Sutureless Aortic Valve Research Articles

Sutureless Aortic Prosthesis Valves versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Intermediate Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Literature Review.

Aortic stenosis remains the most frequently occurring valvular pathology in the elderly population of Western countries. According to the latest guidelines, the therapeutic choice of aortic stenosis depends on the age of the patient (<75 years or >75 years) and the risk class (STS-Prom/Euroscore II < o >4%). Therefore, if the surgical indication is clear in young and low-risk patients and percutaneous treatment is the gold standard in older and high-risk patients, the therapeutic choice is still debated in intermediate-risk patients. In this group of patients, aortic valve stenosis treatment depends on the patient's global evaluation, the experience of the center, and, no less importantly, the patient's will. Two main therapeutic options are debated: surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In addition, the progressive development of mininvasive techniques for aortic valve surgery (right-anterior minithoracotomy) has also reduced the peri- and post-operative risk in this group of patients. The purpose of this review is to compare sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus TAVI in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval Bioprosthesis Superior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Promising Option for the Gray-Zone of Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures-A State-of-the-Art Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Future Directions.

Background: The management of patients with aortic valve pathologies can sometimes fall into a "gray zone", where the optimal treatment approach is not straightforward. The comparative benefits of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) using the Perceval bioprosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the "gray zone" of aortic valve replacement procedures remain a topic of debate. To further explore this issue, we conducted a study with pairwise, single-arm, and Kaplan-Meier-based meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis versus TAVI, as well as to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and durability of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis over mid-term and long-term follow-up periods. Methods: The PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. The final search was carried out in May 2024. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates between the two groups. SUAVR showed a lower incidence of new-onset myocardial infarction but was associated with higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation and major bleeding. TAVI had higher rates of left bundle branch block and major vascular complications. Conclusions: Our findings show that SUAVR has a lower incidence of complications and a favorable mid-term overall survival compared to TAVI. SUAVR has more advantages compared to TAVI and can be considered a valuable and promising option for the "grey zone" of aortic valve pathologies.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus: Clinical and Hemodynamic Outcomes from a Multi-Institutional Study.

This study aimed to compare hemodynamic performances and clinical outcomes of patients with small aortic annulus (SAA) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). From 2015 to 2020, 622 consecutive patients with SAA underwent either SUAVR or TAVI. Through a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis, two homogeneous groups of 146 patients were formed. Primary endpoint: all cause-death at 36 months. Secondary endpoints: incidence of moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). All-cause death at three years was higher in the TAVI group (SUAVR 12.2% vs. TAVI 21.0%, P=0.058). Perioperatively, comparable hemodynamic performances were recorded in terms of indexed effective orifice area (SUAVR 1.12 ± 0.23 cm2/m2 vs. TAVI 1.17 ± 0.28 cm2/m2, P=0.265), mean transvalvular gradients (SUAVR 12.9 ± 5.3 mmHg vs. TAVI 12.2 ± 6.2 mmHg, P=0.332), and moderate-to-severe PPM (SUAVR 4.1% vs. TAVI 8.9%, P=0.096). TAVI group showed a higher cumulative incidence of MACCEs at 36 months (SUAVR 18.1% vs. TAVI 32.6%, P<0.001). Pacemaker implantation (PMI) and perivalvular leak ≥ 2 were significantly higher in TAVI group and identified as independent predictors of mortality (PMI: hazard ratio [HR] 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-6.94, P=0.008; PPM: HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.25-5.94, P=0.012). In patients with SAA, SUAVR and TAVI showed comparable hemodynamic performances. Moreover, all-cause death and incidence of MACCEs at follow-up were significantly higher in TAVI group.

Ease of sutureless aortic valve replacement in a patient with unexpected ochronosis: a case report

BackgroundAlkaptonuria is a rare congenital metabolic disorder characterized by homogentisic acid accumulation in body cartilage and connective tissues due to a deficient homogentisic acid dioxygenase enzyme. This disorder manifests in various clinical symptoms, including spondyloarthropathy, ocular and dermal pigmentation, genitourinary tract obstruction by ochronosis stones, and cardiovascular system involvement. Cardiac ochronosis is a rare manifestation of alkaptonuria that may present as aortic stenosis, sometimes accompanied by other cardiovascular complications.Case presentationWe report an unexpected case of ochronosis diagnosed during cardiac surgery. Due to the fragile, thin, and atheromatous nature of the ascending aorta in patients with ochronosis, we opted for a sutureless aortic valve replacement procedure. This approach appears to be more suitable for patients with ochronosis.ConclusionsAlthough cardiac ochronosis is rare, surgeons should remain vigilant and consider the possibility of this condition when examining patients with aortic valve stenosis, paying close attention to the clinical manifestations of alkaptonuria.

THE “BACK TO THE FUTURE” OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY: HIGH–RISK INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURE TURNED DOWN TO CONVENTIONAL CARDIAC SURGERY

Abstract Background Structural interventional cardiology has been introduced at the beginning of our century to address high–risk patient suffering from severe aortic stenosis. Since then several technique and technology have been proposed to address an increasing population of patients and mitral valve diseases have been also addressed. While several authors are pushing up the indications for structural interventional procedures, however, we are experiencing some situations were conventional surgery is considered an alternative to high risk interventional procedures. Here we present a peculiar case of “back to the future” in cardiothoracic surgery. Case Description A 76 yo female patient, was referred to our Division from a peripheral Hospital suffering from severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery diseases. Medical history of the patient included persistent AF, COPD, arterial peripheral vascular disease, moderate chronic renal insufficiency and moderate dilatation of ascending aorta. Patient was previously assessed by another Centre and a percutaneous treatment (PTCA+TAVI) was proposed. Due to further admission for cardiac failure–related symptoms, however, patient was urgently referred to our Division. Fig 1 and 2 summarized clinical findings. “Heart team” evaluation, based also on the product specialist evaluation, considered the patient not suitable for interventional procedure due to the high risk of sub–optimal medium–term prognosis. Due to further clinical deterioration an extremely high–risk surgical procedure was mandatory. Results Surgical procedure included a sutureless aortic valve replacement, a MV plasty, a double coronary graft + a cpmbined carotid endoarterectomy. Postoperative course was free from significant complications and the patient was discharged to rehabilitation clinic on 15th postoperative days. Conclusion Despite interventional procedure are continuing to increase either as number of procedure either as complexity of diseases treated, conventional cardiac surgery remains still the only option for treatment in many clinical scenario. As a sort of “back to the future” situation, patient originally referred for interventional procedures are turned down due to the high risk of sub–optimal results. In such condition conventional cardiac surgery, performed with high level of accuracy could represent the last and only treatment option for high risk patients.

Clinical Midterm Results of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with Sutureless Valves.

Sutureless aortic valves may enable shorter procedure times, which benefits patients with elevated surgical risk. We describe the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the sutureless Perceval aortic bioprosthesis. Data from a retrospective cohort were obtained from a clinical database. The study enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent surgical AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis between August 2015 and December 2020. In total, 113 patients were included (mean age, 75.3±8.4 years; 57.5% women; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 9.7%; mean follow-up period, 51.19±20.6 months). Of these patients, 41 were octogenarians (36.2%) and 3 were nonagenarians (2.6%). Transthoracic echocardiography was employed to assess changes in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and mean pressure gradient (MPG). The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.6%, and 13 patients developed new-onset atrial fibrillation. A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 3 patients (2.6%). The median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2 days), and the median hospital stay was 12 days (IQR, 9.5-15 days). The overall survival rate at 5 years was 95.9%. LVMI and MPG were reduced postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period. No structural valve deterioration was observed, and no meaningful paravalvular leakage developed during follow-up. The use of a sutureless valve in the aortic position is safe and feasible, even for high-risk elderly patients requiring surgical AVR. LVMI and MPG decreased postoperatively, while EF increased over the follow-up period.

