OBJECTIVES After a panel process, recommendations on the use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in aortic valve replacement were given with special respect as an alternative to stented valves. METHODS Thirty-one international experts in both sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprostheses constituted the panel. After a thorough literature review, evidence-based recommendations were rated in a three-step modified Delphi approach by the experts. RESULTS Literature research could identify 67 clinical trials, 4 guidelines and 10 systematic reviews for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 28 recommendations. After rating by the experts, 12 recommendations were identified and degree of consensus for each was determined. Proctoring and education are necessary for the introduction of sutureless valves on an institutional basis as well as for the individual training of surgeons. Sutureless and rapid deployment should be considered as the valve prosthesis of first choice for isolated procedures in patients with comorbidities, old age, delicate aortic wall conditions such as calcified root, porcelain aorta or prior implantation of aortic homograft and stentless valves as well as for concomitant procedures and small aortic roots to reduce cross-clamp time. Intraoperative transoesophageal echocardiography is highly recommended, and in case of right anterior thoracotomy, preoperative computer tomography is strongly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19–27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for Type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. Careful but complete decalcification of the aortic root is recommended to avoid paravalvular leakage; extensive decalcification should be avoided not to create annular defects. Proximal anastomoses of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting should be placed during a single aortic cross-clamp period or alternatively with careful side clamping. Available evidence suggests that the use of sutureless and rapid deployment valve is associated with (can translate into) reduced early complications such as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions and renal replacement therapy, respectively, and may result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay in comparison with traditional valves. CONCLUSION The international experts recommend various benefits of sutureless and rapid deployment technology, which may represent a helpful tool in aortic valve replacement for patients requiring a biological valve. However, further evidence will be needed to reaffirm the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves.

Clinical evidence in coronary surgery is usually derived from retrospective, single institutional series. This may introduce significant biases in the analysis of critical issues in the treatment of these patients. In order to avoid such methodological limitations, we planned a European multicenter, prospective study on coronary artery bypass grafting, the E-CABG registry. The E-CABG registry is a multicenter study and its data are prospectively collected from 13 centers of cardiac surgery in university and community hospitals located in six European countries (England, Italy, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden). Data on major and minor immediate postoperative adverse events will be collected. Data on late all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization will be collected during a 10-year follow-up period. These investigators provided a score from 0 to 10 for any major postoperative adverse events and their rounded medians were used to stratify the severity of these complications in four grades. The sum of these scores for each complication/intervention occurring after coronary artery bypass grafting will be used as an additive score for further stratification of the prognostic importance of these events. The E-CABG registry is expected to provide valuable data for identification of risk factors and treatment strategies associated with suboptimal outcome. These information may improve the safety and durability of coronary artery bypass grafting. The proposed classification of postoperative complications may become a valuable research tool to stratify the impact of such complications on the outcome of these patients and evaluate the burden of resources needed for their treatment. NCT02319083

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to analyse early postoperative outcomes and 2-year survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) through a ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis implantation compared with a full sternotomy with implantation of a stented bioprosthesis. METHODS Patients who underwent primary isolated non-emergent AVR at six European centres were included in the study. Of these, 182 (32%) underwent a ministernotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis (ministernotomy sutureless group) and 383 (68%) a full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis (full sternotomy stented group). Propensity score matching was used to reduce selection bias. RESULTS In the overall cohort, 30-day mortality was 1.6 and 2.1%, and 2-year survival was 92 and 92% in the ministernotomy sutureless group and in the full sternotomy stented group, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs with similar characteristics and operative risk. Aortic cross-clamp (40 vs 65 min, P < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (69 vs 87 min, P < 0.001) were shorter in the ministernotomy sutureless group. Patients undergoing ministernotomy received less packed red blood cells but the risk for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation was higher. There were no differences regarding 30-day mortality or 2-year survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS AVR through a ministernotomy with implantation of a sutureless bioprosthesis was associated with shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time and less transfusion of packed red blood cells, but a higher risk for postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation compared with a full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of aortic valve replacement with the sutureless Perceval S aortic valve bioprosthesis (Sorin Biomedica Cardio Srl, Saluggia, Italy). This is a retrospective analysis of 314 patients (mean age, 77.9 ± 5.0 years, mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, 9.0% ± 7.6%) who underwent aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S valve with (94 patients) or without (220 patients) concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery at 5 European centers. The Perceval S valve was successfully implanted in all but 1 patient (99.7%). The mean aortic crossclamping time was 43 ± 20 minutes (isolated procedure, 39 ± 15 minutes; concomitant coronary surgery, 52 ± 26 minutes). Severe paravalvular leak occurred in 2 patients (0.6%). In-hospital mortality was 3.2% (1.4% after isolated procedure and 7.4% after concomitant coronary surgery). In-hospital mortality was 2.8% and 4.0% among patients with a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II less than 10% and 10% or greater, respectively (P = .558). Octogenarians had slightly higher in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs 2.0%, P = .125; after isolated procedure: 2.7% vs 0.7%, P = .223; after concomitant coronary surgery: 9.5% vs 5.8%, P = .491) compared with younger patients. Full sternotomy did not increase the in-hospital mortality risk compared with ministernotomy or minithoracotomy access (1.3% vs 1.4%, when adjusted for baseline covariates: P = .921; odds ratio, 0.886; 95% confidence interval, 0.064-12.346). One-year survival was 90.5%. Freedom from valve-related mortality, stroke, endocarditis, and reoperation was 99.0%, 98.1%, 99.2%, and 98.3%, respectively. The sutureless Perceval S valve is associated with excellent early survival in high-risk patients, particularly among those undergoing an isolated procedure. Further studies are needed to prove the durability of this bioprosthesis.

Approximately 10% of patients with non–ST-segment elevation and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) require coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) during the same hospitalization.¹ Irrespective of the revascularization strategy, P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor agents are recommended in addition to aspirin (class of recommendation 1 and level of evidence A) in patients with ACS.^2,3 Ticagrelor is a newer P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor that has been demonstrated to significantly reduce the risk of a composite end point of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, and stroke.⁴ In this scenario, patients requiring CABG represent a challenging group of individuals because of the difficulties in balancing thrombosis and bleeding risks in relation to the timing of surgery and optimal antithrombotic therapy management. Current revascularization guidelines and the US Food and Drug Administration–approved patient labeling recommend discontinuation of ticagrelor therapy 5 days before surgery.^5-7 This recommendation is substantiated by the lack of difference between clopidogrel bisulfate and ticagrelor in terms of major bleeding in subgroups with different intervals between cessation of study treatment and CABG and the observation of a reduction in bleeding risk when use of these drugs were discontinued for at least 5 days before surgery.⁸ Concern exists that a discontinuation of several days may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events while awaiting surgery.^9,10 Indeed, in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial,³ it was recommended that, in patients undergoing CABG, administration of ticagrelor should be withheld for 24 to 72 hours, and prior guidelines suggested a shorter discontinuation of treatment in patients requiring urgent CABG.^10,11 The absence of randomized studies makes it difficult to establish the exact risk of bleeding complications after perioperative ticagrelor administration and its optimal timing of discontinuation before surgery.^12-15 To our knowledge, no data exist on any possible increased risk of bleeding associated with exposure to ticagrelor with or without aspirin compared with aspirin alone among patients with ACS undergoing CABG. The prospective European Multicenter Study on Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (E-CABG) registry¹⁶ aims to investigate the association of the use of ticagrelor vs aspirin alone with the risk of major bleeding and blood product requirement after surgery.