Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 26, 2026
Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Transapical aortic valve implantation using a Symetis Acurate self-expandable bioprosthesis: initial outcomes of 10
Marcin Misterski1, Mateusz Puślecki1, Marek Grygier2
1Department of Cardiosurgery and Transplantology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Introduction:
Transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) has been widely introduced for treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis in the last decade. Here we report our first clinical experience with 10 patients using the second-generation transapical Symetis Acurate TA aortic valve designed for transapical implantation.
Aim:
To evaluate the results of transapical access in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among patients with unsuitable vascular access.
Material And Methods:
All patients had been assessed by a local heart team and were disqualified from surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the transfemoral TAVI approach. Mean age was 75.4 ±3.9 years (range: 68-80), with 20% being female. Logistic EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) and STS (Society of Thoracic Surgeons) were 15.4 ±8.9% and 20.5 ±4.5%, respectively.
Results:
All implantations were performed successfully in the intra-annular and subcoronary position. There were no conversions to surgical AVR. All patients survived 30-day follow-up. No strokes or transient ischemic attacks were reported. There was no need for pacemaker implantation and none of the patients demonstrated moderate or significant paravalvular leakage. The mean aortic gradients improved significantly from a baseline of 57.0 ±19.2 mm Hg to a 30-day value of 14.2 ±4.1 mm Hg.
Conclusions:
Our initial clinical results indicate satisfactory functionality in patients after trans-apical implantation of the Symetis Acurate aortic valve. The procedure of implantation seems to be straightforward and may be considered in patients in whom a transfemoral approach is not a good option.
