Long-term outcome with sutureless valves: 12 years of Perceval experience

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.

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.

Conventional Biological versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Prostheses in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have proven to provide a significant decrease in procedural, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, leading to a significant reduction in mortality risk in elderly high-risk cohorts. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience on the sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and the concomitant mitral valve replacement (SMVR), comparing the combined conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with SMVR.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

Between March 2018 and July 2022, 114 consecutive patients underwent a combined aortic and mitral valve replacement at our institution. We stratified the patients according to the operative procedures into two groups and matched them 1:2: Group 1 underwent a combined conventional SAVR and SMVR (n = 46), and Group 2 included combined SU-AVR with Perceval prosthesis and SMVR (n = 23).

RESULTS

No significant differences in the preoperative characteristics were present. SU-AVR combined with SMVR demonstrated excellent haemodynamic performance, comparable to that of SAVR plus SMVR, with median postoperative gradients over the aortic valve of 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 1 and 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 2 (p = 0.67). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative major adverse events such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction and kidney failure between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the permanent pacemaker implantation rate, paravalvular leakage or valve dislocation. We also could not detect any significant difference in postoperative mortality between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SU-AVR has proven to be a reliable alternative to conventional valve prostheses in patients with multivalve disease undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, offering shorter procedural time and outstanding hemodynamic performance compared to the conventional surgical method.

1-year outcomes of patients implanted with the Perceval sutureless valve: the Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

Sutureless offers an alternative to standard valves in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We sought to confirm the efficacy and safety of the Perceval sutureless valve in Japanese patients. Prospective observational study of 204 patients who underwent SAVR with Perceval at 19 sites in Japan between March and December 2019. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and postoperative complications; the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Efficacy outcomes were changed in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, pressure gradients, effective orifice area (EOA), EOA indexed to body surface area (EOAi) and severity of aortic regurgitation. Mean age was 77.7 years, 62.7% were female. Procedural success rate was 99.0%. The median cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 68.0 and 108 min. Perceval size S and M were implanted in 95 (46.6%) and in 76 (37.3%) of patients, respectively. The 30-day and late mortality rate were 0.5% and 4.4%, while the new permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 4.4%. Mean pressure gradient was 13.0 mmHg at discharge, reaching 11.0 mmHg at 1 year; while the mean EOA was 1.5 cm² at discharge remaining stable up to 1 year. No moderate or severe leakages were present at discharge or at 1 year. NYHA class improved by ≥ 1 level in 55.1% of the patients at discharge and in 69.4% of the patients at 1 year. 1-year outcomes of SAVR with the Perceval sutureless valve in Japanese patients were favorable. This valve offers a promising alternative to conventional biological AVR in this Japanese population.

Long-term durability of a Perceval aortic valve implanted inside a calcified homograft root in a patient with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Perceval valves are sutureless surgical bioprostheses designed for the aortic position. We report on the use of a Perceval sutureless valve for redo aortic valve replacement inside a heavily calcified homograft root in a patient with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Anonymized patient case data was extracted from hospital electronic records.

RESULTS

A now 62-year-old woman with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome underwent homograft aortic root replacement for congenital aortic valve dysplasia when she was 39 years old. She re-presented in 2012 with severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation through the homograft root. Computed tomography scanning revealed a heavily calcified homograft root. In order to avoid a high-risk redo root replacement or a challenging sutured aortic valve replacement, she underwent Perceval sutureless aortic valve implantation. As of 9.5 years following Perceval implantation, the bioprosthetic valve function remains excellent, with no transvalvular regurgitation seen.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This case reveals the value of Perceval valve implantation in redo surgery inside a hostile calcified homograft aortic root. Furthermore, we highlight the long-term durability of the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis.

Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multicenter analysis of "real-world" data

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggested that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be indicated also for low-risk patients. However, robust evidence is still lacking, particularly regarding valve performance at follow-up that confers a limitation to its use in young patients. Moreover, a literature gap exists in terms of 'real-world' data analysis. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus transfemoral TAVR.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrieved from a centralized database of nine cardiac surgery centers between 2010 and 2018. Follow-up was completed in June 2019. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Patients in the TAVR group (n=1002) were older and with more comorbidities than SuAVR patients (n=443). The PSM analysis generated 172 pairs. No differences were recorded between groups in 30-day mortality [SuAVR vs TAVR: n=7 (4%) vs n=5 (2.9%); p=0.7] and need for pacemaker implant [n=10 (5.8%) vs n=20 (11.6%); p=0.1], but costs were lower in the SuAVR group (20486.6±4188€ vs 24181.5±3632€; p<0.01). Mean follow-up was 1304±660 days. SuAVR patients had a significantly higher probability of survival than TAVR patients (no. of fatal events: 22 vs 74; p<0.014). Median follow-up was 2231 days and 2394 days in the SuAVR and TAVR group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of aortic valve stenosis with surgical sutureless or transcatheter prostheses is safe and effective. By comparing the two approaches, patients who can undergo surgery after heart team evaluation show longer lasting results and a more favorable cost ratio.

Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes in 121 Patients Who Underwent Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation - Early Results From a Single Korean Institution

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of Perceval sutureless valves in the Korean population and to introduce a modified technique of guiding suture placement during valve deployment.Methods and Results:From December 2014 to April 2019, 121 patients (mean age: 74.7±6.2 years; 53.7% female) received a Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement. To prevent conduction system injury, the depth of guiding suture placement (1 mm below the nadir of the annulus) was modified. All patients underwent echocardiographic evaluation at discharge and 6-12 months postoperatively, with a mean follow up of 13.7±11.2 months. Concomitant surgeries, such as coronary artery bypass grafting, and other valvular surgeries, were performed in 45.5% of cases. The mean aortic cross-clamp times for isolated and minimal procedures were 32.8±7.9, and 41.2±8.0 min, respectively. The overall transvalvular mean gradients were 13.1±3.8 mmHg at discharge and 11.5±4.7 mmHg at the last follow up. After modifying the guiding suture placement, permanent pacemaker implantation risk decreased from 9.9% to 2.5%. Cardiac-related mortality was 0.8%, with no patient developing valvular or paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, or endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

Perceval valve implantation provided a significant cardiac-related survival benefit with excellent early hemodynamic and clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to determine whether adjusting the implantation depth, such as modification of the guiding suture technique, can reduce the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation.