Dataset Information

Pledgeted versus nonpledgeted sutures in aortic valve replacement: Insights from a prospective multicenter trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare short- and midterm clinical and echocardiographic outcomes according to the use of pledgeted sutures during aortic valve replacement.

Methods

Patients with aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring aortic valve replacement were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to evaluate the safety of a new stented bioprosthesis. Outcomes were analyzed according to the use of pledgets (pledgeted group) or no pledgets (nonpledgeted group). The primary outcome was a composite of thromboembolism, endocarditis, and major paravalvular leak at 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included multiple clinical endpoints and hemodynamic outcomes. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for prognostic factors, and subanalyses with small valve sizes (<23 mm) and suturing techniques were performed.

Results

The pledgeted group comprised 640 patients (59%), and the nonpledgeted group 442 (41%), with baseline discrepancies in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and stenosis severity. There were no differences between groups in any outcome. After propensity score matching, the primary outcome occurred in 41 (11.7%) patients in the pledgeted and 36 (9.8%) in the nonpledgeted group (P = .51). The effective orifice area was smaller in the pledgeted group (P = .045), whereas no difference was observed for the mean or peak pressure gradient. Separate subanalyses with small valve sizes and suturing techniques did not show relevant differences.

Conclusions

In this large propensity score-matched cohort, comprehensive clinical outcomes were comparable between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with pledgeted and nonpledgeted sutures up to 5 years of follow-up, but pledgets might lead to a slightly smaller effective orifice area in the long run.

SUBMITTER: Velders BJJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9938379 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pledgeted versus nonpledgeted sutures in aortic valve replacement: Insights from a prospective multicenter trial.

Velders Bart J J BJJ Vriesendorp Michiel D MD Sabik Joseph F JF Dagenais Francois F Labrousse Louis L Bapat Vinayak V Aldea Gabriel S GS Anyanwu Anelechi C AC Cai Yaping Y Klautz Robert J M RJM

JTCVS techniques 20221105

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to compare short- and midterm clinical and echocardiographic outcomes according to the use of pledgeted sutures during aortic valve replacement.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring aortic valve replacement were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to evaluate the safety of a new stented bioprosthesis. Outcomes were analyzed according to the use of pledgets (pledgeted group) or no pledgets (nonpledgeted group) ...[more]

PMID: 36820352

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Myocardial injury is associated with higher mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and might be increased by prior balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). We aimed to evaluate the impact of prior BAV versus direct prosthesis implantation on myocardial injury occurring after (TAVR) with balloon-expandable prostheses. Methods and Results The DIRECTAVI (Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial, an open-label randomized study, demonstrated noninferiority of TAVR without BAV (direct TAVR group) compared with systematic BAV (BAV group) with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve. High-sensitivity troponin was assessed before and the day after the procedure. Incidence of myocardial injury after the procedure (high-sensitivity troponin elevation >15× the upper reference limit [14 ng/L]) was the main end point. Impact of myocardial injury on 1-month adverse events (all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, major vascular complications, transfusion, acute kidney injury, heart failure, pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation) was evaluated. Preprocedure and postprocedure high-sensitivity troponin levels were available in 211 patients. The mean age of patients was 83 years (78-87 years), with 129 men (61.1%). Mean postprocedure high-sensitivity troponin was 124.9±81.4 ng/L in the direct TAVR group versus 170.4±127.7 ng/L in the BAV group (P=0.007). Myocardial injury occurred in 42 patients (19.9%), including 13 patients (12.2%) in the direct TAVR group and 29 (27.9%) in the BAV group (P=0.004). BAV increased by 2.8-fold (95% CI, 1.4-5.8) myocardial injury probability. Myocardial injury was associated with 1-month adverse events (P=0.03). Conclusions BAV increased the incidence and magnitude of myocardial injury after TAVR with new-generation balloon-expandable valves. Myocardial injury was associated with 1-month adverse events. These results argue in favor of direct SAPIEN 3 valve implantation. Registration URL: https://www.Clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02729519.

Project description:Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], P=0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], P=0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], P=0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], P<0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], P=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (P=0.26), myocardial infarction (P=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (P=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.MethodsWe performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.ResultsRelative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.ConclusionsIn a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.StandardsWith expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).DesignA single-blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingSingle centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.InterventionsIntervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5-7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses.Results270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years).ConclusionsAVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.Trial registration numberISRCTN29567910; Results.

Dataset Information

Pledgeted versus nonpledgeted sutures in aortic valve replacement: Insights from a prospective multicenter trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pledgeted versus nonpledgeted sutures in aortic valve replacement: Insights from a prospective multicenter trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets