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 +/- 33 min vs. cAVR: 106 +/- 42 min, p<0.01) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (95 +/- 42 min vs. 134 +/- 47 min, p<0.01). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (RD-AVR: 2% vs. cAVR: 2%, p>0.99). RDAVR patients required shorter mean ventilation (17 +/- 25 vs. 63 +/- 131 hrs, p<0.01) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (51 +/- 45 vs. 108 +/- 157 hrs, 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.