The Use of Pledget-reinforced Sutures During Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and -analysis

Overview

Journal Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc

Date 2024 Sep 12

PMID 39263410

Authors

J W Taco Boltje

Mathijs T Carvalho Mota

Michiel D Vriesendorp

Alexander B A Vonk

Rolf H H Groenwold

Robert J M Klautz

Bart J J Velders

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Literature presents conflicting results on the pros and cons of pledget-reinforced sutures during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to investigate the effect of pledget-reinforced sutures versus sutures without pledgets during SAVR on different outcomes in a systematic review and -analysis.

Methods: A literature search was performed in five different medical literature databases. Studies must include patients undergoing SAVR and must compare any pledget-reinforced with any suturing technique without pledgets. The primary outcome was paravalvular leakage (PVL), and secondary outcomes comprised thromboembolism, endocarditis, mortality, mean pressure gradient (MPG) and effective orifice area (EOA). Results were pooled using a random-effects model as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) for which the no pledgets group served as reference.

Results: Nine observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was critical in seven studies, and high and moderate in two other. The pooled RR for moderate or greater PVL was 0.59 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.13, 2.73). The pooled RR for mortality at 30-days was 1.02 (95 % CI 0.48, 2.18) and during follow-up was 1.15 (95 % CI 0.67, 2.00). For MPG and EOA at 1-year follow-up, the pooled MDs were 0.60 mmHg (95 % CI -4.92, 6.11) and -0.03 cm (95 % CI -0.18, 0.12), respectively.

Conclusions: Literature on the use of pledget-reinforced sutures during SAVR is at high risk of bias. Pooled results are inconclusive regarding superiority of either pledget-reinforced sutures or sutures without pledgets. Hence, there is no evidence to support or oppose the use of pledget-reinforced sutures.

References

Ugur M, Byrne J, Bavaria J, Cheung A, Petracek M, Groh M . Suture technique does not affect hemodynamic performance of the small supra-annular Trifecta bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148(4):1347-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.12.006. View

Kim H, Lee S, Joo H, Kim J, Youn Y, Yoo K . Impact of Suture Techniques for Aortic Valve Replacement on Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 109(3):661-667. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.09.012. View

Moaref A, Zarrabi K, Hassanzadeh M, Fasihyan M, Mehdipour Namdar Z, Aslani A . Comparing Clinical and Hemodynamic Parameters between the Two Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis. J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2022; 32(2):112-115. PMC: 9558645. DOI: 10.4103/jcecho.jcecho_78_21. View

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. View

Rasheed N, Stonebraker C, Li Z, Siddiqi U, Lee A, Li W . Figure of eight suture technique in aortic valve replacement decreases prosthesis-patient mismatch. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2023; 18(1):117. PMC: 10084672. DOI: 10.1186/s13019-023-02260-y. View

Collins Jr J . The evolution of artificial heart valves. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324(9):624-6. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199102283240908. View

Guyatt G, Oxman A, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl E, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(12):1311-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004. View

Sterne J, Hernan M, Reeves B, Savovic J, Berkman N, Viswanathan M . ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355:i4919. PMC: 5062054. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. View

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109):629-34. PMC: 2127453. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. View

10.

IntHout J, Ioannidis J, Borm G . The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:25. PMC: 4015721. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-25. View

11.

Kitamura T, Edwards J, Miyaji K . Continuous Suture Technique for Aortic Valve Replacement Shortens Cross-Clamp and Bypass Times. Tex Heart Inst J. 2017; 44(6):390-394. PMC: 5737149. DOI: 10.14503/THIJ-16-5886. View

12.

Hartung J, Knapp G . A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat Med. 2002; 20(24):3875-89. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1009. View

13.

LaPar D, Ailawadi G, Bhamidipati C, Singh M, Dare D, Kern J . Use of a nonpledgeted suture technique is safe and efficient for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 141(2):388-93. PMC: 3073056. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.04.011. View

14.

Saisho H, Kuhlmann C, Scharfschwerdt M, Jeganathan R, Sadat N, Schaller T . The figure-of-8 aortic valve suturing technique optimizes the effective orifice area of a small aortic annulus-an ex vivo study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022; 62(3). DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac195. View

15.

Tabata M, Shibayama K, Watanabe H, Sato Y, Fukui T, Takanashi S . Simple interrupted suturing increases valve performance after aortic valve replacement with a small supra-annular bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 147(1):321-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.11.020. View

16.

Velders B, Vriesendorp M, Sabik 3rd J, Dagenais F, Labrousse L, Bapat V . Pledgeted versus nonpledgeted sutures in aortic valve replacement: Insights from a prospective multicenter trial. JTCVS Tech. 2023; 17:23-46. PMC: 9938379. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.10.016. View

17.

Lee J, Lee C, Kim H, Kim J, Jung S, Joo S . Simple Interrupted Suturing for Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020; 53(6):332-338. PMC: 7721519. DOI: 10.5090/kjtcs.20.066. View

18.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2021; 74(9):790-799. DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010. View

19.

Higgins J, Thompson S, Spiegelhalter D . A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009; 172(1):137-159. PMC: 2667312. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x. View

20.

Nair S, Bhatnagar G, Valencia O, Chandrasekaran V . Effect of valve suture technique on incidence of paraprosthetic regurgitation and 10-year survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 89(4):1171-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.12.069. View