Minimally invasive aortic valve neocuspidization using autologous pericardium – first experience

Highlights. Conducting minimally invasive aortic valve neocuspidization using autologous pericardium is a difficult task due to pericardial harvesting. Thoracoscopic harvesting of the pericardium provides a pericardial patch of sufficient size under visual control. Thus, thoracoscopic pericardial harvesting can transfer all advantages of minimally invasive cardiac surgery to aortic valve neocuspidization using autologous pericardium.

Abstract. Minimally invasive aortic valve (AV) replacement is associated with a decrease in the traumatic nature of the procedure, the length of hospital stay, severity of pain, and provides faster rehabilitation and better cosmetic look compared to the gold standard incision in cardiac surgery –median sternotomy. AV neocuspidization using autologous pericardium is safe, associated with excellent hemodynamic parameters in short- and medium-term follow up. However, this technique requires a large pericardial patch to later form new leaflets, thus complicating the use of minimally invasive approach with this type of intervention. We have addressed this issue by introducing thoracoscopic pericardial harvesting. We report two successful cases of minimally invasive AV neocuspidization using autologous pericardium harvested through a thoracoscopic approach with peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass.

1. Kirmani B.H., Jones S.G., Malaisrie S.C., Chung D.A., Williams R.J. Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD011793. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011793.

2. Phan K., Xie A., Di Eusanio M., Yan T.D. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(4):1499-511. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.060. .

3. Glaser N., Jackson V., Holzmann M.J., Franco-Cereceda A., Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(34):2658-67. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580.

4. Fernandez F.G., Shahian D.M., Kormos R., Jacobs J.P., D'Agostino R.S., Mayer J.E. Jr., Kozower B.D., Higgins R.S.D., Badhwar V. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database 2019 Annual Report. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108(6):1625-1632. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.09.034.

5. Head S.J., Çelik M., Kappetein A.P. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 20171;38(28):2183-2191. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141.

6. Ram E., Orlov B., Shinfeld A., Kogan A., Sternik L., Raanani E. Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes After Aortic Valve Repair Surgery. Innovations (Phila). 2019;14(3):209-217. doi: 10.1177/1556984519845657.

7. Ozaki S., Kawase I., Yamashita H., Uchida S., Takatoh M., Kiyohara N. Midterm outcomes after aortic valve neocuspidization with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155(6):2379-2387. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.01.087.

8. Akiyama S., Iida Y., Shimura K., Fujii S., Shimizu H., Sawa S. Midterm outcome of aortic valve neocuspidization for aortic valve stenosis with small annulus. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;68(8):762-767. doi: 10.1007/s11748-020-01299-1.

9. Ozaki S. Ozaki Procedure: 1,100 patients with up to 12 years of follow-up. Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg. 2019;27(4):454. doi: 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2019.01904.

10. Nguyen D.H., Vo A.T., Le K.M., Vu T.T., Nguyen T.T., Vu T.T., Pham C.V.T., Truong B.Q. Minimally Invasive Ozaki Procedure in Aortic Valve Disease: The Preliminary Results. Innovations (Phila). 2018;13(5):332-337. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000556.