Sutureless Valve Research Articles

Conventional Prostheses versus Sutureless Perceval for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis.

Perceval sutureless valves have gained popularity. Whether this implant performs superior to the traditional sutured prosthesis remains unclear. This meta- analysis compared the Perceval implants versus the sutured conventional valves for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The following databases were accessed: PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE. All clinical investigations comparing Perceval versus the conventional prostheses for AVR were considered. The Perceval group demonstrated higher rate of pacemaker implantation (P <0.00001). Aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (P <0.00001) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (P <0.00001) were shorter in the Perceval group. Similarity was found in mean and peak pressure gradient (P = 0.8 and P = 0.2, respectively), mean aortic valve area (P = 0.3), length of intensive care unit (P = 0.4) and hospital stay (P = 0.2), rate of revision (P = 0.11), hemorrhages (P = 0.05), paravalvular leak (P = 0.3), cerebrovascular complication (P = 0.7), and early mortality (P = 0.06). Given the shorter ACC time and CPB time, Perceval AVR can be an alternative in high-risk patients. The higher rate of pacemaker implantation following Perceval may limit its routine implantation.

Ten years' experience with the sutureless aortic valve replacement: incidence and predictors for survival and valve durability at follow-up.

Aortic valve replacement with a sutureless prosthesis [sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR)] is an option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. However, data regarding long-term outcomes and prosthesis durability are still lacking. All consecutive patients who successfully underwent Su-AVR with the Perceval valve in our centre between 2010 and 2020 were included in the analysis and followed prospectively with echocardiography. Risk factor analysis was performed to assess variables associated with worse survival and bioprosthetic valve failure. Study population consisted of 547 patients: the mean age was 76.4 (5.2) years, 51% were female and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 13% (11). The median survival was 7.76 years [95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.9-8.6]. Risk factor analysis identified age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.11; P < 0.001), EuroSCORE II (HR 1.08, 1.02-1.13; P < 0.001), baseline dialysis (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.4-4.4; P = 0.038) and postoperative acute kidney injury ≥2 (HR 8.97, 95% CI 4.58-17.6; P < 0.001) as factors significantly correlated with worse survival. The reported HRs for age are per 1 year and for EuroSCORE II is 1 percentage point. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was observed in 23 patients, of whom 19 underwent reintervention (median freedom from SVD 10.3 years). In multivariable Cox analysis, age (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.95; P < 0.001) was found to be a significant predictor of SVD. Overall, 1.8% was referred for prosthetic valve endocarditis (confirmed or suspected) during follow-up. One patient showed moderate non-SVD and none developed prosthetic valve thrombosis. The sutureless valve represents a reliable bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with a 10-year life expectancy. Younger age at the time of implant is the only factor associated with the risk of long-term SVD.

In-Hospital Mortality and Risk Prediction in Minimally Invasive Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement.

Available evidence suggests that a minimally invasive approach with the use of sutureless bioprostheses has a favorable impact on the outcome of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). From 2010 to 2019, 2732 patients underwent conventional AVR through median sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis (n = 2048) or minimally invasive AVR with a sutureless bioprosthesis (n = 684). Using the propensity score, 206 patients in each group were matched, and the matched groups were well balanced regarding preoperative risk factors. Both unmatched and matched patients of the sutureless + minimally invasive group showed significantly shorter cross-clamp times and longer ICU stay. In-hospital mortality was the only outcome measure that was confirmed in both analyses, and was higher in the stented + conventional group (2.54% and 2.43% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) compared with the sutureless + minimally invasive group (0.88% and 0.97% in unmatched and matched patients, respectively) (p = 0.0047 and p &lt; 0.0001, respectively). No differences in postoperative pacemaker implantation were recorded in matched patients of both groups (n = 2 [1%] in the stented + conventional group vs. n = 4 [2%] in the sutureless + minimally invasive group; p = 0.41). The discrimination power of EuroSCORE II was not confirmed in the sutureless + minimally invasive group, yielding an area under the ROC curve of 0.568. Minimally invasive sutureless AVR has a favorable impact on the immediate outcome and is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with conventional AVR, resulting in the absence of the discrimination power of EuroSCORE II for predicting AVR outcomes.

Reply from authors: Sutureless valves-expanding the surgeon's toolbox.

Reply from authors: Sutureless valves-expanding the surgeon's toolbox.

