Effect of sutureless implantation of the Perceval S aortic valve bioprosthesis on intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes

Thrombocytopenia Following Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the safety and performance of the Perceval valve for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at 1 year after undergoing aortic stenosis (AS) treatment, and its effect on significant declines in the platelet count during the immediate postoperative period.Methods and Results: Data were collected retrospectively for the initial 121 patients (median age 77 years; 47.1% females) who underwent Perceval sutureless AVR between May 2019 and July 2022. Implantation was successful in all (100%), with median cross-clamp and CPB times of 59 and 100 min, respectively. Postoperative thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50×103/μL) was noted in 80 (66.1%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed advanced age (>80 years), preoperative low platelet count (<200×103/μL), and a sternotomy approach as significant risk factors for postoperative thrombocytopenia. One (0.8%) patient died within 30 days after the procedure. The 2-year site-reported event rate was 14% (n=17) for all-cause mortality, 0.8% (n=1) for cardiac mortality, 4.1% (n=5) for stroke, and 1.7% (n=2) for endocarditis and valve-related reoperation; there were no instances of paravalvular leakage or structural valve deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombocytopenia was common after Perceval sutureless AVR, although its impact was not significant. Although Perceval sutureless AVR was found to be a safe and effective option, preoperative assessment of potential bleeding should be performed and the Perceval valve should not be used for patients with a high bleeding risk.

The Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve: Evolution of Surgical Valve Technology

OBJECTIVE

The surgical treatment of aortic stenosis continues to evolve, and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) is an emerging technology. With the Perceval S (Corcym, London, UK) as the only true sutureless valve on the market, the objective of this review is to analyze the current literature on Perceval S. Focusing on valve design and deployment as well as applications of the technology for challenging pathology, clinical outcomes are assessed, including a comparison with transcatheter AVR (TAVR).

METHODS

PubMed and MEDLINE were searched by 3 authors for studies analyzing SUAVR from inception to May 19, 2023.

RESULTS

SUAVR facilitates minimally invasive surgery and offers an alternative strategy for patients with small aortic annuli. It also has a time-saving advantage for patients who require complex operations. SUAVR results in excellent long-term morbidity, mortality, durability, and hemodynamic function. In comparison with conventional surgical AVR (SAVR), SUAVR does have a greater risk of postoperative pacemaker implantation; however, increasing user experience and refinements in implantation technique have contributed to reductions in this outcome. SUAVR results in morbidity and mortality that is similar to rapid-deployment AVR. Midterm outcomes are superior to TAVR; however, further robust investigation into all of these comparisons is ultimately necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

SUAVR bridges the gap in technology between SAVR and TAVR. The application of this exciting technology will undoubtedly grow in the coming years, during which additional investigation is paramount to optimize preoperative planning, valve deployment, and reintervention strategies.

Thrombocytopenia after Implantation of the Perceval, Intuity, and Sapien Aortic Valve Prostheses

BACKGROUND

An increased incidence of thrombocytopenia was reported after implantation of the LivaNova Perceval and the Edwards Sapien aortic valve bioprostheses. Aim of this study is to assess the perioperative platelet count and bleeding complications in three different types of aortic valve bioprostheses intended for high-risk patients, the sutureless LivaNova Perceval, the rapid deployment Edwards Intuity, and the transcatheter Edwards Sapien.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the perioperative data of patients receiving the Perceval, Intuity, and Sapien aortic valve bioprosthesis. The platelet count was collected preoperatively, at nadir postoperatively, and at discharge. The bioprostheses were compared for between-group differences in platelet count and postoperative bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 37 patients received the Perceval, 42 the Intuity, and 58 the Sapien bioprosthesis. There was no significant between-group difference in the preoperative platelet count [Perceval 203(178-246)G/l, Intuity 214(190-232)G/l, Sapien 201(178-275)G/l, p = 0.800]. There was a significant between-group difference in the postoperative platelet count, both at nadir value [Perceval 57(37-80)G/l, Intuity 91(73-109)G/l, Sapien 126(105-170)G/l, p < 0.0001] and at discharge [Perceval 150(83-257)G/l, Intuity 239(200-343)G/l, Sapien 232(179-284)G/l, p = 0.001]. There was no significant between-group difference regarding red blood cell transfusions (p = 0.242), platelet transfusions (p = 0.656), and rethoracotomy for bleeding (p = 0.847).

CONCLUSION

We found a significant platelet count reduction in all three bioprostheses which was more marked in the Perceval group. The platelet count reduction was transient and fully recovered in the Intuity and Sapien groups, whereas the Perceval group showed only a partial platelet count recovery. However, bleeding complications were not different between the three bioprostheses.

Ten-year experience with sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis: single-centre analysis in 1157 implants

AIMS

We describe long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in the largest single-centre cohort of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Between March 2011 and March 2021, 1157 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Mean age was 77 ± 6 years (range: 46-89 years) and mean EuroSCORE II was 6.7 ± 3.2% (range: 1.7-14.2%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 266 patients (23%).

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was 1.38% (16/1157). Eight hundred and twenty of 891 (92%) isolated AVRs underwent minimally invasive surgery with a ministernotomy ( n  = 196) or right minithoracotomy ( n  = 624) approach. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 81.1 ± 24.3 and 50.6 ± 11.7 min for isolated AVR and 144.5 ± 34.7 and 96.4 ± 21.6 min for combined procedures. At mean follow-up of 53.08 ± 6.7 months (range: 1-120.5 months), survival was 96.5% and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 13.7 ± 5.8 mmHg. Left ventricular mass decreased from 152.8 to 116.1 g/m 2 ( P  < 0.001) and moderate paravalvular leakage occurred in three patients without haemolysis not requiring any treatment. Freedom from reoperation was 97.6%. Eight patients required surgical reintervention and 19 patients transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure for structural prosthesis degeneration at a mean of 5.6 years after first operation (range: 2-9 years).

