Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3795_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
09.09.2026
Размер:
18 Мб
Скачать
Surgical Treatment of Aortic Valve Disease
267
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
series of 2256 patients. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2011 Apr;141(4):940–7.
[52] Mihaljevic T, Nowicki ER, Rajeswaran J, Blackstone EH, Lagazzi L, Thomas J, et al.
Survival after valve replacement for aortic stenosis: Implications for decision making. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2008 Jun;135(6):1270–1278; discussion 1278–9.
[53] Mkalaluh S, Szczechowicz M, Dib B, Sabashnikov A, Szabo G, Karck M, et al. Early
and long-term results of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a right mini­thoracotomy approach: A retrospective propensity-score matched analysis. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4810.
[54] Speziale G, Nasso G, Esposito G, Conte M, Greco E, Fattouch K, et al. Results of
mitral valve repair for Barlow disease (bileaflet prolapse) via right minithoracotomy versus conventional median sternotomy: A randomized trial. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2011 Jul;142(1):77–83.
[55] ElBardissi AW, Shekar P, Couper GS, Cohn LH. Minimally invasive aortic valve
replacement in octogenarian, high-risk, transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2011 Feb;141 (2):328–35.
[56] Thourani VH, Ailawadi G, Szeto WY, Dewey TM, Guyton RA, Mack MJ, et al.
Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients: A multiinstitutional study. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2011 Jan;91(1):49–55; discussion 55–6.
[57] Alexander KP, Anstrom KJ, Muhlbaier LH, Grosswald RD, Smith PK, Jones RH, et al.
Outcomes of cardiac surgery in patients > or = 80 years: Results from the National Cardiovascular Network. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000 Mar;35(3):731–8.
[58] Chikwe J, Croft LB, Goldstone AB, Castillo JG, Rahmanian PB, Adams DH, et al.
Comparison of the results of aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or =30% versus patients with ejection fraction >30%. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2009 Dec;104(12):1717–21.
[59] Arenaza DP de, Pepper J, Lees B, Rubinstein F, Nugara F, Roughton M, et al.
Preoperative 6-minute walk test adds prognostic information to Euroscore in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2010 Jan;96(2):113–7.
[60] Gulbins H, Florath I, Ennker J. Cerebrovascular events after stentless aortic valve
replacement during a 9-year follow-up period. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2008 Sep;86(3):769–73.
[61] Al-Atassi T, Lam K, Forgie M, Boodhwani M, Rubens F, Hendry P, et al. Cerebral
microembolization after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: Comparison of warfarin plus aspirin versus aspirin only. Circulation. 2012 Sep;126(11 Suppl
1):S239–244.
[62] Miller DC, Blackstone EH, Mack MJ, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, Kapadia S, et al.
Transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (AVR) aortic valve replacement: Occurrence, hazard, risk factors, and consequences of neurologic events in the PARTNER trial. The
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2012 Apr;143(4):832–843.e13.
Rafik Margaryan
268
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
[63] Filsoufi F, Rahmanian PB, Castillo JG, Bronster D, Adams DH. Incidence, imaging
analysis, and early and late outcomes of stroke after cardiac valve operation. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2008 May;101(10):1472–8.
[64] Guenther U, Theuerkauf N, Frommann I, Brimmers K, Malik R, Stori S, et al.
Predisposing and precipitating factors of delirium after cardiac surgery: A prospective observational cohort study. Annals of Surgery. 2013 Jun;257(6):1160–7.
[65] Cerillo AG, Amoretti F, Mariani M, Cigala E, Murzi M, Gasbarri T, et al. Increased
Gradients After Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perceval Valve: The Role of Oversizing. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2018;106(1):121–8.
[66] Baraki H, Al Ahmad A, Jeng-Singh S, Saito S, Schmitto JD, Fleischer B, et al.
Pacemaker dependency after isolated aortic valve replacement: Do conductance disorders recover over time? Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2013 Apr;16(4):476–81.
[67] Huynh H, Dalloul G, Ghanbari H, Burke P, David M, Daccarett M, et al. Permanent
pacemaker implantation following aortic valve replacement: Current prevalence and clinical predictors. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology: PACE. 2009 Dec;32(12): 1520–5.
