Stentless aortic reoperation: New surgical strategy with rapid deployment valves

Martinelli, Gian Luca; Cotroneo, Attilio; Greco, Pierpaolo; Cassese, Mauro

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.033

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The data of a total of 17 patients in whom a failing stentless bioprosthesis was replaced with an SB ( n = 14) [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ] or an RDB ( n = 3) [ 21 , 22 ] were collected. In fact, one patient has been reported about twice [ 14 , 19 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Vendramin

Lechiancole

Piani

et al. 2021

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Vendramin

Lechiancole

Piani

et al. 2021

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first reported case using the Intuity RDV for a failed Freestyle prosthesis was published in 2013, 9 and has been subsequently described in an individual case report. 10 RDVs have also been used successfully for reoperative AVR in prior aortic homografts. 11 As this case series demonstrates, RDVs offer several benefits over alternative techniques by not requiring full root re-replacement.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid‐deployment aortic valve replacement after aortic root replacement: A safe alternative to redo root replacement

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reoperative aortic root replacement, following prior biologic or mechanical valved conduit aortic root prosthesis, presents a technical challenge. The rapid-deployment aortic valve prosthesis is an approved alternative to traditional bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. We present three clinical cases in which rapid-deployment aortic valve prostheses were utilized in lieu of reoperative full aortic root replacement. All three patients recovered uneventfully. The rapid-deployment valve insertion in a prior surgical aortic root prosthesis is a safe option to avoid reoperative full aortic root replacement.

show abstract

Aortic Insufficiency Caused by a Leaflet Tearing of the Medtronic Freestyle Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis Complicated by Rheumatic Multivalvular Heart Disease

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report a case of an 85-year-old woman with severe aortic insufficiency caused by structural valve deterioration SVD of Medtronic Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis Freestyle valve complicated by rheumatic multivalvular heart disease. The patient received an aortic valve replacement by using the modified sub-coronary method with a 21 mm Freestyle stentless porcine valve Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA , for severe aortic valve stenosis at of the age of 71. The patient developed severe heart failure 14.5 years after the surgery. She was admitted for severe aortic insufficiency caused by a leaflet injury tear of the Freestyle valve. She also had had rheumatic mitral stenosis and secondary tricuspid insufficiency with severe pulmonary hypertension. Therefore, treating her heart failure was difficult, but surgery was performed. The leaflets of the stentless bioprosthesis were resected. The insertion of the needle suture into the annulus of the stentless valve was difficult because of calcification of the tissue. An aortic root enlargement procedure was performed using a bovine pericardial patch, enabling the insertion of the needle suture into the Dacron cloth at the bottom of the stentless valve, with 2 0 Ethibond threads and single sutures. We successfully performed an aortic valve re-replacement using an Open Pivot Mechanical Heart Valve OPHV 16 mm AP Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA , which was implanted by using the partial valve-in-valve technique. Simultaneously, mitral valve commissurotomy and tricuspid annuloplasty were performed.

show abstract

Stentless aortic reoperation: New surgical strategy with rapid deployment valves

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Rapid‐deployment aortic valve replacement after aortic root replacement: A safe alternative to redo root replacement

Aortic Insufficiency Caused by a Leaflet Tearing of the Medtronic Freestyle Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis Complicated by Rheumatic Multivalvular Heart Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About