Aortic valve replacement in elderly with small aortic root and low body surface area; the Perceval S valve and its impact in effective orifice area

Selective placement of novel compression suture technique to reduce pacemaker implantation rate following surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment INTUITY valve

OBJECTIVE

The use of RDV in SAVR is associated with risk of conduction abnormality requiring PPM implantation, when compared to conventional bioprosthetic valves. We aimed to evaluate the outcome after selective placement of annular compression sutures during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using Intuity rapid deployment valve (RDV).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively enrolled patients receiving SAVR using Intuity RDV. Selective placement of commissural compression suture was assessed for all patients based on their annular morphology. Outcomes including operative mortality, rate of pacemaker rate, paravalvular leak and change in trans-valvular pressure gradient were analyzed.

RESULTS

56 consecutive patients underwent SAVR with the INTUITY RDV at our institution from January 2020 to November 2021. The Mean age of our cohort was 69.9 ± 10.6 years with a EuroSCORE II of 3.4 ± 2.4%. 28.6% (16/56) of patients had notable conduction abnormalities pre-operatively, which included atrial fibrillation and left/right bundle branch block. Compression sutures were selectively applied in 19/56 (33.9%) patients. Of which, 13 were bicuspid aortic valve. Post-operatively, we observed no conduction abnormality requiring PPM implantation. In addition, only 3 of the 56 (5.4%) had any degree of paravalvular leak on post-operative echocardiography (all ≤ mild). The mean reduction in trans-valvular gradient was 29.9 mmHg and the mean pressure gradient at 1 month and 1 year follow-up were 9.3 ± 3.6 mmHg and 10.2 ± 4.1 mmHg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Selective placement of compression suture helps to avoid unnecessary oversizing, which may reduce the risk of paravalvular leak and post-operative PPM implantation.

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.

Perceval-S over time. Clinical outcomes after ten years of usage

BACKGROUND

Perceval-S has become a reliable and commonly used option in surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) since its first implantation in humans 15 years ago. Despite the fact that this aortic valve has been proven efficient enough in the short and mid-term period, there is still lack of evidence for the long-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an observational retrospective study in a high-volume cardiovascular center. Pertinent data were collected for all the patients in whom Perceval-S was implanted from 2013 to 2020.

RESULTS

The total number of patients was 205 with a mean age 76.4 years. Mean survival time was 5.5 years (SE = 0.26). The overall survival probability of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with Perceval-S at 6 months was 91.0% (Standard Error SE = 2.0%), at one year 88.4% (SE = 2.3%) and at 5-years 64.8% (SE = 4.4%). A detrimental cardiac event leading to death was the probable cause of death in 35 patients (55.6%). The initiation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) program in our center in 2017 was associated with a decline in the number of very high-risk patients treated with sutureless bioprosthesis. This fact is demonstrated by the significant shift towards lower surgical risk cases, as median Euroscore II was reduced from 5,550 in 2016 to 3,390 in 2020. Mini sternotomy was implemented in 79,5% of cases favoring less invasive approach. Low incidence of reinterventions, patient prosthesis mismatch and structural valve degeneration was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival rate after aortic valve replacement with implantation of Perceval-S is satisfactory in the long-term follow-up. Cases of bioprosthesis dysfunction were limited. Mini sternotomy was used in the majority of cases. TAVR initiation program impacted on the proportion of patients treated with Perceval-S with reduction of high-risk patients submitted to surgery.

Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) is an alternative to conventional AVR (cAVR) for aortic stenosis. Benefits include a reduction in operative times, facilitation of minimal access surgery and superior haemodynamics compared to conventional valves. However, further evidence is required to inform guidelines, preferably in the form of propensity-matched studies that include mid-term follow-up data.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study comparing the Perceval and conventional Perimount Magna Ease valve for short- and mid-term clinical parameters and size-matched mid-term echocardiographic parameters (n = 102 in both groups) from 2014 to 2020. Data were extracted from a nationally managed dataset.

RESULTS

There were no demographic differences between the matched groups. The Perceval group had shorter cross-clamp time (Perceval 62 [49-81] minutes; Perimount 79 [63-102] minutes, P < 0.001), shorter bypass time (Perceval 89 [74-114] minutes; Perimount 104 [84-137] minutes, P < 0.001), and more frequent minimally-invasive approaches (Perceval 28%; Perimount 5%, P < 0.001). Size-matched haemodynamics showed initially higher gradients in the Perceval group, but haemodynamics equalised at 12 + months. The Perceval group had a more favourable % change in the left ventricular posterior wall dimension at 2 + years (Perceval - 4.8 ± 18; Perimount 17 ± 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval facilitated shorter operations, which may benefit intermediate-high-risk, elderly patients with comorbidities requiring concomitant procedures. It also facilitated minimally invasive surgery. Size-matched haemodynamic performance was similar at mid-term follow-up, with the Perceval possibly better facilitating regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.

Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) has become an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment due to its advantages in reducing surgery time and improving outcomes. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of SUAVR vs. CAVR treatment for patients with moderate to severe AS in Thailand.

METHODS

A two-part constructed model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from both societal and healthcare perspectives. Data on short-term mortality, complications, cost, and utility data were obtained from the Thai population. Long-term clinical data were derived from clinical studies. Costs and QALYs were discounted annually at 3% and presented as 2022 values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine additional cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SUAVR treatment incurred higher costs compared with CAVR treatment from both societal (THB 1,733,355 [USD 147,897] vs THB 1,220,643 [USD 104,150]) and healthcare provider perspectives (THB 1,594,174 [USD 136,022] vs THB 1,065,460 [USD 90,910]). In addition, SUAVR treatment resulted in lower health outcomes, with 6.20 life-years (LYs) and 4.95 QALYs, while CAVR treatment achieved 6.29 LYs and 5.08 QALYs. SUAVR treatment was considered as a dominated treatment strategy using both perspectives. Sensitivity analyses indicated the significant impact of changes in utilities and long-term mortality on the model.

CONCLUSION

SUAVR treatment is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with CAVR treatment for patients with moderate-severe AS in Thailand, as it leads to higher costs and inferior health outcomes. Other important issues related to specific patients such as those with minimally invasive surgery, those undergoing AVR with concomitant procedures, and those with calcified and small aortic root should be taken into account.

Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm2) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

KEY QUESTION

What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

KEY FINDINGS

Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

KEY OUTCOMES

Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

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.

Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement

Objectives

Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.

Methods

A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity‐matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).

Results

Random‐effects meta‐analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−1.35, −1.20], p < .001) and cross‐clamp times (SMD: −1.05, 95% CI: [−1.12, −0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: −0.385, 95% CI: [−0.679, −0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow‐up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05).

Conclusions

Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.

Sutureless valves-are we there yet? Evidence from the PERSIST-AVR trial

Sutur eless valves have emerged as another option for implantation of a biological valve. Several benefits of sutureless valves have been reported in the literature. However, concerns have been raised over increased incidence of para-valvular leak and need for permanent pacemaker implantation. Most of the evidence has been obtained from observational and retrospective single institutional series. The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement (PERSIST-AVR) trial is the first multicentric randomized control trial to compare sutureless valves with standard bio-prosthesis. Evidence from this trial has been critically analyzed in this review.

A pooled analysis of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement

 

OBJECTIVES

We performed a literature meta-analysis to estimate the rate of pacemaker implantation after Perceval sutureless aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

Pertinent articles were identified from the PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases. Eligible studies reported the de novo incidence of postoperative pacemaker implantation after Perceval valve surgery. Among 394 articles retrieved, 26 studies including 9492 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The pooled event rate for postoperative pacemaker implantation was 7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6-9%]; however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies. In a sub-analysis, there was no difference between the rates of pacemaker implantation calculated from multicentre and registry studies (8 studies, 6845 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-10%) and single-centre studies (18 studies, 2647 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-9%; P = 0.75). Implantation rates were similar in high-volume studies (16 studies, 9121 patients; 7%, 95% CI 5-8%) than in low-volume studies (10 studies, 371 patients; pooled rate: 7%, 95% CI 4-14%; P = 0.5). Postoperative pacemaker implantation rates tended to decrease over time.

CONCLUSIONS

With a pooled event rate of 7%, postoperative pacemaker implantation remains an important limitation of Perceval sutureless valve surgery, although we observed a degree of variability across included studies. The resultant findings provide a useful estimate for physicians and patients and can serve as a benchmark for future comparative studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020188397.

Implantation of a Sutureless Valve Into a Surgically Enlarged Aortic Root: A Bailout Option

Sutureless bioprostheses such as the Sorin Perceval Valve (SPV; Sorin Group, Srl, Saluggia, Italy) have been proposed for replacing stenotic native valves within small aortic roots of geriatric patients with significant comorbidity. Their use seems as safe as that of stented bioprostheses and enables significantly reduced length of surgery. Low transprosthetic pressure gradients have been measured. Because of the radial force of its self-expandable nitinol stent, aortic annulus interruption could be a relative contraindication to SPV use. Off-label implantation of the SPV into a surgically enlarged ascending aorta was first reported in this study, as a bailout option in the presence of a tiny aortic root.

Benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with a mini upper sternotomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is currently deemed the gold standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Currently, most AVRs are safely performed through a full median sternotomy approach. With an increasingly elderly and high-risk patient population, major advances in valve technology and surgical technique have been introduced to reduce perioperative risk and post-operative complications associated with the full sternotomy approach, in order to ensure surgical AVR remains the gold standard. For example, minimally invasive approaches (most commonly via mini sternotomy) have been developed to improve patient outcomes. The advent of rapid deployment valve technology has also been shown to improve morbidity and mortality by reducing cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, as well as facilitating the use of minimal access approaches. Rapid deployment valves were introduced into our department at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh in 2014. The aim of this study is to investigate if utilising the combination of rapid deployment valves and a mini sternotomy minimally invasive approach resulted in improved outcomes in various patient subgroups.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, we identified 714 patients who underwent isolated AVR in our centre. They were divided into two groups: 61 patients (8.5%) were identified who received rapid deployment AVR via J-shaped mini upper sternotomy (MIRDAVR group), whilst 653 patients (91.5%) were identified who received either a full sternotomy (using a conventional prosthesis or rapid deployment valve) or minimally invasive approach using a conventional valve (CONVAVR group). We retrospectively analysed data from our cardiac surgery database, including pre-operative demographics, intraoperative times and postoperative outcomes. Outcomes were also compared in two different subgroups: octogenarians and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

Pre-operative demographics showed that there were significantly more female and elderly patients in the MIRDAVR group. The MIRDAVR group had significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (63.7 min vs. 104 min, p = 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp times (47.3 min vs. 80.1 min, p = 0.0001) compared to the CONVAVR group. These results were particularly significant in the octogenarian population, who also had a reduced length of ICU stay (30.9 h vs. 65.6 h, p = 0.049). In high-risk patients (i.e. logistic EuroSCORE I > 10%), minimally invasive-rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is still beneficial and is also characterized by significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (69.1 min vs. 96.1 min, p = 0.03). However, post-operative correlations, such as length of ICU stay, become no more significant, likely due to serious co-morbidities in this patient group.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that minimally invasive rapid deployment aortic valve replacement is associated with significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. This correlation is much stronger in the octogenarian population, who were also found to have significantly reduced length of ICU stay. Our study raises the suggestion that this approach should be utilised more frequently in clinical practice, particularly in octogenarian patients.

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.

Safety and Haemodynamic Outcomes of Currently Available Suture-less Aortic Valves in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Suture-less aortic valves aim to achieve better outcomes and to aid and facilitate the minimally invasive aortic valve replacement procedure by tackling the issue of cross-clamp time, which is an independent predictor of postoperative outcomes, especially in patients with serious comorbidities. By reducing the number of sutures, the time for suture placement is reduced. Our meta-analysis tried to assess the safety and haemodynamic performance of the suture-less aortic valve prostheses to ascertain their benefits as a viable alternative to current established measures.

METHOD

From their inceptions to February 2017, six electronic databases were searched. Relevant studies using commercially accessible suture-free valves to replace the aortic valve have been recognised. Based on the predefined endpoints, data were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

For incorporation in qualitative and quantitative analyses, 24 studies were recognised, with a total number of 5,073 patients undergoing suture-less aortic valve replacement. Mortality incidence at the 30-day and 12-month follow-ups were 2.5% and 2.7%, respectively, while the incidences of thromboembolic events (1.6%) and paravalvular leak (0.5%) were acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Current available evidence indicates that sutureless aortic valve replacement is a safe operation showing low mortality and complication rates, with satisfactory haemodynamic performance.

The Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve: Review of Outcomes, Complications, and Future Direction

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented prosthesis has been the standard of care procedure for aortic stenosis. The Perceval (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) is a sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis currently implanted in more than 20,000 patients. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available after 9 years of clinical experience of the Perceval aortic valve. PubMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. A meta-analysis of summary statistics from individual studies was conducted. A total of 333 studies were identified and 84 studies were included. Thirty-day mortality and 5-year survival ranged from 0% to 4.9% and 71.3% to 85.5%, respectively. Compared with stented prosthesis, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) with Perceval (38.6 vs 63.3 and 61.4 vs 84.9, P < 0.00001, respectively). Compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with Perceval in paravalvular leakage (1.26% vs 14.31%) and early mortality (2.3% vs 6.9%). Favorable hemodynamics, acceptable valve durability, and ease of implantation in minimally invasive cases were reported as benefits. A trend toward increased rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and low postoperative platelet count were identified. Special use and off-label procedures described included bicuspid aortic valves, valve-in-valve for homograft and stentless prosthesis failure, concomitant valvular procedures, porcelain aorta, and endocarditis. The Perceval valve has shown safe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Outcomes support its continued usage and potential expansion.

