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

Midterm Outcomes of Right Anterior Mini Thoracotomy Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Contemporary surgical approaches for aortic valve replacement (AVR) include full median sternotomy, hemi-sternotomy, and a right anterior mini thoracotomy (RAMT) approach. We report the midterm outcomes of RAMT for isolated AVR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted, reporting the midterm outcomes of patients who underwent isolated RAMT AVR. The primary outcomes were death and disabling stroke within 30-days of surgery. The secondary outcomes were survival at latest follow-up assessment, hospital readmission for aortic valve disease, prosthetic valve function, and incidence of structural valve deterioration requiring reintervention on the aortic valve.

Results

Seventy patients underwent isolated RAMT AVR between February 2016 and February 2018. One patient died from a cardiac cause within 30 days of surgery, whereas none experienced disabling postoperative strokes. The mean follow-up period for the cohort was 74.46 ± 7.54 months. At 95 months, a total of 49 patients were alive. During the follow-up period, 2 patients underwent median sternotomy, 1 for mitral valve replacement and tricuspid repair, and 1 for coronary artery bypass grafting. At last follow-up assessment, the average mean transvalvular gradient was 12.11 ± 9.15 mm Hg. One patient developed prosthetic valve infective endocarditis, and 1 patient was found to have prosthetic valve thrombosis. Prosthetic valve function was normal in 66 patients. At 95 months, freedom from aortic valve reintervention was 98.6%, as 1 patient required redo aortic root surgery.

Conclusions

RAMT AVR can be done safely in the appropriate patient population. Midterm outcomes at our centre are promising, and they suggest that this approach is a good option for managing aortic stenosis.

Sutureless Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Systematic Review with Long-Term Results

Background: In recent years, in case of aortic valve replacement (AVR), a significant increase in the use of bioprostheses has been observed. The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis has proven to be safe and reliable in the short and mid-term, with limited but promising long-term results. An updated systematic review with the long-term results of patients who underwent a sutureless bioprosthesis implantation with a Perceval biological valve is herewith presented. Methods: Studies published between 2015 and 2024, including the long-term outcomes-with clinical as well as echocardiographic information for up to five years-of patients who underwent a Perceval implantation for AVR were selected from the published literature. The Cochrane GRADE system was used to assess the study quality, and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate studies. Results: Ten studies were selected with an overall number of 5221 patients. The long-term survival ranged from 64.8 to 87.9%, freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) from 96.1 to 100%, freedom from significant paravalvular leak from 98.5 to 100%, freedom from prosthetic endocarditis from 90.7 to 99%, and freedom from reintervention from 94 to 100%. The long-term mortality ranged from 6.5 to 27.4%. SVD was observed in 0-4.8% patients. Significant paravalvular leak was observed in 0-3.4% patients, and infective endocarditis was observed in 0-3.4%. A bioprosthesis-related reintervention at long-term follow-up was required for 0-4.3% of patients, and 1.7-7.1% of patients required a late new pacemaker implantation. The transprosthetic mean pressure gradient ranged from 9 to 14.7 mmHg, peak pressure gradient ranged from 17.8 to 26.5 mmHg, and EOA ranged from 1.5 to 1.7 cm2. Conclusions: This systematic review shows that there is still a paucity of data about sutureless bioprostheses. Nevertheless, the clinical results from prospective studies or retrospective series are encouraging. Medium- and long-term results seem to support the increasing use of this type of prosthesis.

Repair of severe aortic insufficiency and stenosis after Ozaki surgery with Perceval™ sutureless aortic valve

The Ozaki technique is a novel technique which involves constructing a new aortic valve with autologous pericardium. The Perceval™ aortic valve is a foldable, stent-inserted aortic valve bioprosthesis that can be placed seamlessly. In a 58-year-old female patient who previously underwent the Ozaki procedure, severe aortic regurgitation and aortic valve stenosis were observed and surgical repair was performed using a Perceval™ valve. Only a trace amount of paravalvular aortic regurgitation was detected in the control echocardiography. The patient was uneventfully discharged five days after the operation. In conclusion, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval™ valve after the Ozaki procedure is an alternative that should be kept in mind in selected cases.

Heart failure hospitalization following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk aortic stenosis

AIMS

In low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS), sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) may be an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population is incompletely characterized. This study aims to investigate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of HFH in patients undergoing SU-SAVR versus TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients referred for AVR between 2013 and 2020 at two centres were consecutively included. The decision for SU-SAVR or TAVI was determined by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Cox regression and competing risk analysis were conducted to assess adverse events. Of 594 patients (mean age 77.5 ± 6.4, 59.8% male), 424 underwent SU-SAVR, while 170 underwent TAVI. Following a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 23.1 months, HFH occurred in 112 (27.8%) SU-SAVR patients and in 8 (4.8%) TAVI patients (P < 0.001). The SU-SAVR cohort exhibited higher all-cause mortality (138 [32.5%] patients compared with 30 [17.6%] in the TAVI cohort [P < 0.001]). These differences remained significant after sensitivity analyses with 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline variables. SU-SAVR with HFH was associated with increased all-cause mortality (61.6% vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Independent associates of HFH in SU-SAVR patients included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower glomerular filtration rate and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. SU-SAVR patients with HFH had a 12-month LVEF of 59.4 ± 12.7.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk AS, SU-SAVR is associated with a higher risk of HFH and all-cause mortality compared to TAVI. In patients with severe AS candidate to SU-SAVR or TAVI, TAVI may be the preferred intervention.