Replacement of a Calcified Aortic Valve in a Porcine Aortic Root with the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

We report a 79-year-old patient who had aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a porcine aortic root. Due to degeneration of the porcine aortic valve, he required reoperation during which a heavily calcified porcine root and aortic annulus prevented insertion of any traditional bioprosthesis. AVR was achieved using a sutureless bioprosthesis, combined with mitral valve replacement. The present case confirms the feasibility and advantages of using sutureless valve implantation in complex and high-risk redo procedures.

Sternal-sparing aortic valve replacement with sutureless valve in bicuspid valve.

Over the last decade, sutureless valves (Perceval, LivaNova PLC) were brought to the market as an alternative to stented valves for patients requiring surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, Perceval demands special steps for implantation, among which we can mention specific training for the surgical team members. Sternal-sparing cardiac procedures are conceived to limit surgical trauma, but the technical requirements and preoperative planning are more challenging than those for conventional sternotomy. SAVR is frequently carried out through an upper hemisternotomy, but the right anterior thoracotomy (RAT) represents an even less traumatic, technical advancement. In the context of SAVR with RAT, Perceval has been considered the "perfect marriage."In patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), some surgeons initially avoided the Perceval valve but, with growing experience, the prosthesis has been used for a wide variety of indications. According to an international consensus statement recently published, there are 3 BAV types: the fused BAV, the 2-sinus BAV and the partial-fusion BAV, each with specific phenotypes. The 2-sinus BAV has 2 cusps, roughly equal in size and shape, each cusp occupying 180° of the annular circumference, with only 2 aortic sinuses, resulting in a 2-sinus/2-cusp valve without raphe and with 180° commissural angles. Since the elliptic aortic annulus in BAV patients poses a challenge for sutureless valves and the RAT approach has been increasingly adopted for minimally invasive SAVR, our description of the surgical technique focuses on the specific procedural details in the scenario of 2-sinus BAV laterolateral phenotype.

Sutureless aortic valves in isolated and combined procedures: Thirteen years of experience in 784 patients

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome and experience of the Perceval sutureless valve at our institution (UZ Leuven). MethodsBetween 2007 and 2019, 784 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement using the Perceval valve (isolated or combined with other procedures). We performed a retrospective analysis of the postoperative and follow-up data. ResultsMean age was 78 years with a median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score of 4.2% (interquartile range, 2.6%-7.2%). Isolated aortic valve replacement accounted for 45% of cases; 30% of cases were aortic valve replacement in combination with coronary artery bypass grafting and the remaining 25% were other combined procedures. The median crossclamp times were 38 minutes in single aortic valve replacement, 70 minutes in cases with coronary artery bypass grafting, and 89 minutes in multiple valve cases. Device success was 99.1% and in-hospital mortality was 3.3%. Postoperative stroke or transient ischemic attack occurred in 1.9% of patients and 1% of patients had a new need for dialysis after surgery and median survival time was 7.0 years with a cumulative follow-up of 2797.8 patient-years. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year freedom from reintervention were 99%, 97%, and 94%, respectively. ConclusionsThese data represent the longest follow-up available, to our knowledge, for the Perceval sutureless valve. We observed favorable early outcomes, and low rates of early mortality, stroke, and other major complications. Valve durability is promising with low rates of valve degeneration and a limited need for reintervention.

Early pacemaker insertion after aortic valve replacement with an Edwards Intuity sutureless valve

BackgroundPostoperative conduction disorders are serious adverse events in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and may prolong the duration of hospitalization and require pacemaker insertion. AimOur aim was to evaluate the rate of pacemaker insertion after implantation of an Edwards Intuity sutureless aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) compared with a standard surgical bioprosthesis. MethodsThis retrospective single-centre study included patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with an Intuity sutureless aortic valve or a standard bioprosthetic valve between 4 June 2014 and 27 June 2016. The main outcome criterion was the rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion. Secondary outcome criteria included the rate of new conduction disorders, the rate of atrial arrhythmia or paroxysmal conduction disorders, mortality and duration of hospital stay. ResultsNinety-three patients received an Intuity sutureless aortic valve (median age 76 years, interquartile range 71–80 years), and 176 were implanted with a standard biological aortic valve (median age 73 years, interquartile range 68–79 years; P=0.007). The rate of postoperative pacemaker insertion, after adjustment, was 22.44% in the Intuity group and 5.66% in the standard aortic valve group (P=0.030). The main indications for postoperative pacemaker insertion were complete atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block with prolongation of the H-V interval. The rate of new postoperative left bundle branch block conduction disorders was significantly higher in patients implanted with an Intuity valve (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 23.05; P=0.012). ConclusionHigher rates of pacemaker insertion and new conduction disorders were observed in patients implanted with an Intuity sutureless bioprosthesis compared with those who received a standard surgical aortic valve.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in pure aortic regurgitation: expanding the indications

BackgroundIn the era of transcatheter methods, patients presenting with a pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are not considered eligible for transcatheter treatment and therefore require another less invasive surgical option. We sought to review our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in patients presenting with symptomatic pure AR, which until now is a contraindication for implementation of sutureless valve prostheses in Europe.MethodsBetween April 2018 and June 2021, 80 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. We analyzed the outcomes and postoperative complications of 12 patients presenting with a pure severe AR undergoing SU-AVR using Perceval (Corcym).ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 67 ± 9.1 years old. All patients presented with symptomatic pure AR. Patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the mean EuroSCORE-II of 3.6 ± 2.6%. Six patients (50%) underwent a concomitant CABG procedure. The mean operating- and cross clamp time was 127.25 ± 45.9 and 40.33 ± 17.3 min respectively. All isolated SU-AVR were performed via J-sternotomy or right anterolateral thoracotomy. There were no cases of device dislocation. No patients presented with a paravalvular leakage. We observed excellent mean postoperative pressure gradient at follow-up 5.7 ± 1.5 mmHg.ConclusionsOur experience with SU-AVR shows the feasibility of sutureless technologies in the aortic valve surgery due to pure AR. Besides the great technical success and excellent hemodynamics, SU-AVR in severe AR offers a great opportunity of reducing the invasivity of the surgical procedure and potentially reducing hospital cost without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay.

Randomized controlled trial between conventional versus sutureless bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement: Impact of mini and full sternotomy access at 1-year follow-up

BackgroundThe present study is a sub-analysis of the multicenter, randomized PERSIST-AVR trial (PERceval Sutureless Implant versus Standard Aortic Valve Replacement) comparing the in-hospital and 1-year results of sutureless versus conventional stented bioprostheses in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) within two different surgical approaches: mini-sternotomy (MS) and full-sternotomy (FS). MethodsA total of 819 patients (per-protocol population) underwent preoperative randomization to sutureless or stented biological valve at 47 centers worldwide. Sub-analysis on isolated SAVR was performed. Results were compared between sutureless and stented within the two different surgical approaches. Results285 patients were implanted with Perceval (67% in MS) and 293 with stented valves (65% in MS). Sutureless group showed significantly reduced surgical times both in FS and MS. In-hospital results show no differences between Perceval and stented valves in FS, while a lower incidence of new-onset of atrial fibrillation (3.7% vs 10.8%) with Perceval in MS. After 1-year, use of sutureless valve showed a significant reduction of MACCE (5.2% vs 10.8%), stroke rate (1.0% vs 5.4%), new-onset of atrial fibrillation (4.2% vs 11.4%) and re-hospitalizations (21.8 days vs 47.6 days), compared to stented valves but presented higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%). ConclusionsSutureless bioprosthesis showed significantly reduced procedural times during isolated SAVR in both surgical approaches. Patients with sutureless valves and MS access showed also better 1-year outcome regarding MACCEs, stroke, re-hospitalization and new-onset atrial fibrillation, but presented a higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation compared to patients with stented bioprosthesis.

Single-center experience in sutureless aortic valve implantation using two aortic valve prostheses

Background and aim of the study: Sutureless aortic valves are used to reduce operation time. However, the stent implantation might cause postoperative ECG alterations and a higher risk of paravalvular leakage. In literature, some cases of thrombocytopenia are described after implantation. We investigated the Sorin Perceval S Sutureless Valve and the Edwards Intuity Sutureless Valve. Material and methods: Seventy-nine patients underwent aortic valve replacement using a sutureless valve in a single center between 2015 - 2018. Thirty-seven patients received Sorin Perceval S (Group A) and 42 Edwards Intuity (Group B). Simultaneous bypass surgery was performed in 23 patients in Group A and 22 patients in Group B. We compared the groups regarding postoperative TTE and paravalvular leakage, postoperative ECG alterations, need for pacemaker implantation, postoperative platelet count, and 30-day mortality Results: Only in Group B 2 patients had paravalvular leakage, and one was reoperated within the same hospital stay. In Group A, nine patients suffered from postoperative atrial fibrillation, and in Group B, 16 patients. Left bundle branch block (LBBB) was observed in 5 patients in Group A, and 13 patients in Group B. Two patients in Group A needed a definite pacemaker, and five patients in Group B. Tachy-Brady Syndrome and LBBB were observed more frequently in Group B as well as ECG alterations. One patient died within 30 days in Group A due to multiorgan failure. This patient was older and multimorbid compared to the average. Regarding platelet count, we saw a statistically significant decrease in both groups. There were no major bleeding complications or reoperations due to hemorrhage. Conclusion: Our data shows that sutureless aortic valve replacement is associated with new postoperative ECG alterations, which are self-limiting in most cases. Compared to the literature pacemaker implantation rate in Group B is higher.