[68] Vogt F, Moscarelli M, Nicoletti A, Gregorini R, Pollari F, Kalisnik JM, et al.
Sutureless Aortic Valve and Pacemaker Rate: From Surgical Tricks to Clinical Outcomes. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2019;108(1):99–105.
[69] Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH.
Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: Final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000 Oct;36(4):1152–8.
[70] Ruel M, Chan V, Bédard P, Kulik A, Ressler L, Lam BK, et al. Very long-term
survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age. Circulation. 2007 Sep;116(11 Suppl):I294–300.
[71] Casaclang-Verzosa G, Malouf JF, Scott CG, Juracan EM, Nishimura RA, Pellikka PA.
Does left atrial size predict mortality in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis? Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, NY). 2010 Feb;27(2):105–9.
[72] Schlömicher M, Bechtel M, Taghiyev Z, Naraghi H, Haldenwang PL, Moustafine V, et
al. Intermediate Outcomes after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in Multiple Valve Surgery. The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon. 2019 Apr;
[73] Concistrè G, Bianchi G, Chiaramonti F, Margaryan R, Marchi F, Kallushi E, et al.
Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction. Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa). 2019 Oct;14(5):445–52.
[74] Edmunds LH. Thrombotic and bleeding complications of prosthetic heart valves. The
Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1987 Oct;44(4):430–45.
[75] Chambers JB, Pomar JL, Mestres CA, Palatianos GM. Clinical event rates with the
On-X bileaflet mechanical heart valve: A multicenter experience with follow-up to 12 years. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2013 Feb;145(2):420–4.
[76] Grunkemeier GL, Li HH, Naftel DC, Starr A, Rahimtoola SH. Long-term performance
of heart valve prostheses. Current Problems in Cardiology. 2000 Feb;25(2):73–154.
[77] Bourguignon T, Bergöend E, Mirza A, Ayegnon G, Neville P, Aupart MR, et al. Risk
factors for valve-related complications after mechanical heart valve replacement in 505
Surgical Treatment of Aortic Valve Disease
269
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
patients with long-term follow up. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 2011 Nov;20(6):673–80.
[78] Rhie S, Choi JY, Jang IS, Kim JW, Lee CE, Park HO. Relationship between the
Occurrence of Thromboembolism and INR Measurement Interval in Low Intensity Anticoagulation after Aortic Mechanical Valve Replacement. The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2011 Jun;44(3):220–4.
[79] Sundt TM, Zehr KJ, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Mullany CJ, McGregor CGA, et al. Is early
anticoagulation with warfarin necessary after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement? The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2005 May;129(5):1024–31.
[80] Aramendi JI, Mestres C-A, Mestres C-A, Martinez-León J, Campos V, Muñoz G, et al.
Triflusal versus oral anticoagulation for primary prevention of thromboembolism after bioprosthetic valve replacement (trac): Prospective, randomized, co-operative trial.
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2005 May;27(5):854–60.
[81] Colli A, Mestres CA, Castella M, Gherli T. Comparing warfarin to aspirin (WoA) after
aortic valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical Epic heart valve bioprosthesis: Results of the WoA Epic pilot trial. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 2007 Nov;16(6):667–71.
[82] ElBardissi AW, DiBardino DJ, Chen FY, Yamashita MH, Cohn LH. Is early
antithrombotic therapy necessary in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves in normal sinus rhythm? The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2010 May;139 (5):1137–45.
[83] Gherli T, Colli A, Fragnito C, Nicolini F, Borrello B, Saccani S, et al. Comparing
warfarin with aspirin after biological aortic valve replacement: A prospective study. Circulation. 2004 Aug;110(5):496–500.
[84] Colli A, Verhoye J-P, Heijmen R, Antunes M, ACTION Investigators. Low-dose
acetyl salicylic acid versus oral anticoagulation after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Final report of the ACTION registry. International Journal of Cardiology. 2013 Sep;168(2):1229–36.
[85] Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, Leon AC de, Faxon DP, Freed MD, et al.
2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines 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 (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008 Sep;52(13):e1–142.
[86] Whitlock RP, Sun JC, Fremes SE, Rubens FD, Teoh KH. Antithrombotic and
thrombolytic therapy for valvular disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e576S–600S.
[87] Lengyel M, Vandor L. The role of thrombolysis in the management of left-sided
prosthetic valve thrombosis: A study of 85 cases diagnosed by transesophageal echocardiography. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 2001 Sep;10(5):636–49.
Rafik Margaryan
270
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
[88] Gordon SM, Serkey JM, Longworth DL, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM. Early onset
prosthetic valve endocarditis: The Cleveland Clinic experience 1992-1997. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2000 May;69(5):1388–92.
[89] Wang A, Athan E, Pappas PA, Fowler VG, Olaison L, Paré C, et al. Contemporary
clinical profile and outcome of prosthetic valve endocarditis. JAMA. 2007 Mar;297(12):1354–61.
[90] Prendergast BD, Tornos P. Surgery for infective endocarditis: Who and when?
Circulation. 2010 Mar;121(9):1141–52.
[91] David TE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Cohen G. Late results of heart valve
replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2001 Feb;121(2):268–77.
[92] Emery RW, Krogh CC, Arom KV, Emery AM, Benyo-Albrecht K, Joyce LD, et al.
The St. Jude Medical cardiac valve prosthesis: A 25-year experience with single valve replacement. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2005 Mar;79(3):776–782; discussion 782–3.
[93] Ikonomidis JS, Kratz JM, Crumbley AJ, Stroud MR, Bradley SM, Sade RM, et al.
Twenty-year experience with the St Jude Medical mechanical valve prosthesis. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2003 Dec;126(6):2022–31.
[94] Khan SS, Trento A, DeRobertis M, Kass RM, Sandhu M, Czer LS, et al. Twenty-year
comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2001 Aug;122(2):257–69.
[95] Bouhout I, Stevens L-M, Mazine A, Poirier N, Cartier R, Demers P, et al. Long-term
outcomes after elective isolated mechanical aortic valve replacement in young adults. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014 Oct;148(4):1341–1346.e1.
[96] Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, O’Brien S, Booth ME, Dokholyan RS, et al. Long-
term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: Results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. Circulation. 2013 Apr;127(16):1647–55.
[97] Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JAH, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic
valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: Changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2009 Jan;137(1):82–
90.
[98] McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E, Lipsitz S, Maloney A, Byrne JG, et al.
Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: Up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2010 May;89(5):1410–6.
[99] Mykén PSU, Bech-Hansen O. A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor
porcine bioprosthesis. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2009 Jan;137(1):76–81.
[100] Valfrè C, Ius P, Minniti G, Salvador L, Bottio T, Cesari F, et al. The fate of Hancock II
porcine valve recipients 25 years after implant. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2010 Aug;38(2):141–6.
Surgical Treatment of Aortic Valve Disease
271
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
[101] Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M, Stein J, Detschades C, Siniawski H, et al. Aortic valve
replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: Durability results up to 21 years. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2008 Sep;136(3):688–96.
[102] Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP, Cartier R, Bouchard D, Demers P, et al. Carpentier-
Edwards Pericardial Valve in the Aortic Position: 25-Years Experience. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery [Internet]. 2013 Aug [cited 2020 May 10];96(2):486–93. Available from: https://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/article/S0003-4975(13)00609-7/abstract.
[103] Choi JB, Kim JH, Park HK, Kim KH, Kim MH, Kuh JH, et al. Aortic valve
replacement using continuous suture technique in patients with aortic valve disease. The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2013 Aug;46(4):249–
55.
[104] Watanabe G, Ushijima T, Tomita S, Yamaguchi S, Koshida Y, Iino K. Revival of
continuous suture technique in aortic valve replacement in patient with aortic valve stenosis: A novel modified technique. Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa). 2011 Sep;6(5):311–5.
[105] De Cicco G, Lorusso R, Colli A, Nicolini F, Fragnito C, Grimaldi T, et al. Aortic valve
periprosthetic leakage: Anatomic observations and surgical results. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2005 May;79(5):1480–5.
