Perceval Sutureless Valve - are Sutureless Valves Here?

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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus sutureless aortic valve replacement: a single-centre cost analysis

AIMS

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are both viable therapeutic interventions for aortic stenosis in elderly patients. Meta-analyses show similar all-cause mortality for both techniques albeit with a different pattern of adverse effects. This study means to compare costs and, to a lesser extent, clinical outcomes of both techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre analysis was performed for patients receiving SU-AVR or TAVI from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative clinical data were collected from patient files. Costs were assessed by a cost allocation tool. In an attempt to avoid confounding, propensity score matching was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients underwent either TAVI (n = 100) or SU-AVR (n = 268). After matching, there were 61 patients per treatment group. Length of stay was significantly longer in the SU-AVR group. Excluding device costs, total expenses for SU-AVR (median: €11,630) were significantly higher than TAVI (median: €9240). For both groups, these costs were mostly incurred on intensive care units, followed by nursing units. Non-medical staff was the largest contributor to expenses. Including device costs, SU-AVR (median: €14,683) was shown to be cost-saving compared to TAVI (median: €24,057).

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, we found SU-AVR to be cost-saving compared to TAVI, largely due to higher device costs associated with the latter. Excluding device costs, TAVI was associated with lower expenses and shorter length of stay. Non-medical staff was the largest source of costs, suggesting length of stay to be a major financial determinant.

Conventional vs. Sutureless Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis: Is Faster Better?

Purpose: The benefits of sutureless compared to conventional aortic valve prosthesis replacement remain controversial. Supposed advantages of sutureless aortic valve replacement include shortened cross-clamp and implantation time, as well as improved overall safety and good post-operative performance. We aimed to compare the early outcomes and performance of sutureless aortic valve replacement (su-AVR) with the sutureless Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) vs. the conventional AVR with a conventional counterpart, in this case, the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. Methods: We compared two types of aortic valve prostheses, the sutureless (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and the conventional valve Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP), implanted between August 2014 and May 2019 in our Department of Cardiac Surgery at RWTH Aachen University Hospital. Data were collected from 141 patients who received the Perceval (Corcym, Milan, Italy) and 138 who received the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) aortic bioprosthesis. After matching the two groups considering STS mortality risk and pre-operative LDH levels, 201 patients were included in our final study cohort. Seventy-one patients (17 from the Perceval group and 54 from the Dokimos group) were excluded due to the lack of complete data, particularly standardized echocardiographic data (n = 71). Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and pacemaker implantation. Secondary endpoints were echocardiographic parameters, major adverse cardiovascular events, and prosthesis failure (grade II aortic regurgitation, paravalvular leak with reintervention). Results: Bypass and cross-clamp time proved to be shorter in the Perceval group, while hospital stays were longer. The faster implantation had no effect on the 30-day mortality primary endpoint. Transvalvular gradients were significantly higher in the Perceval group, in addition to a smaller effective orifice area. The LDH values were remarkably higher post-operatively in the Perceval group. Conclusions: Regarding the clinical outcomes, Perceval was equivalent and not superior to the Dokimus bioprosthesis. The suitability of a Perceval prosthesis implantation must be determined on a case-by-case basis and reserved for elderly patients with increased comorbidity.

An Unusual Case of Ascending Aorta Dissection 4 Years after Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis Implantation: Easier Access to Diagnosis through the Right Parasternal Longitudinal Echocardiographic Window

Sutureless bioprostheses are more frequently used for the surgical treatment of elderly patients with high burden of comorbidity, who are candidates to aortic valve replacement (AVR). Among the sutureless bioprostheses, the Perceval valve has shown a good midterm durability, with very few reports of valve deterioration and low risk of complications. Herein, we present an unusual case of ascending aorta dissection which occurred 4 years after AVR with a Perceval sutureless pericardial bioprosthesis, likely related to the peculiar prosthetic design. A high right parasternal longitudinal view of the aorta in the right lateral decubitus allowed to suspect the acute aortic syndrome, thus accelerating the subsequent diagnostic and therapeutic iter.

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.

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.

Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves.

METHOD AND RESULTS

From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18-29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16-29] mm Hg and 18 [14-24] mm Hg, p < 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Initial experience with the Perceval S sutureless aortic valve

Introduction

Surgical treatment of the aortic valve represents the gold standard, and thus aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most commonly performed cardiac operations.

Aim

To evaluate the early outcome of aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S sutureless aortic bioprosthesis.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective analysis of 24 patients (mean age: 71 ±5 years), who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval S valve. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was performed in 9 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at hospital discharge, and once during follow-up.

Results

A total of 15 of 24 patients underwent isolated sutureless aortic valve replacement (mean aortic cross-clamp time: 60 ±14 minutes; mean bypass time: 90 ±23 minutes). Coronary bypass grafting was performed in 9 patients (mean aortic cross-clamp time: 78 ±23 minutes; mean bypass time: 111 ±31 minutes). Hospital mortality was nil. Mean and peak transvalvular pressure gradients were 10 ±2 mm Hg and 21 ±3 mm Hg at follow-up, respectively. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation did not develop in any patients during the follow-up period. No valve thrombosis, thromboembolic events, or structural valve deterioration were observed.