CONCLUSION

AVR with a Perceval bioprosthesis is associated with good clinical results and excellent haemodynamic performance in our 10-year experience. Structural degeneration rate of Perceval is comparable with other bioprosthetic aortic valves. Sutureless technology may reduce operative time especially in combined procedures and enable minimally invasive AVR.

Single-Center Real-World Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Isolated and Combined Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Due to their favourable hemodynamic performance and the ability to enable minimally invasive access procedures, sutureless aortic valve prostheses have found their place in the armamentarium of cardiothoracic surgeons. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR).

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients who underwent an SU-AVR with a Perceval valve between December 2019 and February 2023.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 69.3 ± 8.1 years, and patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a mean logistic EuroSCORE-II of 5.2 ± 8.1%. An isolated SU-AVR was performed in 85 (42.5%) patients, concomitant CABG was performed in 75 (37.5%) and 40 patients (20%) underwent a multivalve procedure involving SU-AVR. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp (CC) times were 82.1 ± 35.1 and 55.5 ± 27.8 min, respectively. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 4.5%, 6.5%, 7.5% and 8.2%, respectively. The postoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradient was 6.3 ± 1.6 mmHg and stayed stable over the follow-up time. We reported no cases of paravalvular leakage, and the incidence of stroke was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

With their favourable hemodynamic performance and shorter CC and CPB times, sutureless aortic valve prostheses facilitate minimally invasive access surgery, being a safe and durable promising approach for the surgical AVR.

Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm²) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

KEY QUESTION

What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

KEY FINDINGS

Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

KEY OUTCOMES

Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).

METHODS

A single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) either via conventional AVR (n = 516) or MIAVR (n = 137) between August 2015 and March 2020. Using pre-operative characteristics, patients were propensity matched (PM) to produce 114 matched pairs. Assessment of peri-operative outcomes, early and mid-term survival and echocardiographic parameters was performed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the PM conventional AVR group was 71.5 (±8.9) years and the number of male (n = 57) and female (n = 57) patients were equal. PM MIAVR group mean age was 71.1 (±9.5) years, and 47% of patients were female (n = 54) and 53% male (n = 60). Median follow-up for PM conventional AVR and MIAVR patients was 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years) and 3.4 years (minimum 0, maximum 4.8 years), respectively. Larger sized aortic valve prostheses were inserted in the MIAVR group (median 23, IQR = 4) versus conventional AVR group (median 21, IQR = 2; p = 0.02, SMD = 0.34). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer with MIAVR (94.4 ± 19.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (83.1 ± 33.3; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.41). Aortic cross-clamp (AoX) time was also longer in MIAVR (71.6 ± 16.5 minutes) compared to conventional AVR (65.0 ± 52.8; p = 0.0001, SMD = 0.17). There were no differences in the early post-operative complications and mortality between the two groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed significant difference in mean aortic valve gradients between conventional AVR and MIAVR groups (17.3 ± 8.2 mmHg vs 13.0 ± 5.1 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.01, SMD = -0.65). There was no significant difference between conventional AVR and MIAVR in mid-term survival at 3 years (88.6% vs 92.1%; log-rank test p = 0.31).

CONCLUSION

Despite the longer CPB and AoX times in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in early complications, mortality and mid-term survival between MIAVR and conventional AVR.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Sutureless or rapid deployment valves in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging surgical technique using the transcatheter valve technology, which may lead to reduction in cross-clamp time and potentially better hemodynamics compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve. The absence of subannular pledgets results to excellent hemodynamic performance with reduced turbulent flow and larger effective orifice area. However, complications from both surgical and transcatheter AVR may still occur and impact survival. The incidence of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation are not low. Although technical modifications can improve these outcomes, there is a learning curve effect. Therefore, technical and anatomical considerations as well as better patient selection are paramount for better outcomes. In this review, we discuss the use of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in setting of (1) complex procedures, (2) minimally invasive AVR, and (3) small aortic annulus. The advantage of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in terms of mortality remains to be clarified; therefore, it is necessary to accumulate long-term outcomes in an appropriate patient cohort.

Sutureless bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: Surgical and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The aging population and the increase in comorbidities urge the development of safer alternatives to the current surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis has shown promising results, especially in complex procedures and in patients requiring concomitant surgeries.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the clinical and hemodynamic performance, safety, and durability of the Perceval® prosthetic valve.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data from all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval® prosthetic valve between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients included (mean age 77.20 ± 5.08 years; 45.4% female; mean EuroSCORE II 2.91 ± 2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 33.31 ± 14.09 min and 45.55 ± 19.04 min, respectively. Mean intensive care unit and hospital stay were 3.32 ± 3.24 days and 7.70 ± 5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 98.99%, as two explants occurred. Four valves were reimplanted due to intraoperative misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82 ± 3.62 mmHg. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, new-onset atrial fibrillation in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary for 3.1%. Early mortality was 2.0%. We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes, or endocarditis, and one successfully treated valve thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the excellent clinical and hemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, up to a 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable option for the treatment of isolated aortic valve disease.

Comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement with propensity-matching methods

Objective

This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between mini-sternotomy and full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement using propensity-matching methods.

Methods

From August 2014 to July 2021, a total of 1,445 patients underwent isolated aortic valve surgery, 1,247 via full median sternotomy and 198 via mini-sternotomy. To reduce the impact of potential confounding factors, a propensity score based on 18 variables is used to obtain 198 well-matched case pairs, which include 231 aortic valve regurgitations and 165 aortic stenosis cases.

