Comparison of Self-Expanding RDV Perceval S versus TAVI ACURATE neo/TF

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval Bioprosthesis Superior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Promising Option for the Gray-Zone of Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures-A State-of-the-Art Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Future Directions

Background: The management of patients with aortic valve pathologies can sometimes fall into a "gray zone", where the optimal treatment approach is not straightforward. The comparative benefits of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) using the Perceval bioprosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the "gray zone" of aortic valve replacement procedures remain a topic of debate. To further explore this issue, we conducted a study with pairwise, single-arm, and Kaplan-Meier-based meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis versus TAVI, as well as to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and durability of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis over mid-term and long-term follow-up periods. Methods: The PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. The final search was carried out in May 2024. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates between the two groups. SUAVR showed a lower incidence of new-onset myocardial infarction but was associated with higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation and major bleeding. TAVI had higher rates of left bundle branch block and major vascular complications. Conclusions: Our findings show that SUAVR has a lower incidence of complications and a favorable mid-term overall survival compared to TAVI. SUAVR has more advantages compared to TAVI and can be considered a valuable and promising option for the "grey zone" of aortic valve pathologies.

Sutureless Valves, a "Wireless" Option for Patients With Aortic Valve Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter technologies triggered the recent revision of the guidelines that progressively widened the indications for the treatment of aortic stenosis. On the surgical realm, a technology avoiding the need for sutures to anchor the prosthesis to the aortic annulus has been developed with the aim to reduce the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and simplify the process of valve implantation. In addition to a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-like stent that exerts a radial force, these so-called "rapid deployment valves" or "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement also have cuffs to improve sealing and reduce the risk of paravalvular leak. Despite promising, the actual advantage of sutureless valves over traditional surgical procedures (surgical aortic valve replacement) or TAVR is still debated. This review summarizes the current comparative evidence reporting outcomes of "sutureless valves" for aortic valve replacement to TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve stenosis.

Clinical Midterm Results of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with Sutureless Valves

Background

Sutureless aortic valves may enable shorter procedure times, which benefits patients with elevated surgical risk. We describe the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the sutureless Perceval aortic bioprosthesis.

Methods

Data from a retrospective cohort were obtained from a clinical database. The study enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent surgical AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis between August 2015 and December 2020. In total, 113 patients were included (mean age, 75.3±8.4 years; 57.5% women; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 9.7%; mean follow-up period, 51.19±20.6 months). Of these patients, 41 were octogenarians (36.2%) and 3 were nonagenarians (2.6%). Transthoracic echocardiography was employed to assess changes in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and mean pressure gradient (MPG).

Results

The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.6%, and 13 patients developed new-onset atrial fibrillation. A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 3 patients (2.6%). The median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2 days), and the median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR, 9.5-15 days). The overall survival rate at 5 years was 95.9%. LVMI and MPG were reduced postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period. No structural valve deterioration was observed, and no meaningful paravalvular leakage developed during follow-up.

Conclusion

The use of a sutureless valve in the aortic position is safe and feasible, even for high-risk elderly patients requiring surgical AVR. LVMI and MPG decreased postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period.

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1-19.4% vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7% vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0-7.8% vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0-3.7% vs. SB 1.8-7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0-4% and PVL incidence was 0-2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies

Sutureless/rapid-deployment (SURD) valves are options different from the stented prostheses included in the pivotal trials comparing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We performed a meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies published by November 2021 to compare SURD-AVR and TAVI. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and overall survival in the follow-up. Secondary endpoints included: 30-day stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), paravalvular leak (PVL), prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), postoperative aortic valve area (AVA), and mean gradients. Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 5134 patients (2567 underwent SURD-AVR and 2567 underwent TAVI). Pooled risk of 30-day mortality did not favor any group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.53; p = 0.360). Patients undergoing SURD-AVR had lower risk of PVL (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.05-0.17; p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed for 30-day stroke, AKI, major bleeding, PPI, PPM, and postoperative AVA. In the follow-up, we observed a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.26-2.40; p < 0.001) with TAVI. Patients who underwent SURD-AVR experienced better survival, however, the interpretation of these results warrant caution due to the fact that SURD-AVR patients tended to be younger than TAVI patients. Structural heart surgeons and interventional cardiologists should consider initial risk and life expectancy when referring patients for one approach over the other.

Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

Objective: To highlight the main target points covered by clinical studies on the Perceval sutureless valve for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and raise a point of discussion for further expansion of its use when compared with stented bioprostheses (SB) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods: We reviewed clinical trials and retrospective studies published up to date and compared the outcomes in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) stroke, paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding and long-term outcomes.

Results: Clinical studies showed that 30-day mortality ranged from 0–4% for Perceval and 2.9–7% for TAVR. The incidence of PVL (Perceval 1.9–19.4 vs. TAVR 9–53.5%), PPI (Perceval 2–11.2 vs. TAVR 4.9–25.5%), stroke (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–2.8%), MI (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0–3.5%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0–6.4% for Perceval and 0–5.9% for SB. The incidence of PVR (Perceval 1–19.4 vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7 vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), stroke (Perceval 0–3.7 vs. SB 1.8–7.3%) and MI (Perceval 0–7.8 vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable among the groups. In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, mortality rate was (0–4%) and PVL incidence was (0–2.3%). However, there was a high incidence of PPI (0–20%), and stroke (0–8%). Long-term survival ranged between 96.7–98.6%.

Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its implantation speed, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, the reduced aortic cross-clamp time and the shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I²  = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I²  = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I²  = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I²  = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I²  = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR.

CONCLUSION

Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.