Experience with the irradiation of ammonium bromide: K. Heydorn, Forsøgsanlaeg Risø, Roskilde, Denmark

Abstract

Sutureless aortic valves are deemed suitable for patients considered at high risk for surgery. The objective of this study is to evaluate the perioperative results of implanting a sutureless valve in elderly persons, compared with a stented biological valve in the aortic position.Between 2011 and 2015, 76 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with the Perceval prosthesis (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy). The group was compared with 319 consecutive patients who received aortic valve replacement with the stented valve in that same period.The mean age of patients was 83 ± 2 years in the Perceval group and 83 ± 3 years in the stented valve group (P = .3). Preoperative demographics were similar in both groups. Median cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were lower in the Perceval group than in the stented valve group (P < .001). Mortality was 5% in the Perceval group and 6% in the stented valve group (P = .8). There were more pacemaker implantations in the Perceval group than in the stented valve group (17% vs 8%; P = .02). A subgroup analysis of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement and concomitant procedures showed the same results as the entire cohort.Aortic valve replacement with a sutureless prosthesis resulted in shorter aortic crossclamp and bypass times compared with a stented biological prosthesis. The reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp times obtained using the Perceval prosthesis did not translate into perioperative gains in our population of elderly patients.