Rapid-Deployment Versus Conventional Bio-Prosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background: The use of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RD-AVR) has burgeoned in recent years. There are few studies comparing RD-AVR to conventional aortic valve replacement (cAVR) and no studies where both were inserted via full sternotomy. As such, we reviewed our experience and compared the two approaches.

Methods: From 2008 to 2015, 597 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement ± coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at a single centre. During this period, 41 (7%) patients received RD-AVR and 556 (93%) received cAVR. Of those receiving RD-AVR, surgical access was via full median sternotomy in 40 (98%). Propensity score matching yielded 41 matched pairs. Perioperative outcomes were compared.

Results: After propensity score matching, the RD-AVR group had shorter aortic cross clamp (X-clamp) (RD-AVR: 71±33min vs. cAVR: 106±42min, p<0.01) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (95±42min vs. 134±47min, p<0.01). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (RD-AVR: 2% vs. cAVR: 2%, p>0.99). RD-AVR patients required shorter mean ventilation (17±25 vs. 63±131hrs, p<0.01) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (51±45 vs. 108±157hrs, p=0.03) times. RD-AVR also had reduced rates of new postoperative atrial arrhythmias (8% vs. 20%, p=0.02). Total length of postoperative hospital stay was similar. Haemodynamic performance for the RD-AVR was within acceptable limits.

Conclusions: The use of RD-AVR results in shorter X-clamp and CPB times and is associated with reductions in perioperative morbidity. RD-AVR is becoming a valuable component of the surgeon's armamentarium in selected patients. Long-term follow-up will reveal the full potential of these devices.