Differences between valve types in anatomic changes of the aortic root after surgical aortic valve replacement

Background

When transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV) is considered as a secondary interventional option, it is desirable to estimate the risk of coronary obstruction during future TAV-in-SAV before the initial surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), for which knowledge of the anatomic changes after SAVR is essential. We investigated the changes in the aortic root and evaluated the differences in changes between valve types.

Methods

Pre- and post-SAVR computed tomography scans of 124 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR with various bioprosthetic valves were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative aortic root changes and parameters related to future TAV-in-SAV were compared between the sutured valve group and rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group.

Results

After SAVR, the coronary height in the sutured valve group and rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group was shortened by a median of 4.6 to 5.3 mm and 0.5 to 2.2 mm, respectively, and the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) diameter was reduced by a median of 1.6 to 2.7 mm and 0.1 to 1.3 mm, respectively. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the rapid deployment/sutureless valve group had a coronary orifice (especially in the right coronary artery) above the risk plane. The valve-to-coronary distance and valve-to-aorta distance (VTA) were adequate in most patients. The only difference between the groups was in the left VTA.

Conclusions

Decreases in coronary height and SOV diameter were observed after SAVR, especially in the sutured valve group. The aortic root structure was better preserved in the rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group. This may be advantageous for future TAV-in-SAV. These results are important for considering the feasibility of future TAV-in-SAV.

Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Trifecta sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: immediate results of the Perfecta study

Introduction

The Perceval sutureless biological prosthesis for aortic valve replacement has been introduced with the rationale for shortening surgical, extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamping times, in order to reduce postoperative complications.

Aim

To evaluate early hemodynamic performance and immediate outcomes of implantation of the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis in comparison with the St. Jude Trifecta sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (Perfecta study).

Material and methods

Between December 2014 and June 2023, 281 patients underwent St. Jude Trifecta implantation (n = 220, mean age: 75.2 ±6.5 years) and Perceval implantation, when indicated (n = 61, mean age: 77.9 ±5.1 years). Concomitant CABG was performed in 73 (33%) and in 27 (44%) patients, respectively.

Results

Extracorporeal circulation and cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in Perceval patients in all aortic valve replacements (61 ±23 and 49 ±18 minutes vs. 96 ±36 and 67 ±21 minutes), and in isolated procedures (54 ±10 and 43 ±8 minutes vs. 84 ±28 and 66 ±21 minutes) (p < 0.0001, for all comparisons). Operative mortality was absent and 2.7%, respectively (p = 0.2). Postoperatively, low output cardiac syndrome (0% vs. 4.5%) and total rate of major cardiac and non-cardiac related complications (6.6% vs. 18.6%) were significantly lower in Perceval patients (p = 0.01). Echocardiography at discharge in comparison with preoperatively showed a relevant and similar decrease of mean and peak trans-aortic valve gradients for the Trifecta prosthesis (11.6 ±4.3 vs. 50 ±15.2 mm Hg; 21.6 ±7.3 vs. 78.8 ±24 mm Hg) and for the Perceval prosthesis (12.6 ±4.8 vs. 52 ±12.5 mm Hg; 22.6 ±7.9 vs. 77.8 ±16 mm Hg) (p < 0.00001, for all comparisons). Better global cardiac function was observed in Perceval patients. Concomitant multi-vessel and left main coronary artery disease (p = 0.046; HR = 4.6) and chronic pulmonary disease (p = 0.006; HR = 5.6) were detected as independent predictors of death and postoperative major complications.

Conclusions

Early hemodynamic performance appears to be satisfactory with the use of Trifecta sutured and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. Perceval implantation allows reduction of surgical times, better preservation of myocardial contractile function and, consequently, reduction of the risk of postoperative complications.

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.

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.

Sutureless Biological Aortic Valve Replacement (Su-AVR) in Redo operations: a retrospective real-world experience report of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement (su-AVR) and conventional bioprosthetic sutured AVR (cAVR) in high-risk patients undergoing redo surgery.

METHODS

A total of 79 patients who underwent redo AVR between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. Of these, 27 patients underwent su-AVR and 52 underwent cAVR. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were analysed using multivariate regression and Kaplan Meier survival test.

RESULTS

The groups were similar in terms of age, gender, left ventricular function, and number of previous sternotomies. In cases of isolated AVR, su-AVR had significantly lower cross clamp times than cAVR (71 vs. 86 min, p = 0.03). Postoperatively, 4 cAVR patients required pacemaker compared to zero patients in the su-AVR group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, intrahospital stay (median 9 days, IQR 7-20), or in-hospital mortality (1 su-AVR; 2 cAVR). The long-term survival rate was similar between the su-AVR (90%) and cAVR (92%) groups (log rank p = 0.8). The transvalvular gradients at follow-up were not affected by the type of valve used, regardless of the valve size (coef 2.68, 95%CI -3.14-8.50, p = 0.36).

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that su-AVR is a feasible and safe alternative to cAVR in high-risk patients undergoing redo surgery. The use of su-AVR offers comparable outcomes to cAVR, with reduced cross clamp times and a lower incidence of postoperative pacemaker requirement in isolated AVR cases. The results of this study contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of su-AVR in high-risk patients, highlighting its feasibility and safety in redo surgeries.