Sustitución valvular aórtica con bioprótesis convencionales o sin sutura: resultados clínicos y comportamiento hemodinámico a 3 años

Abstract

Introduction1-year outcomes of the sutureless bioprosthesis Perceval S are similar to conventional bioprostheses. Nevertheless, the mid-term evidence is scarce. ObjectivesMid-term follow up analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events analysis and hemodynamic performance, after aortic valve replacement with conventional bioprostheses or the Perceval S bioprosthesis in an adjusted cohort. MethodsRetrospective analysis of a 1:1 propensity score matched cohort of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement, with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Results52 patients were included in each group, with similar preoperative characteristics. At 3-year follow up, we observed no statistically significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events nor hemodynamic performance between conventional or sutureless bioprostheses. Survival: 92,31% vs 92,1%; P=.957. Stroke: 100% vs 94,23%; P=.080. Valve reintervention: 100% vs 94,81%; P=.200. Mean gradient: 10,6mmHg vs 10,7mmHg; P=.875. Peak gradient: 20,7mmHg vs 21,0mmHg; P=.856. Moderate or severe periprosthetic leak: 0 vs 1,92%; P=.136. ConclusionsAt 3 years, the Perceval S bioprosthesis presented similar outcomes in major adverse cardiovascular events and hemodynamic performance as conventional bioprosthesis.