Search

Background Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) has emerged as an attractive alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement. This single-center study directly compared two commercially available rapid deployment valves with regard to clinical outcomes, valve-related complications, and hemodynamic performance. Methods A total of consecutive 156 patients underwent RDAVR with the Intuity Elite (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA [Intuity group, n = 117] or the Perceval S (Sorin Group Italia Srl, Saluggia, Italy [Perceval group, n = 39]) between September 2012 and March 2016 at our institution. Perioperative data, including 30-day all-cause mortality, and echocardiographic measurements were assessed and retrospectively analyzed from our institutional database. Results Preoperative variables, including mean age (77 ± 5 years), European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (6.8 ± 2.1), and body mass index (27 ± 5 kg/m 2 ), did not differ between groups. More male patients (60% versus 15%) with a higher body surface area (1.9 ± 0.2 m 2 versus 1.7 ± 0.2 m 2 ) and body weight (78 ± 13 kg versus 71 ± 15 kg) were in the Intuity group compared with the Perceval group, respectively ( p < 0.05). Implanted RDAVR size (23.3 ± 1.8 mm versus 23.4 ± 1.5 mm), concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery (48% versus 33%), number of grafts, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic clamp time were comparable between the Intuity group and the Perceval group. Thirty-day mortality (Intuity 2.6% versus Perceval 5.1%) and valve-related complications (Intuity 12.0% versus Perceval 20.5%), including postoperative pacemaker implantation (Intuity 8.5% versus Perceval 12.8%), did not differ between groups. At discharge echocardiography, indexed effective orifice area was higher in the Intuity group, but peak or mean pressure gradients were comparable between groups. Conclusions Performing RDAVR with the Intuity and Perceval rapid deployment valves provides comparable good clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics, with low valve-related complication rates. The rate of pacemaker implantation was comparable for both rapid deployment valves, ranging from 8% to 13%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Simultaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is common in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS). This study aimed to analyse the effect of concomitant ECMO and IABP therapy on the short-term outcomes of patients with PCS.Methods: Between March 2006 and March 2017, 172 consecutive patients with central (c) or peripheral (p) veno-arterial ECMO therapy due to PCS were identified at the current institution and included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into ECMO+IABP and ECMO alone groups. Further, the impact of ECMO flow direction was analysed for the groups.Results: A total of 129 patients received ECMO+IABP support and 43 patients were treated with ECMO alone. Median ECMO duration did not differ between the groups (68 [34; 95] hours ECMO+IABP vs 44 [20; 103] hours ECMO; p=0.151). However, a trend toward a higher weaning rate was evident in ECMO+IABP patients (75 [58%] ECMO+IABP vs 18 [42%] ECMO; p=0.078). Concomitant IABP support with either cECMO (73% [n=24] cECMO+IABP vs 50% [n=11] ECMO; p=0.098) or pECMO (57% [n=55] ECMO+IABP vs 33% [n=7] ECMO; p=0.056) was also associated with a trend toward a higher weaning rate off ECMO. In-hospital mortality did not differ between the groups.Conclusion: This analysis found that, independent of ECMO type, additional IABP support might increase ECMO weaning; however, it did not influence survival in PCS patients. Larger studies are necessary to further analyse the impact of this concomitant MSC therapy on clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]