Outcomes of Sutureless/Rapid Deployment Valves Compared to Traditional Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Prognostic influence of objective nutritional indexes on mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis (from the nutrition‐SAVR trial)

“…Moreover, SAVR with sutureless/rapid‐deployment (SRD) prostheses could be useful especially in frailty 29 . However, Erfe et al 30 indicated that in SRD implantation, short‐term mortality, major comorbidities, and perivalvular regurgitation were similar between SRD and traditional stented bioprosthetic patients. Severe AS patient population experience muscle wasting and secondary malnutrition with the effect of advanced age and physical inactivity caused by the disease 31 .…”

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta‐analysis

“…In our prespecified subgroup analysis, SuAVR did not significantly reduce mortality in high risk patients (OR: 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 1.35], p = .09, Twenty studies (n = 26,812, SuAVR = 8635, SAVR = 18,177) reported stroke. [19][20][21][22][24][25][26]28,[41][42][43]46,67,[69][70][71][72][73][74][75] Stroke was similar between SuAVR and SAVR (OR: 1.04, 95% CI [0.82, 1.32], p = .77, I 2 = 6%, very-low quality). We did not detect publication bias on visual inspection.…”

“…49,53,54,62 Overall, 45 studies were at high risk, 34 studies were at unclear risk, and no studies were at low risk of bias. Appendix 2 includes risk of bias assessment of We pooled results from 26 studies [19][20][21][22][24][25][26][28][29][30][41][42][43][44]60,[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] (n = 27,614; SuAVR = 9028, SAVR = 18,586). The 30-day and 2-year mortality were similar between the two groups (30-day, OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85,1.16], p = .93, I 2 = 0%, very-low quality) and (2-year, OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43,2.30], p = .98, I 2 = 7%, very-low quality).…”

Rapid Deployment Valves Are Advantageous in the Redo Setting: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study

“…Research to date has demonstrated that rapid deployment valves (RDVs) are associated with reduced operative times but higher rates of permanent pacemaker insertion. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Overall, despite the reduction in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, clinical outcomes such as mortality and major morbidity do not differ. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The question remains where do RDVs fit in the management of patients with aortic valve disease?…”