Thrombocytopenia Following Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in Asian Patients.

This study analyzed the safety and performance of the Perceval valve for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at 1 year after undergoing aortic stenosis (AS) treatment, and its effect on significant declines in the platelet count during the immediate postoperative period.Methods and Results: Data were collected retrospectively for the initial 121 patients (median age 77 years; 47.1% females) who underwent Perceval sutureless AVR between May 2019 and July 2022. Implantation was successful in all (100%), with median cross-clamp and CPB times of 59 and 100 min, respectively. Postoperative thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50×103/μL) was noted in 80 (66.1%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed advanced age (>80 years), preoperative low platelet count (<200×103/μL), and a sternotomy approach as significant risk factors for postoperative thrombocytopenia. One (0.8%) patient died within 30 days after the procedure. The 2-year site-reported event rate was 14% (n=17) for all-cause mortality, 0.8% (n=1) for cardiac mortality, 4.1% (n=5) for stroke, and 1.7% (n=2) for endocarditis and valve-related reoperation; there were no instances of paravalvular leakage or structural valve deterioration. Thrombocytopenia was common after Perceval sutureless AVR, although its impact was not significant. Although Perceval sutureless AVR was found to be a safe and effective option, preoperative assessment of potential bleeding should be performed and the Perceval valve should not be used for patients with a high bleeding risk.

The Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve: Evolution of Surgical Valve Technology.

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). PubMed and MEDLINE were searched by 3 authors for studies analyzing SUAVR from inception to May 19, 2023. 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. 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

ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThe 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.

Single-center real-world data and technical considerations from 100 consecutive patients treated with the Perceval aortic bioprosthesis.

Although the Perceval sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis presents a feasible alternative to conventional aortic valve prostheses, the extent of its applicability with respect to technical considerations for a real-world patient collective is still under debate. One hundred patients received the Perceval prosthesis [males: 59; age: 72.5 (7.3-79) years] between December 2015 and February 2023 [EuroSCORE II: 2.8 (1.7-5.4)] for an aortic valve replacement (AVR), with additional concomitant procedures, for underlying severe aortic valve stenosis [n = 93 (93)], endocarditis [n = 5 (5)], and redo AVR [n = 7 (7)] including a prior surgical AVR [n = 4 (4)] and a failed transcatheter aortic valve implantation [n = 3 (3)]. Surgery was conducted primarily by median sternotomy [n = 71 (71)] and, alternatively, by the upper hemisternotomy approach [n = 29 (29)]. Over a median follow-up time of 36.5 (16.5-53) months, eight patients (8%) underwent postoperative pacemaker implantation, with five (5%) due to high-grade atrioventricular block, while nine patients experienced a stroke (9%). The median values of maximum and mean gradients across all valve sizes were 22 (18-27.5) mmHg and 10 (13-18) mmHg, respectively. Two patients (2%) had moderate and one (1%) had severe paravalvular leakage, with the latter presenting the only case of underlying valve migration and induced redo AVR with valve explantation 2 days following initial surgery. Thirty-day mortality (and overall mortality) was 5% and 26%, respectively. The implantation of the Perceval bioprosthesis is feasible for a variety of indications, with excellent hemodynamic results and low complication rates in a real-world high-risk patient collective.

Role of sutureless aortic valve replacement in the era of transcatheter valves

This review article considers the role of sutureless aortic valve replacement in the era of transcatheter replacement. Modern data regarding the outcomes of treatment with these two methods and its comparison are considered. Their main disadvantages and the cohorts of patients suitable for each technique are determined.

Less Is More? Combined Approaches to Improve Mortality and Morbidity after Aortic Valve Replacement.

