the RDAVR and CAVR groups.ConclusionsRDAVR is associated with significantly shorter ACC and CPB times than CAVR, although this difference did not translate into improved postoperative outcomes, early mortality, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Care might be needed when implanting RD valves because they are associated with a higher incidence of PPM insertion, regardless of the RD valve type.

【 授权许可】

Unknown