Добавил:
Sekretar
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-1
.pdf
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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