Nowadays, one of the main goals of aortic valve surgery is to reduce the biological impact, mortality, and complications. It is well-known that long operative times in terms of the extracorporeal circulation, but above all, of the aortic cross-clamp time (ACC), represent a risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. In order to shorten the aortic cross-clamp time, many technological improvements, such as sutureless prostheses, have been introduced, but their actual effectiveness has not been proven yet. The aim of this study was to assess the 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery, focusing on the ACC length. All 3139 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement between January 2013 and July 2022 at our institution were enrolled. The data were retrospectively collected and the baseline characteristics and intraoperative variables were recorded. In order to adjust the results according to the differences in the baseline characteristics, propensity score matching was performed and four groups of 351 patients were obtained based on the first, second, third, and fourth quartile of the ACC time. The patient population included 132 redo surgeries (9.4%) and 61 cases of active endocarditis (4.3%), with an overall median EuroSCORE II of 1.8 (IQR 1.2-3.1). An increase across the groups was observed in terms of the acute kidney failure (p < 0.001) incidence, the number of blood transfusions (p = 0.022), prolonged hospital stays (p < 0.001), the and respiratory failure (p < 0.001) incidence. A p of < 0.1 was found for the 30-day mortality (p = 0.079). The predictors of an early 30-day mortality were standard full sternotomy (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.14-5.40, p = 0.022), EuroSCORE II (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.16, p < 0.001), and a trend for a longer ACC time (Q4 vs. Q1: OR 2.62, 95% CI 0.89-7.68, p = 0.080). Shortening the operative times resulted in marked improvements of the patients' outcomes. The combined use of minimally invasive approaches and sutureless aortic valve prostheses allows for a lower 30-day events rate. New technologies should be assessed to obtain the best results with the least risk.

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.

Sutureless versus transcatheter valves in patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: A multi-institutional European study

BackgroundRecent randomized controlled trials showed comparable short-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate and low-risk patients. However, independent studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation results versus surgical aortic valve replacement at 5 years showed worsening outcomes in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to analyze mid- to long-term outcomes of patients with isolated aortic stenosis and an intermediate-risk profile who underwent aortic valve replacement using a sutureless valve versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. MethodsThis retrospective multi-institutional European study investigated 2,123 consecutive patients with isolated aortic stenosis at intermediate risk profile treated with sutureless aortic valve replacement (824 patients) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (1,299 patients) from 2013 to 2020. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2 balanced groups of 517 patients were obtained. Primary endpoints were as follows: 30 days, late all-cause, and cardiac-related mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events (all-cause death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, endocarditis, reoperation, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak grade ≥2). ResultsMedian follow-up was 4.3 years (interquartile range 1.1–7.4 years). Primary endpoints were as follows—30-day mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 2.13% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.64% (P = .026), all-cause mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 36.7% ± 7.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41.8% ± 8.2% (P = .023), and cardiac-related mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 10.2% ± 2.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 19.2% ± 3.5%;(P = .00043) at follow-up. Secondary endpoints were as follows—major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events in the sutureless aortic valve replacement group: 47.2% ± 9.0% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 57.3% ± 7.5% (P < .001). In particular, the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 6.38% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 11.8% [P = .002]) and paravalvular leak ≥2 (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 0.97% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.84% [P = .001]) was significantly higher in transcatheter aortic valve implantation group. At Multivariable Cox regression analysis, paravalvular leak ≥2 (hazard ratio: 1.63%; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–2.53, P = .042) and permanent pacemaker implantation (hazard ratio: 1.49%; 95% confidence interval: 1.02–2.20, P = .039) were identified as predictors of mortality. ConclusionSutureless aortic valve replacement showed a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiac-related death, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak than transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Moreover, permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak negatively affected survival in patients treated for isolated aortic stenosis.

Dilemma with Sutureless Aortic Valve

Dilemma with Sutureless Aortic Valve

Epair 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.

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.