[106] Haider AW, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Increased left ventricular mass and
hypertrophy are associated with increased risk for sudden death. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998 Nov;32(5):1454–9.
[107] Kühl HP, Franke A, Puschmann D, Schöndube FA, Hoffmann R, Hanrath P.
Regression of left ventricular mass one year after aortic valve replacement for pure severe aortic stenosis. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2002 Feb;89(4):408–13.
[108] Bonow RO, Borer JS, Rosing DR, Henry WL, Pearlman AS, McIntosh CL, et al.
Preoperative exercise capacity in symptomatic patients with aortic regurgitation as a predictor of postoperative left ventricular function and long-term prognosis. Circulation. 1980 Dec;62(6):1280–90.
[109] García R, Villar AV, Cobo M, Llano M, Martín-Durán R, Hurlé MA, et al. Circulating
levels of miR-133a predict the regression potential of left ventricular hypertrophy after valve replacement surgery in patients with aortic stenosis. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2013 Aug;2(4):e000211.
[110] Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: Definition, clinical impact, and
prevention. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2006 Aug;92(8):1022–9.
[111] Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Cartier PC, Métras J, Lemieux MD. Patient-prosthesis
mismatch can be predicted at the time of operation. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2001 May;71(5 Suppl):S265–268.
[112] Hanayama N, Christakis GT, Mallidi HR, Joyner CD, Fremes SE, Morgan CD, et al.
Patient prosthesis mismatch is rare after aortic valve replacement: Valve size may be irrelevant. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2002 Jun;73(6):1822–1829; discussion
1829.
[113] Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve
prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement.
Circulation. 2003 Aug;108(8):983–8.
Rafik Margaryan
272
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
[114] Tasca G, Brunelli F, Cirillo M, DallaTomba M, Mhagna Z, Troise G, et al. Impact of
valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression following aortic valve replacement. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2005 Feb;79(2):505–10.
[115] Price J, Lapierre H, Ressler L, Lam B-K, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Prosthesis-patient
mismatch is less frequent and more clinically indolent in patients operated for aortic insufficiency. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2009 Sep;138(3):639–45.
[116] Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, Masters RG, Bédard P, Lam B-K, et al. Enlargement of
the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement: Is there a benefit? The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2008 Jan;85(1):94–100.
In: Perspectives in Aortic Valve Disease ISBN: 978-1-53618-769-4
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
Editor: Giovanni Concistrè © 2020 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 14
SURGICAL APPROACH: CONVENTIONAL
AND MINIMALLY INVASIVE TREATMENTS
Giovanni Concistrè
Ospedale del Cuore “G. Pasquinucci,”
Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Massa, Italy
Treatment of aortic valve disease is rapidly evolving. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via a full sternotomy is well tolerated and has demonstrated excellent long-term event-free survival and quality of life. At the same time the use of minimally invasive surgical approaches, after decades of scepticism, is increasing in the attempt to further reduce postoperative morbidity and to improve patient satisfaction. However, not all cardiac surgeons offer minimal access approach aortic valve replacement. In 1993, the first mini-AVR was performed through a right thoracotomy. Subsequently, a variety of incisions, including partial lower and transverse sternotomy as well as a parasternal approach, have been adopted. Nowadays, the right anterior minithoracotomy, ministernotomy and in the recent times endoscopic right axillar minithoracotomy are the predominant approaches for the mini-AVR. At present, there are no guidelines to either recommend or discourage surgeons from using minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve surgery because of the lack of definitive prospective randomized studies.
Keywords: aortic valve, valvular disease, aortic valve prosthesis, aortic valve replacement,
conventional aortic valve replacement, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement
Aortic valve replacement can be performed through a median sternotomy with standard
or limited skin incision, through an upper midline sternotomy extending to the right third or fourth intercostal space, or through a right thoracotomy in the second or third intercostal
Corresponding Author’s Email: gioconci@libero.it.
, MD and Marco Solinas, MD
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Giovanni Concistrè and Marco Solinas
274
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
space. Although median sternotomy remains the surgical approach most used, less invasive surgery represents the treatment of choice for AVR in many Centers.
CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
Cardiopulmonary Bypass and Myocardial Protection
AVR is performed with a venous cannula in the right atrium for venous return and distal
ascending aorta is cannulated for systemic perfusion. A cannula for antegrade cardioplegia is inserted in the ascending aorta and a preshaped catheter is inserted in the coronary sinus through the right atrium for retrograde cardioplegia in selected cases. Left ventricular venting is performed through the right superior pulmonary vein. Once all cannulae are in place, an activated clotting time (ACT) of >400 seconds is necessary before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is initiated. Attention should be given at this time to proper venous drainage and absence of LV distension. The plane between the aorta and the pulmonary artery is divided for secure and proper positioning of the aortic cross-clamp. We use mild systemic hypothermia (34°C). Normothermic blood cardioplegia is used with antegrade induction followed by intermittent retrograde perfusion, in selected cases. When the procedure is prolonged and the aortic root open, additional protection can be obtained with intermittent antegrade direct cardioplegia administration into the coronary ostia every 15 minutes. In more complex procedures, we use single dose of cold crystalloid cardioplegia (Custodiol), dosed according to patient’s body weight.
Exposure of the Aortic Valve
We performe the aortotomy anteriorly approximately 2 cm above the commissures In
cases of stented prosthesis implantation, extending the incision obliquely into the non­coronary sinus allows easier passage of a large valve prosthesis. This incision can be extended into the aortic annulus or further into the anterior mitral leaflet in cases requiring aortic root enlargement. Commissural sutures are pulled outward to improve valve and root exposure.
Valve Excision, Debridement, and Sizing
Valve leaflets excision is started at the commissures. Using scissors, the aortic valve
leaflets are resected en bloc at their hinge point. Further debridement is carefully performed using two surgical forceps or a rongeur. The aim is to remove all calcium at the level of the annulus in order to suture the prosthesis into pliable tissues, which reduces the risk of paravalvular leaks. Care should be taken to avoid disruption of the annulus in cases of generous debridement, as well as preventing calcium fragments from falling into the left ventricle, as these may embolize systemically or into the coronary ostia. The annulus is then sized and an appropriate prosthesis chosen. Patient body surface area (BSA) and valve
Surgical Approach
275
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
effective orifice area (EOA) characteristics should be considered to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). In addition, the importance of implanting a large stented bioprosthesis at first operation is increasingly important should a valve-in-valve procedure be considered.
Valve Implantation
Stented Prosthesis
Pledgeted Ticron 2-0 U-stitches are used to secure the prosthesis to the annulus.
Typically, four or five pledgeted sutures are needed per sinus. The sutures should be strong enough but not include too much annular tissue to avoid crowding the space beneath the prosthesis, which may cause turbulence and favor pannus formation. Attention should be given when placing the sutures at the level of the right and non-coronary cusp commissure to avoid injury to the conduction tissue. These sutures should follow the crown shape of the annulus instead of a straight line in the subcommissural triangle. Pledgets can be placed on the aortic side or ventricular side. We prefer placing them on the ventricular side because it allows a larger prosthetic valve in a supra-aortic position. However, when implanting mechanical prostheses, pledgets are placed on the aortic side to ensure proper placement of the prosthesis and avoid losing any pledgets in the ventricular cavity. Once all sutures are placed in the sewing ring, the prosthesis is lowered onto the annulus. Care should be taken not to force the prosthesis to avoid aortic tearing or prosthesis deformation. After the prosthesis is tied in place, the coronary ostia should be visible. In case of doubt about potential paravalvular leaks, a small right-angle clamp is used to probe the spaces between the sutures.
In patients with a small aortic annulus, annular enlargement should be considered. To do
this, the aortotomy is extended toward the nadir of the non-coronary sinus. Depending on the targeted degree of annular enlargement, the incision can be continued into the aortic annulus, or further into the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve. Once the incision has been prolonged, the space is filled with a diamond-shaped patch of Dacron or bovine pericardium, sutured first to the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve. When both limbs of the suture have passed beyond the native aortic annulus, the prosthesis is sutured into place as previously described. The non-coronary sinus is then sutured to the interposition graft, before the aortotomy is fully closed. Extending the incision into the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve allows the placing of a prosthesis one or two sizes larger than the original measurement.
Homograft Prosthesis
Stentless AVR can be performed using the total root or the subcoronary techniques. Total
root replacement minimizes leaflet distortion and ensures an even distribution of stresses on the leaflets. A continuous running suture or interrupted single 4-0 polypropylene sutures are used to suture the prosthesis to the aortic annulus. Suturing is started at the commissure between the right and left coronary sinuses. The prosthesis is placed in its anatomical position. However, because the angle between the pig coronary ostia is significantly narrower than in humans, the xenograft buttons should be ligated and the patient coronaries alternately positioned within the sinus wall.
Giovanni Concistrè and Marco Solinas
276
Complimentary Contributor Copy
https://t.me/med1917
Alternatively, the stentless root can be placed in a subcoronary position. First, the sinuses
of Valsalva from the xenograft root are resected, leaving 2–3 mm of sinus wall at the attachment of the leaflets. Three 4-0 polypropylene sutures are then placed at each commissure, and through the stentless root. The stentless root is lowered and the proximal suture line is performed at the level of the aortic annulus. The second suture line is then performed following the crown shape of the xenograft onto the native sinus wall, ensuring coronary ostial permeability.
Stentless Prosthesis
A transverse aortotomy should be performed high above the commissures, in order to
provide good vision over the sinuses as well as sufficient space for stentless commissure attachment to the aortic wall. Three reference “stay” sutures placed slightly above the commissures are helpful. Particular attention must be paid to the aortic root anatomy, and a correct sizing is critical. Symmetric implantation may be difficult with a wide and deep noncoronary (NC) sinus and particularly in the case of bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), when the commissure landmark is missing. We therefore discourage use of a stentless valve in a BAV root anatomy. There is also a potential risk of regurgitation over time, due to presumed coexistent aortic disease and potentially later aortic dilatation in these patients. The use of stentless prosthesis should therefore be avoided in patients with BAV and in those with moderate dilatation of the ascending aorta. The fundamental importance of accurate sizing and prosthesis selection must be emphasized. The probe should tightly fit the aortic annulus (Figure 2A). The prosthetic valve corresponding to the probe is already upsized by the manufacturer, to one size more or 2 mm larger than the annular diameter. When in doubt with determining the correct valve size, one should consider that oversizing the stentless valve may result in S-shaped leaflet folding with functional stenosis and high gradients. Another source of dysfunction can be the presence or likelihood of future root and/or sinotubular junction dilatation, which have the potential to cause regurgitation. This means that both oversizing and undersizing have the potential to cause prosthesis failure. In general, if one size is too small and the larger one fits the annulus with some resistance, the larger one should be implanted. Three equidistant, intercommissural sutures (polypropylene 4-0, using a small semicircular needle) are then placed in the supra-annular position at the nadir of each sinus, at 2–3 mm above the native annulus. Each of these sutures must be placed at the corresponding part of the tissue valve cusps, using the pericardial strip available at the basis of the stentless valve (Figure 2B). Placement of sutures below or through the annulus must be avoided. At the level of the commissures, the sutures are passed out of the aorta and tied together (Figure 2C­E). At the end of the suturing process, the sutureless bioprosthesis becomes somewhat fixed in the aortic root and the exposition may be more difficult, potentially making suturing difficult, especially in cases with small valve sizes. It is important to avoid too small suture bites, to prevent dehiscence. Care must be taken to avoid any laceration of the valve leaflets with a needle tip and also to prevent any damage of the assembly suture of the valve. Some surgeons have suggested to start suturing at the right coronary sinus, followed by the left coronary sinus, and finally the NC sinus, but in fact, any order can be followed (Figure 2F). There is large individual variability in root anatomy, and the NC sinus often presents wider and deeper than the symmetric prosthesis. Therefore, the suture line can be longer, and consequently, relatively less valve tissue might be available for a longer distance between commissures, resulting in bites that create folding or tension. In fact, most reported failures