Rapid deployment valves versus conventional tissue valves for aortic valve replacement

Abstract Objectives Rapid deployment valves (RDVs) have been developed as a means to adjust for limitations in TAVR and surgical AVR for management of aortic valve disease. To date many studies have shown that while RDVs facilitate a shorter surgical AVR, they offer no clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RDVs with conventional surgical AVR. Methods This study was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing tissue AVR at a single centre. Majority of patients were men and greater than 60 years old. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: (1) RDV and (2) conventional sutured valve. Inverse probability treatment weighting(IPTW) method was used to create a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences in outcomes. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year and 5 years. Results A total of 2,237 patients made up the study population from 2013-2019. After IPTW, there were 295 patients in each group. Shorter CPB and Xclamp times were found with the RDV. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary and secondary outcomes. There was a significant difference in rate of permanent pacemaker insertion with a 7% pacemaker rate in the RDV group (p Conclusions In conclusion the data would suggest that RDVs offer no benefit in straightforward AVR and further study will help identify which patient population the valve is suited for.