Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Medical Devices Volume 10, 2013 - Issue 4
Submit an article Journal homepage
135
Views
25
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Device Profile

Current trends in aortic valve replacement: development of the rapid deployment EDWARDS INTUITY valve system

Michael A Borger Leipzig Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Struempellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany. [email protected]
,
Pascal Dohmen Leipzig Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Struempellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany
,
Martin Misfeld Leipzig Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Struempellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany
&
Friedrich W Mohr Leipzig Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Struempellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany
Pages 461-470 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Roberts WC, Ko JM. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation 111(7), 920–925 (2005).
  • Lindroos M, Kupari M, Heikkilä J, Tilvis R. Prevalence of aortic valve abnormalities in the elderly: an echocardiographic study of a random population sample. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 21(5), 1220–1225 (1993).
  • Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur. Heart J. 24(13), 1231–1243 (2003).
  • Pellikka PA, Sarano ME, Nishimura RA et al. Outcome of 622 adults with asymptomatic, hemodynamically significant aortic stenosis during prolonged follow-up. Circulation 111(24), 3290–3295 (2005).
  • Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Circulation 114(5), e84–231 (2006).
  • Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J et al. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation 66(5), 1105–1110 (1982).
  • Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 122(11 Suppl.), S10–S16 (2010).
  • Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137(1), 82–90 (2009).
  • Borger MA, Lehmann S, Seeburger J, Mohr FW. The demise of the stentless valve. Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 24(1), 5–7 (2012).
  • Cohen G, Zagorski B, Christakis GT et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing Carpentier Edwards pericardial valve with the Toronto Stentless Porcine Valve. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 139(4), 848–859 (2010).
  • Harken DE, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA et al. Aortic valve replacement with a caged ball valve. Am. J. Cardiol. 9, 292–299 (1962).
  • Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults an update. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55(22), 2413–2426 (2010).
  • Jamieson WR, Germann E, Aupart MR, Neville PH, Marchand MA, Fradet GJ. 15-year comparison of supra-annular porcine and PERIMOUNT aortic bioprostheses. Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 14(3), 200–205 (2006).
  • Gummert JF, Funkat A, Beckmann A et al. Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2009. A report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 58(7), 379–386 (2010).
  • Frater RW, Salomon NW, Rainer WG, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Wickham E. The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve: intermediate results. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 53(5), 764–771 (1992).
  • Le Tourneau T, Vincentelli A, Fayad G et al. Ten-year echocardiographic and clinical follow-up of aortic Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular prosthesis: a case-match study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 74(6), 2010–2015 (2002).
  • Borger MA, Nette AF, Maganti M, Feindel CM. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valve versus Medtronic Hancock II: a matched hemodynamic comparison. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 83(6), 2054–2058 (2007).
  • Dellgren G, David TE, Raanani E, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, Rakowski H. Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 124(1), 146–154 (2002).
  • McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 89(5), 1410–1416 (2010).
  • Pelletier LCLY, Bonan R, Crépeau J, Dyrda I. Aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: clinical and hemodynamic results. J. Card Surg 3(Suppl.), 405–412 (1988).
  • Perier P, Mihaileanu S, Fabiani JN et al. Long-term evaluation of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position. J. Card. Surg. 6(4 Suppl.), 589–594 (1991).
  • Cosgrove DM 3rd, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 62(2), 596–597 (1996).
  • Svensson LG. Minimal-access ‘J’ or ‘j’ sternotomy for valvular, aortic, and coronary operations or reoperations. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 64(5), 1501–1503 (1997).
  • Moreno-Cabral RJ. Mini-T sternotomy for cardiac operations. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 113(4), 810–811 (1997).
  • Aris A. Reversed ‘C’ ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 67(6), 1806–1807 (1999).
  • von Segesser LK, Westaby S, Pomar J, Loisance D, Groscurth P, Turina M. Less invasive aortic valve surgery: rationale and technique. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 15(6), 781–785 (1999).
  • Doll N, Borger MA, Hain J et al. Minimal access aortic valve replacement: effects on morbidity and resource utilization. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 74(4), S1318–S1322 (2002).
  • Tabata M, Umakanthan R, Cohn LH et al. Early and late outcomes of 1000 minimally invasive aortic valve operations. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 33(4), 537–541 (2008).
  • Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 81(5), 1599–1604 (2006).
  • Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann. Surg. 240(3), 529–534; discussion 534 (2004).
  • Sharony R, Grossi EA, Saunders PC et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery in the elderly: a case–control study. Circulation 108(Suppl. 1), II43–II47 (2003).
  • Byrne JG, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Adams DH, Allred EN, Cohn LH. Reoperative aortic valve replacement: partial upper hemisternotomy versus conventional full sternotomy. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 118(6), 991–997 (1999).
  • Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al.; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(23), 2187–2198 (2011).
  • Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M et al.; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 363(17), 1597–1607 (2010).
  • Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F et al.; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG); Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 42(4), S1–S44 (2012).
  • Bramstedt KA. Aortic valve replacement in the elderly: frequently indicated yet frequently denied. Gerontology 49(1), 46–49 (2003).
  • Iung B, Cachier A, Baron G et al. Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery? Eur. Heart J. 26(24), 2714–2720 (2005).
  • Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al.; PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(23), 2187–2198 (2011).
  • Bapat VRA. Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Edwards Sapien valve. Multimed. Man. Cardiothorac. Surg. 1–5 (2012).
  • Messika-Zeitoun D, Serfaty JM, Brochet E et al. Multimodal assessment of the aortic annulus diameter: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55(3), 186–194 (2010).
  • Schoenhagen P, Numburi U, Halliburton SS et al. Three-dimensional imaging in the context of minimally invasive and transcatheter cardiovascular interventions using multi-detector computed tomography: from pre-operative planning to intra-operative guidance. Eur. Heart J. 31(22), 2727–2740 (2010).
  • Hutter A, Opitz A, Bleiziffer S et al. Aortic annulus evaluation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 76(7), 1009–1019 (2010).
  • Miller DC, Blackstone EH, Mack MJ et al.; PARTNER Trial Investigators and Patients; PARTNER Stroke Substudy Writing Group and Executive Committee. Transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (AVR) aortic valve replacement: occurrence, hazard, risk factors, and consequences of neurologic events in the PARTNER trial. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 143(4), 832.e13–843.e13 (2012).
  • Nuis RJ, Van Mieghem NM, Schultz CJ et al. Frequency and causes of stroke during or after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 109(11), 1637–1643 (2012).
  • Babaliaros VC. Front stroke, back stroke: the ‘emerging’ interest of stroke in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 3(11), 1139–1140 (2010).
  • Bose AK, Aitchison JD, Dark JH. Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2, 33 (2007).
  • Thourani VH, Ailawadi G, Szeto WY et al. Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients: a multiinstitutional study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 91(1), 49–55; discussion 55 (2011).
  • United Nations DoEaSA, Population Division. World population prospects: the 2010 revision, highlights and advance tables. Working Paper ESA/P/WP, 220, 1–164 (2011).
  • Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, Blázquez JA et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 39(6), 844–852; discussion 852 (2011).
  • Kocher AA, Laufer G, Haverich A et al. One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY valve system. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 145(1), 110–115; discussion 115 (2013).
  • Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 33(4), 523–528 (2008).
  • Aymard T, Kadner A, Walpoth N et al. Clinical experience with the second-generation 3f Enable sutureless aortic valve prosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 140(2), 313–316 (2010).
  • Flameng W, Herregods MC, Hermans H et al. Effect of sutureless implantation of the Perceval S aortic valve bioprosthesis on intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 142(6), 1453–1457 (2011).
  • Wendt D, Thielmann M, Buck T et al. First clinical experience and 1-year follow-up with the sutureless 3F-Enable aortic valve prosthesis. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 33(4), 542–547 (2008).
  • Martens S, Ploss A, Sirat S, Miskovic A, Moritz A, Doss M. Sutureless aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable aortic bioprosthesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 87(6), 1914–1917 (2009).
  • Martens S, Sadowski J, Eckstein FS et al. Clinical experience with the ATS 3f Enable® Sutureless Bioprosthesis. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 40(3), 749–755 (2011).
  • Martens S, Zierer A, Ploss A et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement via partial sternotomy. Innovations (Phila.) 5(1), 12–15 (2010).
  • Cerillo AG, Bevilacqua S, Farneti PA, Concistrè G, Glauber M. Sutureless aortic valve replacement through a right minithoracotomy. J. Heart Valve Dis. 21(2), 168–171 (2012).
  • Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistrè G, Fischlein T. A supra-annular malposition of the Perceval S sutureless aortic valve: the ‘χ-movement’ removal technique and subsequent reimplantation. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 15(2), 280–281 (2012).
  • Shrestha M, Khaladj N, Bara C, Hoeffler K, Hagl C, Haverich A. A staged approach towards interventional aortic valve implantation with a sutureless valve: initial human implants. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 56(7), 398–400 (2008).
  • Folliguet TA, Laborde F, Zannis K, Ghorayeb G, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Sutureless perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centers. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 93(5), 1483–1488 (2012).
  • Shrestha M, Folliguet T, Meuris B et al. Sutureless Perceval S aortic valve replacement: a multicenter, prospective pilot trial. J. Heart Valve Dis. 18(6), 698–702 (2009).
  • Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Schmidt J, Concistrè G, Fischlein T. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: first-year single-center experience. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 94(2), 504–508; discussion 508 (2012).
  • Cohen G, Zagorski B, Christakis GT et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve with the Toronto Stentless Porcine Valve. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 139(4), 848–859 (2010).
  • Kiefer P, Gruenwald F, Kempfert J et al. Crimping may affect the durability of transcatheter valves: an experimental analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 92(1), 155–160 (2011).
  • Soltesz EG, Cohn LH. Minimally invasive valve surgery. Cardiol. Rev. 15(3), 109–115 (2007).
  • Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 122(11 Suppl), S10–S16 (2010).
  • McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier–Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 89(5), 1410–1416 (2010).
  • Wendt D, Thielmann M, Pizanis N, Jánosi RA, Kamler M, Jakob H. Sutureless aortic valves over the last 45 years. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 18(3), 122–130 (2009).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.