Single-Center, Multisurgeon Experience with a Sutureless Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Prosthesis: A Clinical Analysis in the United States

Background. The Perceval S is a sutureless, bovine pericardial aortic prosthesis on a nitinol stent, which has limited data on outcomes, as well as cost, from the United States. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of Perceval S implantation at a single center between 2015 and 2018. After exclusion criteria, we compared 234 patients who underwent sutureless aortic valve (SLV) implantation with 370 patients who underwent standard sutured aortic valves (SAVR). Hospital cost data were reviewed, and risk adjustment, done by propensity score and inverse probability weighting, was used to compare outcomes. Results. Compared to those undergoing SAVR, the SLV group was older and had a higher proportion of multicomponent operations, higher preoperative white blood cell count, higher rate of previous percutaneous coronary interventions, more comorbid conditions (diabetes, renal insufficiency, and dialysis), and more three-vessel coronary disease. For isolated AVR, partial upper hemisternotomy was more frequent in SLV. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times for isolated SLV were significantly lower than SAVR. After adjustment, the cohort was balanced. Operative differences for SLV were lower cross-clamp and pump time, larger valve size, more minimally invasive approaches, and shorter operating room times. There were no differences in other postoperative complications (postoperative atrial fibrillation, stroke, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, and in-hospital mortality; p &gt; 0.05 for all). Mean and median hospital costs were higher in the SLV group, largely due to the cost of the implant. Conclusion. Sutureless tissue aortic valves can be used safely with lower cardiopulmonary bypass and clamp times than sutured prostheses and facilitate use of minimally invasive approaches. This valve may be advantageous in older, higher risk patients requiring more complex operations.

Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcome of Transcatheter Versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are becoming increasingly common. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of the two methods. In this study, cross-sectional retrospective data were collected on 327 patients who underwent SU-AVR (n = 168) and TAVI (n = 159). Homogeneous groups were provided by the "propensity score matching" method, and 61 patients from the SU-AVR group and 53 patients from the TAVI group were included in the study sample. The two groups did not have statistically different death rates, complications after surgery, lengths of hospital stays, or visits to the intensive care unit. It is stated that the SU-AVR method provides an additional 1.14 Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) compared to the TAVI method. The TAVI was more expensive than the SU-AVR in our study, but the difference was not statistically significant ($40,520.62 vs. $38,405.62, p > 0.05). For SU-AVR, the most expensive factor was the length of stay in the intensive care unit; for TAVI, it was arrhythmia, bleeding, and renal failure. These bioprostheses are safe and effective treatments for valve stenosis. Clinical outcomes were similar between the two groups. Therefore, clinicians may find it difficult to determine an effective treatment strategy. According to the evaluation made in terms of cost-effectiveness, it was found that the SU-AVR method gave a higher QALY at a lower cost compared to the TAVI method. However, this result is not statistically significant.

Single-Center Real-World Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Isolated and Combined Procedures.

Due to their favourable hemodynamic performance and the ability to enable minimally invasive access procedures, sutureless aortic valve prostheses have found their place in the armamentarium of cardiothoracic surgeons. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR). We carried out a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients who underwent an SU-AVR with a Perceval valve between December 2019 and February 2023. The mean age of patients was 69.3 ± 8.1 years, and patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a mean logistic EuroSCORE-II of 5.2 ± 8.1%. An isolated SU-AVR was performed in 85 (42.5%) patients, concomitant CABG was performed in 75 (37.5%) and 40 patients (20%) underwent a multivalve procedure involving SU-AVR. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp (CC) times were 82.1 ± 35.1 and 55.5 ± 27.8 min, respectively. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 4.5%, 6.5%, 7.5% and 8.2%, respectively. The postoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradient was 6.3 ± 1.6 mmHg and stayed stable over the follow-up time. We reported no cases of paravalvular leakage, and the incidence of stroke was 0.5%. With their favourable hemodynamic performance and shorter CC and CPB times, sutureless aortic valve prostheses facilitate minimally invasive access surgery, being a safe and durable promising approach for the surgical AVR.