Early Outcomes of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perceval S Bioprosthesis

Perceval-S over time. Clinical outcomes after ten years of usage

BACKGROUND

Perceval-S has become a reliable and commonly used option in surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) since its first implantation in humans 15 years ago. Despite the fact that this aortic valve has been proven efficient enough in the short and mid-term period, there is still lack of evidence for the long-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an observational retrospective study in a high-volume cardiovascular center. Pertinent data were collected for all the patients in whom Perceval-S was implanted from 2013 to 2020.

RESULTS

The total number of patients was 205 with a mean age 76.4 years. Mean survival time was 5.5 years (SE = 0.26). The overall survival probability of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with Perceval-S at 6 months was 91.0% (Standard Error SE = 2.0%), at one year 88.4% (SE = 2.3%) and at 5-years 64.8% (SE = 4.4%). A detrimental cardiac event leading to death was the probable cause of death in 35 patients (55.6%). The initiation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) program in our center in 2017 was associated with a decline in the number of very high-risk patients treated with sutureless bioprosthesis. This fact is demonstrated by the significant shift towards lower surgical risk cases, as median Euroscore II was reduced from 5,550 in 2016 to 3,390 in 2020. Mini sternotomy was implemented in 79,5% of cases favoring less invasive approach. Low incidence of reinterventions, patient prosthesis mismatch and structural valve degeneration was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival rate after aortic valve replacement with implantation of Perceval-S is satisfactory in the long-term follow-up. Cases of bioprosthesis dysfunction were limited. Mini sternotomy was used in the majority of cases. TAVR initiation program impacted on the proportion of patients treated with Perceval-S with reduction of high-risk patients submitted to surgery.

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.

AIM

We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ² and t-test.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.

A pooled analysis of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement

 

OBJECTIVES

We performed a literature meta-analysis to estimate the rate of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Pertinent articles were identified from the PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases. Eligible studies reported the de novo incidence of postoperative pacemaker implantation after Perceval valve surgery. Among 394 articles retrieved, 26 studies including 9492 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The pooled event rate for postoperative pacemaker implantation was 7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6-9%]; however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies. In a sub-analysis, there was no difference between the rates of pacemaker implantation calculated from multicentre and registry studies (8 studies, 6845 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-10%) and single-centre studies (18 studies, 2647 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-9%; P = 0.75). Implantation rates were similar in high-volume studies (16 studies, 9121 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-8%) than in low-volume studies (10 studies, 371 patients; pooled rate: 7%, 95% CI 4-14%; P = 0.5). Postoperative pacemaker implantation rates tended to decrease over time.

CONCLUSIONS

With a pooled event rate of 7%, postoperative pacemaker implantation remains an important limitation of Perceval sutureless valve surgery, although we observed a degree of variability across included studies. The resultant findings provide a useful estimate for physicians and patients and can serve as a benchmark for future comparative studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020188397.

Predictors of Pacemaker Insertion Post-Sutureless (Perceval) Aortic Valve Implantation

INTRODUCTION

The use of rapid deployment sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) has become a viable alternative to conventional AVR especially in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, sutureless AVR has been associated with increased rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared with conventionally implanted aortic valve prostheses. The aim of this study was to determine predictive factors for complete heart block requiring insertion of a PPM post-AVR with a Perceval S sutureless valve (LivaNova, London, UK). Such knowledge will help to improve patient counselling, selection and management of patients undergoing sutureless AVR.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective cohort study assessed all patients who underwent insertion of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve prosthesis between July 2015 and September 2019. Medical records were reviewed for demographic, preoperative electrocardiograph (ECG), and operative features related to postoperative PPM implantation and follow-up in the electrophysiology clinic.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty (130) patients without pre-existing PPM underwent sutureless AVR (66.9% male, average age 74.4±6.6 years). Fifty-seven (57) underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. Eight (8) patients underwent redo cardiac surgery. Nineteen (19) of the 130 (14.6%) patients required insertion of a PPM during their postoperative course. Factors associated with PPM insertion were right bundle branch block (overall n=15, PPM vs No PPM: 8/19 vs 7/111 [42.1 % vs. 6.31 %; p<0.01]), longer QRS duration 113.32ms±22.24 ms vs 100.52±20.96 ms (p=0.017) and longer PR Interval 185.166±42.38 ms vs 169.23±25.70 ms (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Insertion of rapid deployment sutureless aortic valves in the setting of pre-existing right bundle branch block, prolonged QRS complex and longer PR intervals is associated with increased risk of postoperative PPM requirement. These factors should be considered when preoperatively counselling and postoperatively managing patients when balloon expandable sutureless valves are used.

Early Structural Deterioration of a Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve

Sutureless bioprosthetic valves such as the Sorin Perceval S valve (SPV) have been used in patients with aortic stenosis that require surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). These prostheses have been marketed on the basis of their rapid implantation techniques with avoidance of sutures and reduced aortic cross-clamp times. We report a case of an early failure of a SPV nearly 4 years after implantation in a 58-year-old woman who was low-risk. While the patient’s symptoms initially improved with SAVR with a sutureless bioprosthetic valve, they progressively worsened as the valve degraded, and the leaflets became increasingly calcified and stenotic ultimately, requiring reoperative SAVR with a St. Jude mechanical valve. This case raises the issue of the lack of much-needed data describing the long-term durability and hemodynamic performance of these valves, particularly in a low-risk patient with excellent functional status. We hope to shed further insight into the lack of long-term studies on patients with SPV to assess their longevity and long-term effectiveness, as well as elucidation of possible prevention and monitoring of these potential complications. The use of newer generation prostheses, although attractive for their ease of implantation, potentially carries higher long-term risk due to shorter durability leading to reintervention to address valve deterioration. This is especially true in low-risk patients who are young and active. Cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery societies need to develop a universal registry with follow-up of all valves in order to track and study the durability of these valves, and to evaluate for incidence of known and potential complications.