Result

Occurrences of in-hospital mortality (P = 0.499), stroke (P > 0.999), renal failure (P = 0.760), and paravalvular leakage (P = 0.224) are similar between the two groups. No significant difference in operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp times are found between the two groups. However, compared with the full sternotomy group, the mini-sternotomy group has less postoperative 24-hour drainage (131.7 ± 82.8 ml, P < 0.001) and total drainage (459.3 ± 306.3 ml, P < 0.001). The median mechanical ventilation times are 9.4 [interquartile range (IQR) 5.4-15.6] and 9.8 (IQR 6.1-14.4) in mini-sternotomy and full sternotomy groups (P = 0.284), respectively. There are no significant differences in intensive care unit stay and postoperative stay between the two groups. For either aortic valve regurgitations or aortic stenosis patients, significantly less postoperative 24-h and total drainage are still found in the mini-sternotomy group compared with the full sternotomy group.

Conclusions

Mini-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement is a safe procedure, with not only cosmetic advantages but less postoperative drainage compared with full sternotomy. Mini-sternotomy should be considered for most aortic valve operations.

Avoiding oversizing in sutureless valves leads to lower transvalvular gradients and less permanent pacemaker implants postoperatively

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of changing the sizing strategy in aortic valve replacement using the Perceval sutureless prosthesis on haemodynamic outcomes and postoperative pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients implanted with the Perceval valve between 2007 and 2019 was performed by comparing patients implanted before the modification of sizing strategy (OLD group) and after (NEW group). The outcome parameters evaluated were the implanted prosthesis size, haemodynamical profile and postoperative pacemaker implantation.

RESULTS

The entire patient cohort (784 patients) consisted of 52% female patients, with a mean age of 78.53 [standard deviation (SD): 5.8] years and a mean EuroSCORE II of 6.3 (range 0.7-76). In 55.5% of cases, surgery was combined. The NEW cohort had more male patients (54.6% vs 43.4%) (P = 0.002). Mean implanted valve size, corrected for body surface area, was significantly lower in the NEW cohort (13.1, SD: 1.4 vs 13.5, SD: 1.4 mm/m2, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 3.4%. Peak and mean transvalvular gradients at discharge were significantly lower in the NEW versus OLD groups: 24.4 mmHg (SD: 9.2) versus 28.4 mmHg (SD: 10.3) (P < 0.001) and 13.6 mmHg (SD: 5.3) versus 15.5 mmHg (SD: 6.0) (P < 0.001). The mean effective opening area and the indexed effective opening area, respectively, increased from 1.5 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.85 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.27) in the OLD group to 1.7 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.93 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.30) in the NEW group (P < 0.001). No difference was found in paravalvular leakage ≥1/4. Centrovalvular leakage ≥1/4 significantly decreased from 18% to 7.9% (P < 0.001). With the new sizing, the new postoperative pacemaker implantation rate decreased significantly from 11% to 6.1% (P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Correct sizing of sutureless aortic valves is crucial to obtain the best possible haemodynamics and avoid complications.

Severe mitral valve insufficiency caused by standard surgical aortic valve implantation and its reparation using suture-less prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve stenosis is the most frequent cardiac valve pathology in the western world. Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard for the treatment of significant degenerative aortic valve diseases.

CASE PRESENTATION

This case report highlights an unexpected abnormal iatrogenic shortening of the aorto-mitral continuity and its deformity, during traditional AVR using sutured stented aortic prosthesis as the first choice, which caused significant mitral valve regurgitation. The suture-less prosthesis was a rescue choice to restore the geometry and eliminate the deformation of the aorto-mitral continuity.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve replacement using suture-less prosthesis could be a valuable optional choice for lowering the risk of deformation of the aortic annulus and aorto-mitral continuity. It might provide better outcomes in combined procedures.

Surgical pericardial heart valves: 50 Years of evolution

Valve disease carries a huge burden globally and the number of heart valve procedures are projected to increase from the current 300 000 to 800 000 annually by 2050. Since its genesis 50 years ago, pericardial heart valve has moved leaps and bounds to ever more ingenious designs and manufacturing methods with parallel developments in cardiology and cardiovascular surgical treatments. This feat has only been possible through close collaboration of many scientific disciplines in the fields of engineering, material sciences, basic tissue biology, medicine and surgery. As the pace of change continues to accelerate, we ask the readers to go back with us in time to understand developments in design and function of pericardial heart valves. This descriptive review seeks to focus on the qualities of pericardial heart valves, the advantages, successes and failures encapsulating the evolution of surgically implanted pericardial heart valves over the past five decades. We present the data on comparison of the pericardial heart valves to porcine valves, discuss structural valve deterioration and the future of heart valve treatments.

Anatomical circumstances and aortic cross-clamp time in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Prolonged operative times, potentially leading to increased morbidity, are a possible drawback of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of anatomical circumstances in the chest on aortic cross-clamp time.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 68 patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve via right-anterior thoracotomy or with ministernotomy. Anatomical variables were measured during preoperative computer tomography scans.

RESULTS

Aortic cross-clamp time was shorter in those having ministernotomy than in the right-anterior thoracotomy group (41.1 vs 52.3 min; P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.09). A multivariable linear-regression model (P = 0.018) showed the aortic dextroposition variable to be a significant predictor of the aortic cross-clamp method and CPB times (P = 0.005 and P = 0.003) independent of other anatomical variables in the right thoracotomy group (10 mm deviation from optimal position prolonged the times for 240 and 600 s). For the whole cohort, a correlation between aortic valve dimensions and operative times was found (P = 0.046, P = 0.009). A linear-regression model (P = 0.046) predicted 90 s longer aortic cross-clamp time and 231 s longer CPB time for every 1 mm smaller aortic valve diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

The anatomical variables are associated with the operative times in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless valves. Considering this association, preplanning the procedure is recommended.