Conclusions

In our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement, the surgical procedure is shown to be safe. The early haemodynamic performance seems favourable. By shortening the aortic cross-clamp and bypass times we can notice advantages, especially in high-risk patients. Minimally invasive access seems to be facilitated. Larger studies are needed to confirm our data and determine the long-term durability of the Perceval S sutureless bioprosthesis.

Risk Factors for Mortality and Morbidity of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis - Risk Model From a Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database

Background: The aim of this study was to determine adequate indication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We analyzed risk factors of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) not only for mortality, but also for morbidity, including long hospital stay (≥90 days) and patient activity at discharge, in patients who underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis (AS).

Methods and Results: Using the Japan Adult Cardiovascular Surgery Database (JCVSD), 13,961 patients with or without coronary artery bypass grafting who underwent elective SAVR for AS were identified from January 2008 to December 2012. The hospital mortality rate was 3.1%. The percentage of patients who had long hospital stay (≥90 days) and who had moderately or severely decompressed activity at discharge (modified Rankin scale ≥4) was 2.9% and 6.5%, respectively. Eleven and 20 preoperative predictors of hospital mortality and morbidity, respectively, including long hospital stay and compromised status at discharge, were identified. Based on these risk factors, the risk model predicted hospital mortality (area under the curve [AUC], 0.732) and morbidity (AUC, 0.694).

Conclusions: Using JCVSD, a risk model of SAVR was developed for AS. This model can identify patients at high risk not only for mortality, but also for mortality and morbidity, including long hospital stay and status at discharge.

Recent advances in aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve replacement has stood the test of time but is no longer an operation that is exclusively approached through a median sternotomy using only sutured prostheses. Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed through a number of minimally invasive approaches employing conventional mechanical or bioprostheses as well as sutureless valves. In either case, the direct surgical access allows inspection of the valve, complete excision of the diseased leaflets, and debridement of the annulus in a controlled and thorough manner under visual control. It can be employed to treat aortic valve pathologies of all natures and aetiologies. When compared with transcatheter valves in patients with a high or intermediate preoperative predictive risk, conventional surgery has not been shown to be inferior to transcatheter valve implants. As our understanding of sutureless valves and their applicability to minimally invasive surgery advances, the invasiveness and trauma of surgery can be reduced and outcomes can improve. This warrants further comparative trials comparing sutureless and transcatheter valves.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention following Placement of Sutureless Aortic Bioprostheses

Coronary artery disease is often present with aortic stenosis. Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement and minimally invasive surgery provide alternative sternal-sparing options for isolated aortic valve replacement, non-sternotomy treatment of combined coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis has not been well-defined. We report 3 patients who presented with severe aortic stenosis and obstructive coronary artery disease in whom minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using sutureless valve was performed, followed by transradial percutaneous coronary intervention of obstructive coronary lesion. This case series demonstrates a hybrid technique for the treatment of combined severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, which has potential for adequately treating both conditions with minimal risk.

The flutter-by effect: a comprehensive study of the fluttering cusps of the Perceval heart valve prosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless aortic valve prostheses are gaining popularity due to the substantial reduction in cross-clamp time. In this study, we report our observations on the cusp-fluttering phenomenon of the Perceval bioprosthesis (LivaNova, London, UK) using a combination of technical and medical perspectives.

METHODS

Between August 2014 and December 2016, a total of 108 patients (69% women) with a mean age of 78 years had aortic valve replacement using the Perceval bioprosthesis (34 combined procedures). All patients underwent transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) intraoperatively. TOE was performed postoperatively to detect paravalvular leakage and to measure gradients, acceleration time, Doppler velocity indices (Vmax and LVOT/Vmax AV) and effective orifice area indices. In addition, a TOE examination was performed in 21 patients postoperatively. Data were collected retrospectively from our hospital database.

RESULTS

The retrospective evaluation of the intraoperative TOE examinations revealed consistent fluttering in all patients with the Perceval bioprosthesis. The echocardiographic postoperative measurements showed a mean effective orifice area index of 0.91 ± 0.12 cm2/m2. The overall mean pressure and peak pressure gradients were in a higher range (13.5 ± 5.1 mmHg and 25.5 ± 8.6 mmHg, respectively), whereas acceleration time (62.8 ± 16.4 ms) and Doppler velocity indices (0.43 ± 0.11) were within the normal range according to the American Society of Echocardiography or european association of echocardiography (EAE) guidelines. The 2-dimensional TOE in Motion Mode (M-Mode) that was performed in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels revealed remarkable fluttering of the cusps of the Perceval bioprosthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study cohort, we observed the fluttering phenomenon in all patients who received the Perceval bioprosthesis, which was correlated with elevated LDH levels and higher pressure gradients.