Novel technique of sutureless pulmonic valve replacement for quadricuspid pulmonic valve with huge pulmonary artery aneurysm.

Novel technique of sutureless pulmonic valve replacement for quadricuspid pulmonic valve with huge pulmonary artery aneurysm.

New-onset persistent left bundle branch block following sutureless aortic valve replacement

ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence, predictive factors and prognostic value of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) in patients undergoing sutureless surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR).MethodsA total of 329 consecutive...

Sutureless and rapid deployment versus sutured aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched comparison from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry.

To compare procedural and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless (Perceval, Livanova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) aortic valve replacement (group 1) versus sutured aortic valve replacement (group 2). Patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement between 2014 and 2020 were analysed using data from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Patients in group 1 and group 2 were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 7708 patients were included in the study. After matching, 2 groups of 2643 each were created. Patients in group 1 were more likely to undergo minimally invasive approaches and were associated with shorter operative times when compared with group 2. Overall in-hospital mortality was similar between groups. While an increased risk of stroke was observed in group 1 in the first study period (2014-2016; relative risk 3.76, P < 0.001), no difference was found in more recent year period (relative risk 1.66, P = 0.08; P for heterogeneity 0.003). Group 1 was associated with reduced rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, atrial fibrillation and mild aortic regurgitation. New pacemaker implant was three-fold higher in group 1. Our findings showed significant differences in procedural and clinical outcomes between the study groups. These results suggest that sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve programme. The knowledge of the respective post-aortic valve replacement benefits for different valve technologies may result in patient-tailored valve selection with improved clinical outcomes.

Feasibility of clinical application of Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in emergency patients with unexpected intraoperative findings

Introduction: Sutureless aortic prostheses provide an attractive opportunity for high-risk patients with difficult surgical anatomy of the aortic root. Aim of the study: To assess the outcomes of emergent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in a group of high-risk patients in whom their implantation had not been considered before surgery. Material and methods: Since 2018, 53 sutureless aortic bioprostheses have been implanted in our center. In this single-center retrospective study, 7 high-risk (median EuroSCORE II 9.43%) patients (4 women and 3 men; median age 63 [28 to 73] years) were identified to undergo emergent procedures. They were operated on for active endocarditis on the native valves with extensive destruction of the annulus (n = 4), endocarditis on a previously implanted bioprosthesis (n = 1), organizing thrombus of the mechanical valve (n = 1), and diffuse aortitis (n = 1). Implantation feasibility, as well as postprocedural mortality and morbidity, were evaluated. Results: The following sizes of bioprostheses were used: XL (n = 3); L (n = 2); M (n = 1), and S (n = 1). The median (minimum; maximum) cross-clamping aortic time was 64 (37; 73) minutes while cardiopulmonary bypass time was 86 (49; 188) minutes, respectively. All patients survived operations and the first 30 days. Two of them died in the hospital because of multiorgan failure on 35th and 45th postoperative days. The follow-up period ranging from 6 to 40 months was completed by all who were discharged alive. Conclusions: Despite the well-known advantages of sutureless valves, they can be also used successfully in patients in whom standard prosthesis implantation is either impossible or highly demanding, including emergency cases with unexpected intraoperative findings.

Early Perceval Valve Thrombosis

We report a case of early thrombosis of a sutureless Perceval valve after aortic valve replacement (AVR). Previous reports described Perceval AV thrombosis between 1-12 months [1, 2]. However, the patient was diagnosed with valve dysfunction 3 days later.

Avoiding oversizing in sutureless valves leads to lower transvalvular gradients and less permanent pacemaker implants postoperatively.

OBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of changing the sizing strategy in aortic valve replacement using the Perceval sutureless prosthesis on haemodynamic outcomes and postoperative pacemaker implantation.METHODSRetrospective analysis of patients implanted with the Perceval valve between 2007 and 2019 was performed by comparing patients implanted before the modification of sizing strategy (OLD group) and after (NEW group). The outcome parameters evaluated were the implanted prosthesis size, haemodynamical profile and postoperative pacemaker implantation.RESULTSThe entire patient cohort (784 patients) consisted of 52% female patients, with a mean age of 78.53 [standard deviation (SD): 5.8] years and a mean EuroSCORE II of 6.3 (range 0.7–76). In 55.5% of cases, surgery was combined. The NEW cohort had more male patients (54.6% vs 43.4%) (P = 0.002). Mean implanted valve size, corrected for body surface area, was significantly lower in the NEW cohort (13.1, SD: 1.4 vs 13.5, SD: 1.4 mm/m2, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 3.4%. Peak and mean transvalvular gradients at discharge were significantly lower in the NEW versus OLD groups: 24.4 mmHg (SD: 9.2) versus 28.4 mmHg (SD: 10.3) (P < 0.001) and 13.6 mmHg (SD: 5.3) versus 15.5 mmHg (SD: 6.0) (P < 0.001). The mean effective opening area and the indexed effective opening area, respectively, increased from 1.5 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.85 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.27) in the OLD group to 1.7 cm2 (SD: 0.5) and 0.93 cm2/m2 (SD: 0.30) in the NEW group (P < 0.001). No difference was found in paravalvular leakage ≥1/4. Centrovalvular leakage ≥1/4 significantly decreased from 18% to 7.9% (P < 0.001). With the new sizing, the new postoperative pacemaker implantation rate decreased significantly from 11% to 6.1% (P = 0.016).CONCLUSIONSCorrect sizing of sutureless aortic valves is crucial to obtain the best possible haemodynamics and avoid complications.

Incidence, predictors and prognostic value of permanent pacemaker implantation following sutureless valve implantation in low-risk aortic stenosis patients.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker (PPM) compared with conventionally implanted aortic bioprostheses. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors and mid-term prognostic impact of PPM after Perceval (Livanova, London, UK) SU-SAVR in low-risk patients. A total of 400 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II < 4%) patients without prior pacemaker who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perceval prosthesis from 2013 to 2019 in 2 centres were included. Baseline, clinical and electrocardiographic parameters, procedural characteristics and follow-up data were collected. PPM was required in 36 (9%) patients after SU-SAVR, with a median time between the procedure and PPM implantation of 7.5 (4.5-10.5) days. Older age and prior right bundle branch block (RBBB) were associated with an increased risk of PPM (P < 0.05 for all), but only baseline RBBB was found to be an independent predictor of new PPM requirement (odds ratio: 2.60, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-5.81; P = 0.022). At a median follow-up of 3.4 (2.3-4.5) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality (PPM: 36%, no PPM: 22%, P = 0.105) or heart failure rehospitalization (PPM: 25%, no PPM: 21%, P = 0.839). About 1 out of 10 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing SU-SAVR with the Perceval prosthesis required PPM implantation. Prior RBBB determined an increased risk (close to 3-fold) of PPM following the procedure. PPM was not associated with a higher risk of clinical events at 3-year follow-up.

Pacemaker implantation after sutureless or stented valve: results from a controlled randomized trial.

Sutureless aortic valves demonstrated non-inferiority to standard stented valves for major cardiovascular and cerebral events at 1 year after aortic valve replacement. We aim to assess the factors correlating with permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in both cohorts. PERSIST-AVR is a prospective, randomized, open-label trial. Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive a sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR) or stented sutured bioprosthesis (SAVR). Multivariable analysis was performed to identify possible independent risk factors associated with PPI. A logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the risk of PPI associated to different valve size. The 2 groups (Su-AVR; n = 450, SAVR n = 446) were well balanced in terms of preoperative risk factors. Early PPI rates were 10.4% in the Su-AVR group and 3.1% in the SAVR. PPI prevalence correlated with valve size XL (P = 0.0119) and preoperative conduction disturbances (P = 0.0079) in the Su-AVR group. No predictors were found in the SAVR cohort. Logistic regression analysis showed a significantly higher risk for PPI with size XL compared to each individual sutureless valve sizes [odds ratio (OR) 0.272 vs size S (95%confidence interval 0.07-0.95), 0.334 vs size M (95% CI 0,16-0; 68), 0.408 vs size L (95% CI 0,21-0.81)] but equivalent risk of PPI rates for all other combination of valve sizes. Su-AVR is associated with higher PPI rate as compared to SAVR. However, the increased PPI rate appears to be size-dependent with significant higher rate only for size XL. The combination of preoperative conduction disorder and a size XL can lead to a higher probability of early PPI in Su-AVR. NCT02673697.

A sutureless valve with sutures

The use of sutureless valves in infective endocarditis has been previously reported. Singh et al. have reported a single-center successful surgical treated pulmonary endocarditis in two cases with a sutureless bioprosthesis.