Perioperative platelet reduction after sutureless or stented valve implantation: results from the PERSIST-AVR controlled randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Platelet count reduction is a common but not fully understood phenomenon after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthesis implantation. The aim of the present study was to investigate the occurrence and the clinical impact of platelet count reduction in patients receiving the Perceval bioprosthesis compared to those receiving standard sutured stented bioprosthetic aortic valve in a randomized, controlled AVR study.

METHODS

PERceval Sutureless Implant versus STandard Aortic Valve Replacement is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients were randomized (March 2016-September 2018) to AVR with a sutureless or stented valve. Ad hoc analyses have been performed to evaluate the occurrence of platelet count reduction and the clinical impact of the platelet variations in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The Perceval group showed a higher platelet reduction than the control group (46% vs 32%). The phenomenon was transient in both groups, with a slow recovery of the platelet count by hospital discharge. No differences were observed between groups regarding need of transfusions, blood loss, major bleeding and stroke events.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval sutureless aortic bioprosthesis implantation is associated with higher rate of transient platelet reduction as compared to stented bioprostheses for AVR. However, the platelet count reduction is transient and the decline does not affect the patient's clinical outcomes. Current explanations for this phenomenon are speculative, and further investigations are required to elucidate it.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02673697-ClinicalTrials.gov-4 February 2016.

Clinical outcomes after implantation of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis with concomitant mitral valve surgery: the SURE-AVR registry

Background

Early treatment of aortic valve stenosis is recommended in eligible symptomatic patients with severe aortic valve stenosis who would otherwise have a poor prognosis. The sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis offers an alternative to standard aortic valve replacement with a sutured valve, but limited data are available in patients who have undergone multiple valve procedures involving the new, sutureless technology. We sought to investigate outcomes in high operative risk patients with previous or concomitant valve surgery who were implanted with a sutureless valve.

Methods

SURE-AVR is an ongoing, prospective, multinational registry of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. In-hospital and post-discharge outcomes up to 5 years were collected.

Results

The study population comprised 78 patients (mean ± SD: age 73.6 ± 7.6 years, logistic EuroSCORE 18.0 ± 17.5) enrolled at 13 sites who presented for concomitant or previous mitral valve repair (n = 45) or replacement (n = 33), with or without additional concomitant procedures, and were implanted with a sutureless valve. Mean ± SD overall aortic cross-clamp time was 109 ± 41 min and cardiopulmonary bypass time was 152 ± 49 min. Mean ± SD aortic pressure gradients decreased from 37.6 ± 17.7 mmHg preoperatively to 13.0 ± 5.7 mmHg at hospital discharge, and peak aortic pressure gradient from 61.5 ± 28.7 to 23.4 ± 10.6 mmHg. Early events included 1 death, 1 transient ischaemic attack, and 1 bleed (all 1.3%); a permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 6 patients (7.7%), and 2 reoperations (not valve related) (2.6%) took place. Over a median follow-up of 55.5 months (Q1 13.4, Q3 68.6), 12 patients died (6 cardiovascular and 6 non-cardiovascular, both 2.1% per patient-year). Five-year survival was 81.3%. Late paravalvular leak occurred in 2 patients (0.7% per patient-year) and permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 3 patients (0.1% per patient-year). There was no apparent rise in mean or peak aortic pressure gradient over the study.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the sutureless implant is a technically feasible procedure during mitral surgery and is associated with good clinical outcomes.

Perceval S valve empire: healing the Achilles' heel of sutureless aortic valves

Aortic valve replacement is the treatment of choice concerning aortic valve disease. Excellent short- and longterm clinical results are reported. Patients referred for aortic valve replacement are getting older and older, so bioprosthetic valves play a more central role worldwide. However, patient comorbidities are also increased more often rendering patients unsuitable for open conventional aortic valve replacement. As a result, transcatheter aortic valve implantation has become the treatment of choice in patients at very high surgical risk. However, the percutaneous technique is related to major disadvantages provided that the diseased native valve is left in place. Its durability is also uncertain. More recently, sutureless Perceval S valve bioprosthesis has gained ground in the field of aortic stenosis therapy filling the gap between conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter approach. Excellent haemodynamic and clinical results are reported. Its deployment is performed under direct view and ischemic and overall operative times are significantly decreased. Five-year follow-up results are also optimal. However, the "Achilles' heel" of sutureless technology is increased rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation requirement compared to conventional approach. The incidence of this complication varies in literature. Patient-related factors such as preoperative conduction disorders, older age and short membranous septum are predictors of postoperative pacemaker requirement. However, several technical modifications with regard to manufacturer recommendations can be adopted to mitigate this complication. Appropriate annular decalcification, higher guiding sutures placement, reduced balloon pressure and duration and avoiding of oversizing can contribute to prevent from this complication.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have been introduced to facilitate the implant process, speed up the operating time and improve haemodynamic performance. The goal of this study was to assess the potential advantages of using sutureless prostheses during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in a large multicentre population.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2019, a total of 3402 patients in 11 hospitals underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with minimal access approaches using a bioprosthesis. A total of 475 patients received sutureless valves; 2927 received standard valves. The primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day deaths. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of major complications following procedures performed with sutureless or standard bioprostheses. Propensity matched comparisons was performed based on a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The annual number of sutureless valve implants increased over the years. The matching procedure paired 430 sutureless with 860 standard aortic valve replacements. A total of 0.7% and 2.1% patients with sutureless and standard prostheses, respectively, died within 30 days (P = 0.076). Cross-clamp times [48 (40-62) vs 63 min (48-74); P = 0.001] and need for blood transfusions (27.4% vs 33.5%; P = 0.022) were lower in patients with sutureless valves. No difference in permanent pacemaker insertions was observed in the overall population (3.3% vs 4.4% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.221) and in the matched groups (3.6% vs 4.7% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.364).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sutureless prostheses is advantageous and facilitates the adoption of a minimally invasive approach, reducing cardiac arrest time and the number of blood transfusions. No increased risk of permanent pacemaker insertion was observed.

Early and Two-year Outcomes after Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: a Nationwide Population-based Study

BACKGROUND

We compared early and 2-year clinical outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) in a nationwide study based on claims data.

METHODS

From December 2016 to November 2018, 3,173 patients underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. SAVR and CAVR were performed in 641 and 2,532 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed in 640 patient pairs.

RESULTS

Operative mortality rate was 2.8% without significant differences between the SAVR (3.4%) and CAVR (2.3%) groups (P = 0.324). There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidities between the groups except for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. PPM implantation rate was significantly higher in the SAVR (3.8%) than in the CAVR group (0.9%) (P < 0.001). One- and two-year overall survival was 89.1% and 87.5%, respectively, without significant differences between the groups (SAVR group vs. CAVR grouP = 89.9% and 90.5% vs. 87.2% and 88.7%, respectively; P = 0.475). There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of cardiac death, stroke, aortic valve reoperation and infective endocarditis between the groups. Cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 6 months in the CAVR was 1.1%, and no patient required PPM implantation after 6 months. In the SAVR, the cumulative PPM implantation incidence at 0.5, one, and two years was 3.9%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively. The cumulative PPM implantation rate was higher in the SAVR group than in the CAVR group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Early and 2-year clinical outcomes between SAVR and CAVR were not different except for a high rate of permanent pacemaker implantation in the SAVR group.

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients: A case-control study

Introduction: Aortic valve stenosis is the most frequent cardiac valve pathology in the western world. In high-risk patients, conventional aortic valve replacement (C-AVR) carries high rates of morbidity and mortality. In the last few years, rapid-deployment valves (RDV) have been developed to reduce the surgical risks. In this work, we aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes of rapid-deployment AVR (RD-AVR) with those of the C-AVR in high-risk patients.

Methods: This retrospective case-control study identified 23 high-risk patients who underwent RD-AVR between 12/2015 to 01/2018. The study group was compared with a control group of 46 patients who were retrospectively selected from a database of 687 C-AVR patients from 2016 to 2017 which matched with the study group for age and Euro SCORE II.

Results: RD-AVR group presented more cardiovascular risk factors. Euro SCORE II was higher in the RD-AVR group (P =0.06). In the RD-AVR group, we observed significantly higher mean prosthetic size (P <0.001). In-hospital mortality was zero in RD-AVR group versus 2 deaths in C-AVR group. Hospital stay was longer in the RD-AVR group with statistical significance (P =0.03). In the group AVR with associated cardiac procedures, while comparing subgroups RD-AVR versus C-AVR, early mean gradient was lower in the first cited (P =0.02). The overall mean follow-up was 10.9 ± 4.3 months.

Conclusion: The RD-AVR technique is reliable and lead to positive outcomes. This procedure provides a much larger size with certainly better flow through the aortic root. It is an alternative to C-AVR in patients recognized to be surgically fragile.

Midterm outcomes with a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis in a prospective multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report midterm clinical outcomes with a self-expandable sutureless aortic valve.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2013, 658 patients at 25 European institutions received the Perceval sutureless valve (LivaNova Plc, London, United Kingdom). Mean follow-up was 3.8 years; late cumulative follow-up was 2325.2 patient-years.

RESULTS

The mean age of the population was 78.3 ± 5.6 years and 40.0% (n = 263) were 80 years of age or older; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7.2 ± 7.4. Concomitant procedures were performed in 31.5% (n = 207) of patients. Overall duration of cardiopulmonary bypass time was 64.8 ± 25.2 minutes and aortic cross-clamping time was 40.7 ± 18.1 minutes. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 3.7% (23 patients), with an observed:expected ratio of 0.51. Overall survival was 91.6% at 1 year, 88.5% at 2 years, and 72.7% at 5 years. Peak and mean gradients remained stable during follow-up, and were 17.8 ± 11.3 mm Hg and 9.0 ± 6.3 mm Hg, respectively, at 5 years. Preoperatively, 33.4% of those who received the Perceval valve (n = 210) were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II versus 93.1% (n = 242) at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This series, representing, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up with sutureless technology in a prospective, multicenter study, shows that aortic replacement using sutureless valves is associated with low mortality and morbidity and good hemodynamic performance.

Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement With the Perceval S Bioprosthesis Through Ministernotomy: A Single-Center Experience

Objectives Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has the potential advantage of faster postoperative recovery compared to open procedures. Moreover, aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve shortens procedure time. The aim of this study is to report early postoperative outcomes and one-year survival of patients undergoing sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S bioprosthesis (LivaNova, Milan, Italy) through a ministernotomy. Methods A total of 110 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement in our center with the Perceval S bioprosthesis through a ministernotomy between February 2016 and March 2019. Data regarding preoperative and operative details, hospital stay, postoperative outcomes within 30 days after surgery, and one-year mortality were assessed. Results The mean cross-clamping time and extracorporeal circulation time were 54 ± 14 and 78 ± 21 minutes, respectively. No conversion to full median sternotomy was needed perioperatively. In-hospital mortality was 0.9%. Postoperative peak gradient was 13.3 mmHg; no major paravalvular leakage or valve migration occurred postoperatively. Postoperative complications consisted of one (0.9%) patient requiring full sternotomy for bleeding and two (1.8%) patients requiring re-ministernotomy due to acute tamponade. Pacemaker implantation was needed in four (3.6%) patients. Postoperative ischemic stroke rate and new-onset atrial fibrillation were 0.9% (n = 1) and 20% (n = 22), respectively, and one-year survival was 97.3%. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay were one and eight day(s), respectively. Conclusion Minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S bioprosthesis through a ministernotomy appears to be a safe procedure with good postoperative results and one-year survival. Further follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes.

Right anterior mini-thoracotomy and sutureless valves: the perfect marriage

Background

A minimally invasive approach (MIA) reduces mortality and morbidity in patients referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Sutureless technology facilitates a MIA. We describe our experience with the sutureless Perceval (LivaNova, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis through a right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) approach.

Methods

Between March 2011 and October 2019, 1,049 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis. Five hundred and three patients (48%) were operated through a RAMT approach in the second intercostal space. Considering only isolated AVR (881), 98% of patients were operated with MIA, and Perceval in RAMT approach was performed in 57% of these patients. Eight patients (1.6%) had previously undergone cardiac surgery. The prosthesis sizes implanted were: S (n=91), M (n=154), L (n=218) and XL (n=40). Concomitant procedures were mitral valve surgery (n=6), tricuspid valve repair (n=1), mitral valve repair and tricuspid valve repair (n=1) and miectomy (n=2). Mean age was 78±4 years (range, 65-89 years), 317 patients were female (63%) and EuroSCORE II was 5.9%±8.4%.

Results

The 30-day mortality was 0.8% (4/503). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times were 81.6±30.8 and 50.3±24.5 minutes respectively for stand-alone procedures. In two patients, early moderate paravalvular leakage appeared as a result of incomplete expansion of the sutureless valve due to oversizing of the bioprosthesis, requiring reoperations at two and nine postoperative days with sutured aortic bioprosthesis implantation. Permanent pacemaker implantation within the first thirty days was necessary in 26 (5.2%) patients. At the mean follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 1 month to 8.6 years), survival was 96%, freedom from reoperation was 99.2%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 11.9±4.3 mmHg.

Conclusions

AVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis in a RAMT approach is a safe and feasible procedure associated with low mortality and excellent hemodynamic performance. Sutureless technology facilitates a RAMT approach.

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses

Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the 'gold standard' for treatment of severe or symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The increasing age of patients and increasing comorbidities has led to the development of procedures to minimise operative time and reduce risks of surgery. One method of reducing operative times is the use of sutureless aortic valves (SU-AVR). We examine the current literature surrounding the use of SU-AVR. Alternatives to AVR are SU-AVR, sometimes referred to as rapid deployment valves, or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). TAVI has been demonstrated to be superior over medical therapy in patients deemed inoperable and non-inferior in high and intermediate-risk patients compared with surgical AVR. However, the lack of excision of the calcified aortic valve and annulus raises concerns regarding long-term durability and possibly thromboembolic complications. TAVI patients have increased rates of paravalvular leaks, major vascular complications and pacemaker implantation when compared with conventional AVR. SU-AVR minimises the need for suturing, leading to reduced operative times, while enabling complete removal of the calcified valve. The increase in use of SU-AVR has been mostly driven by minimally invasive surgery. Other indications include patients with a small and/or calcified aortic root, as well as patients requiring AVR and concomitant surgery. SU-AVR is associated with decreased operative times and possibly improved haemodynamics when compared with conventional AVR. However, this has to be weighed against the increased risk of paravalvular leak and pacemaker implantation when deciding which prosthesis to use for AVR.

Minimally Invasive Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement is Associated With Improved Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Objective

Patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a poor prognosis compared with patients with preserved LVEF. To evaluate the impact of sutureless Perceval (LivaNova, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis on LVEF and clinical outcomes in patients with baseline left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

Between March 2011 and August 2017, 803 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Fifty-two isolated AVR had preoperative LVEF ≤45%. Mean age of these patients was 77 ± 6 years, 24 patients were female (46%), and mean EuroSCORE II was 9.4% ± 4.8%. Perceval bioprosthesis was implanted in 9 REDO operations. In 43 patients (83%), AVR was performed in minimally invasive surgery with an upper ministernotomy ( n = 13) or right anterior minithoracotomy ( n = 30).

Results

One patient died in hospital. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 85.5 ± 26 minutes and 55.5 ± 19 minutes, respectively. At mean follow-up of 33 ± 20 months (range: 1 to 75 months), survival was 90%, freedom from reoperation was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 11 ± 5 mmHg. LVEF improved from 37% ± 7% preoperatively to 43% ± 8% at discharge ( P < 0.01) and further increased to 47% ± 9% at follow-up ( P = 0.06), LV mass decreased from 149.8 ± 16.9 g/m2 preoperatively to 115.3 ± 11.6 g/m2 at follow-up ( P < 0.001), and moderate paravalvular leakage occurred in 1 patient without hemolysis not requiring any treatment.

Conclusions

AVR with sutureless aortic bioprosthesis implantation in patients with preoperative LV dysfunction demonstrated a significant immediate and early improvement in LVEF.

Aortic Valve Replacement with a Conventional Stented Bioprosthesis versus Sutureless Bioprosthesis: a Study of 763 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare early postoperative outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless bioprostheses and conventional stented bioprostheses implanted through median sternotomy.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2016, 763 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses; of these, 139 received a Perceval S sutureless valve (Group A) and 624 received a Perimount Magna Ease valve (Group B). These groups were further divided into A1 (isolated Perceval AVR), A2 (Perceval AVR with coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), B1 (isolated conventional stented bioprosthesis), and B2 (conventional stented bioprosthesis + CABG).

RESULTS

Patients in Group A were older (mean 74 years vs. 71 years; P<0.0001), predominantly women (53% vs. 32%; P<0.0001), had a higher logistic EuroSCORE (3.26 vs. 2.43; P<0.001), more preoperative atrial fibrillation (20% vs. 13%; P=0.03), and had a lower reopening rate for bleeding (2.1% vs. 6.7%; P=0.04). Compared to Group B1, Group A1 had shorter cross-clamp (mean 40 min vs. 57 min; P≤0.0001) and bypass times (mean 63 min vs. mean 80 min; P=0.02), and they bled less postoperatively (mean 295 ml vs. mean 393 ml; P=0.002). The mean gradient across Perceval valve was 12.5 mmHg while its effective orifice area was 1.5 cm2.

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective study of 763 patients, sutureless valve group patients are older, mostly women, more symptomatic preoperatively, and have higher logistic EuroSCORE. They have shorter cross-clamp and bypass times, less postoperative bleeding, and reduced incidence of reopening. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical benefits in short, mid, and long-terms.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: Meta-analysis and microsimulation

OBJECTIVE

To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients, we provide a comprehensive overview of outcome after AVR with bioprostheses.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of studies reporting clinical outcome after AVR with bioprostheses in elderly patients (mean age ≥70 years; minimum age ≥65 years) published between January 1, 2000, to September 1, 2016. Reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risks.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies reporting on 34 patient cohorts were included, encompassing a total of 12,842 patients with 55,437 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up 5.0 ± 3.3 years). Pooled mean age was 76.5 ± 5.5 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 5.42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-6.55), thromboembolism rate was 1.83%/year (95% CI, 1.28-3.61), and bleeding rate was 0.75%/year (95% CI, 0.50-1.11). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was based on pooled time to SVD data (Gompertz; shape: 0.124, rate: 0.003). For a 75-year-old patient, this translated to an estimated life expectancy of 9.8 years (general population: 10.2 years) and lifetime risks of bleeding of 7%, thromboembolism of 17%, and reintervention of 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The low risks of SVD and reintervention support the use of bioprostheses in elderly patients in need of AVR. The estimated life expectancy after AVR was comparable with the general population. The results of this study inform patients and clinicians about the expected outcomes after bioprosthetic AVR and thereby support treatment decision-making. Furthermore, our results can be used as a benchmark for long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients who were eligible for surgery and other (future) alternative treatments (eg, tissue-engineered heart valves).

Rapid Explantation of Rapid-Deployment Sutureless Valve in Case of Acute Endocarditis: How to Remove Safely Sutureless Perceval S Prostheses

We report a case of infective endocarditis on a Perceval S aortic valve bioprosthesis, and we describe a feasible and useful technique that can help remove the infected valve. These maneuvers consist of an "x-movement" reached with the aid of anatomical forceps. The risk of infective endocarditis in patients with prosthetic valves is a well-known phenomena in cardiac surgery, and it can represent a life-threatening event in many cases. According to guidelines, an emergency surgical intervention is required in case of high risk of embolization, vegetation superior than 1 cm or acute cardiac failure secondary to the acute valve dysfunction. In the reported case, the patient was submitted to emergency surgery because of vegetation with diameter superior to 1 cm on the aortic bioprosthesis. The described "x-movement" technique allowed an easily "en block" excision of the damaged bioprostheses together with vegetation, minimizing the risk of vegetation fragmentation.

Thrombocytopenia in Moderate- to High-Risk Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

This study aimed to compare preliminary data on the outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) with those of aortic valve replacement (AVR).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of SU-AVR in moderate- to high-risk patients from 2013 to 2016. Matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score with sex and age. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were operative outcomes and complications.

Results

A total of 277 patients were studied. Ten patients (50% males; median age, 81.5 years) underwent SU-AVR. Postoperative echocardiography showed impressive outcomes in the SU-AVR group. The 30-day mortality was 10% in both groups. In our study, the patients in the SU-AVR group developed postoperative thrombocytopenia. Platelet counts decreased from 225×10³/μL preoperatively to 94.5, 54.5, and 50.1×10³/μL on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, respectively, showing significant differences compared with the AVR group (p=0.04, p=0.16, and p=0.20, respectively). The median amount of platelet transfusion was higher in the AVR group (12.5 vs. 0 units, p=0.052).

Conclusion

There was no difference in the 30-day mortality of moderate- to high-risk patients depending on whether they underwent SU-AVR or AVR. Although SU-AVR is associated with favorable cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, it may be associated with postoperative thrombocytopenia.

Early Clinical Results of Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve in 139 Patients: Freeman Experience

Objective

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the safety and performance of the Perceval sutureless valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. We report the 30-day clinical outcomes of 139 patients.

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2016, 139 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement. Their operation notes, National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database and perioperative transoesophageal echocardiography findings were studied retrospectively.

Results

Ninety-two patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (group A) with Perceval valve and 47 patients had combined procedures of aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting (group B). The patients received a size S (n=23), M (n=39), L (n=42) or XL (n=35) prosthesis. Perceval valve was successfully implanted in 135 (97.1%) patients. Mean cross-clamping time and bypass time were 40 and 63 minutes for isolated cases, while 68 and 107 minutes for combined cases. Three (2.1%) patients died within 30 days. Four patients suffered stroke and 5 patients went into acute renal failure. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay was 2 and 8.5, respectively. Four valves were explanted due to significant paravalvular leak after surgery. Five patients had permanent pacemaker as a result of complete heart block and mean postoperative drainage was 295 mL for isolated case and 457 mL for combined cases. The mean gradient across Perceval valve was 12.5 mmHg while its effective orifice area was 1.5 cm².

Conclusion

Early postoperative results showed that Perceval valve is safe. Further follow up is needed to evaluate the long-term outcome with this bioprosthesis.

The Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve: Review of Outcomes, Complications, and Future Direction

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented prosthesis has been the standard of care procedure for aortic stenosis. The Perceval (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) is a sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis currently implanted in more than 20,000 patients. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available after 9 years of clinical experience of the Perceval aortic valve. PubMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. A meta-analysis of summary statistics from individual studies was conducted. A total of 333 studies were identified and 84 studies were included. Thirty-day mortality and 5-year survival ranged from 0% to 4.9% and 71.3% to 85.5%, respectively. Compared with stented prosthesis, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) with Perceval (38.6 vs 63.3 and 61.4 vs 84.9, P < 0.00001, respectively). Compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with Perceval in paravalvular leakage (1.26% vs 14.31%) and early mortality (2.3% vs 6.9%). Favorable hemodynamics, acceptable valve durability, and ease of implantation in minimally invasive cases were reported as benefits. A trend toward increased rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and low postoperative platelet count were identified. Special use and off-label procedures described included bicuspid aortic valves, valve-in-valve for homograft and stentless prosthesis failure, concomitant valvular procedures, porcelain aorta, and endocarditis. The Perceval valve has shown safe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Outcomes support its continued usage and potential expansion.

Early Clinical Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has been developed as an alternative surgical treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of SU-AVR through an assessment of hemodynamic performance and safety.

Methods

From December 2014 to June 2016, a total of 12 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent SU-AVR. The endpoints were overall survival and valve-related complications (paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, endocarditis, and permanent pacemaker implantation). The mean follow-up duration was 18.1±8.6 months.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 77.1±5.8 years and their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 9.2±17.7. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 94.5±37.3 minutes and 54.9±12.5 minutes, respectively. Follow-up echocardiography showed good prosthesis function with low transvalvular pressure gradients (mean, 13.9±8.6 mm Hg and peak, 27.2±15.0 mm Hg) at a mean of 9.9±4.2 months. No cases of primary paravalvular leakage, valve thrombosis, migration, or endocarditis were reported. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 1 patient (8.3%). The 1-year overall survival rate was 83.3%±10.8%.

Conclusion

Our initial experience with SU-AVR demonstrated excellent early clinical outcomes with good hemodynamic results. However, there was a high incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation compared to the rate for conventional AVR, which is a problem that should be solved.

Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: Outcomes in 70 High-Risk Patients Undergoing Concomitant Cardiac Procedures

In elderly, high-risk surgical patients, sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) can often be an alternative to conventional AVR; shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times are the chief advantages. We compared the outcomes of sutureless AVR with those of conventional AVR in 70 elderly patients who underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. We retrospectively analyzed the cases of 42 men and 28 women (mean age, 70.4 ± 10.3 yr; range, 34-93 yr) who underwent cardiac operations plus AVR with either a sutureless valve (group 1, n=38) or a conventional bioprosthetic or mechanical valve (group 2, n=32). Baseline patient characteristics were similar except for worse New York Heart Association functional status and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in group 1. In group 1, the operative, cross-clamp, and cardiopulmonary bypass times were shorter (all P=0.001), postoperative drainage amounts were lower (P=0.009), hospital stays were shorter (P=0.004), and less red blood cell transfusion was needed (P=0.037). Echocardiograms before patients' discharge from the hospital showed lower peak and mean aortic gradients in group 1 (mean transvalvular gradient, 8.4 ± 2.8 vs 12.2 ± 5.2 mmHg; P=0.012). We found that elderly, high-risk patients who underwent multiple cardiac surgical procedures and sutureless AVR had better hemodynamic outcomes and shorter ischemic times than did patients who underwent conventional AVR.

Comparison of Automated Titanium Fasteners to Hand-Tied Knots in Open Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective

Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times are independent predictors of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Reducing ischemic times with automated titanium fasteners may improve surgical outcomes. This study compared operative times and costs of titanium fasteners versus hand-tied knots for prosthesis securement in open aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A randomized control trial was conducted during a 16-month period at a single university medical center. Patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement were randomized to the titanium fastener (n = 37) or hand-tied groups (n = 36). Knotting, aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and total operating room times were recorded. Hospital charges were also calculated for these procedures.

Results

Baseline characteristics, concomitant procedures, prosthetic valve size, and sutures were similar between groups. The titanium fastener group had significantly reduced knotting (7.4 vs. 13.0 minutes, P < 0.001), aortic cross-clamp (69 vs. 90 minutes, P < 0.05), cardiopulmonary bypass (86 vs. 114 minutes, P < 0.05), and total operating room times (234 vs. 266 minutes, P < 0.05). Intraoperative complications occurred more frequently in the hand-tied group compared with the titanium fastener group. Postoperative complications were similar between groups. Operating room costs were significantly higher in the titanium fastener group (US $10,428 vs. US $9671, P = 0.01). Hospitalization costs did not differ significantly between the titanium fastener and hand-tied group (US $23,987 vs. US $21,068, P = 0.12).

Conclusions

Titanium fastener use was associated with shorter knotting, aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operating room times and fewer intraoperative complications in open aortic valve replacement, without significantly increasing hospitalization cost.