Sutureless Aortic Prosthesis Implantation: the First Brazilian Experience with Perceval Device

This is a report of the first Brazilian experience with the Perceval sutureless aortic prosthesis in two patients with severe aortic stenosis. Transesophageal echocardiography was used during the procedure. The aortotomy was performed 1 cm above the sinotubular junction, followed by leaflets removal and decalcification. Correct valve size was selected, device released and an accommodation balloon used. The cardiopulmonary bypass times were 47 and 38 min and the cross-clamp times were 38 and 30 min. There was a significant decrease in mean gradients (41 and 75 mmHg preoperatively; 7 and 8 mmHg postoperatively). There was no major complication or paravalvular leak.

Hemodynamic assessment of Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis by dobutamine stress echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis under high workload at mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with a Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were enrolled in this study. S size prosthesis was deployed in 10 patients (31.3%), M size in 9 (28.1%), L size in 8 (25%) and XL size in 5 (15.6%). Effective orifice area (EOA), EOA index (EOAi), and transvalvular gradients were assessed at rest and during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) a median of 19.5 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) significantly increased heart rate, stroke volume, ejection fraction, and transvalvular gradients (peak gradient, 24.0 ± 7.6 vs 38.7 ± 13.6 mm Hg, P < .001; mean gradient, 12.6 ± 4.2 vs 19.8 ± 8.3, P < .001). When compared to baseline, estimated valve areas significantly increased at follow-up (EOA, 1.48 ± 0.46 vs 2.06 ± 0.67, P < .001; EOAi, 0.84 ± 0.26 vs 1.17 ± 0.37, P < .001). Mean percentage increase in EOAi was 40.3% ± 28.0%. S size prostheses had the highest increase in EOA1, but the difference was not significant (S 46.0% ± 27.5% vs M 45.4% ± 34.5% vs L 32.7% ± 26.4% vs XL 32.1% ± 20.5%, P = .66). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (EOAi ≤ 0.65 cm² /m² ) was present at rest in 8 patients (25%), but only in one patient (3.1%) during DSE.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis demonstrated good hemodynamics at rest and under high workload. The significant increase in EOAi during DSE suggests the potential advantages of Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in case of small aortic annulus or when patient-prosthesis mismatch is anticipated.

Early Hemodynamic Results in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus after Aortic Valve Replacement

Objective

Patients with a small aortic annulus (≤21 mm) have an increased risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch after valve replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the early hemodynamic performance of the balloon-expandable transaortic valve implantation Edwards system (SAPIEN) and the sutureless Perceval prostheses.

Methods

Fifty patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and 113 patients underwent sutureless aortic valve replacement. Mean ± SD aortic annulus diameter was 19.7 ± 1 mm, with no significant difference between groups. SAPIEN valve size was 23 mm in 40 patients (80%) and 26 mm in 10 patients (20%). Perceval valve size was small in 45 patients (40%), medium in 62 patients (55%), and large in 6 patients (5%). Transthoracic Doppler echocardiographic images were collected at baseline and before discharge.

Results

There were no significant difference in predischarge effective orifice area (SAPIEN: 1.5 ± 0.5 cm2 and Perceval: 1.48 ± 0.34 cm2, P = 0.58) and indexed effective orifice areas (SAPIEN: 0.93 ± 0.32 cm2/m2 and Perceval: 0.88 ± 0.22 cm2/m2, P = 0.42). Predischarge mean ± SD transaortic gradient was lower with the SAPIEN than with Perceval valves (12 ± 6 and 17 ± 6 mm Hg, respectively, P < 0.001). Rates of moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were similar (SAPIEN: 44% and 10% and Perceval: 50% and 14%, P = 0.53 and 0.75, respectively). There were no moderate-severe paravalvular leaks.

Conclusions

Although indexed effective orifice areas were similar, transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN system yielded lower predischarge transaortic mean gradients than the surgically implanted Perceval, in patients with a small annulus.

The perceval S aortic valve implantation in patients with porcelain aorta; is this ideal option?

We would like to present in this paper a patient with severe aortic valve stenosis referred to our department for surgical aortic valve replacement. In this patient, it was intraoperatively detected an unexpected heavily calcified porcelain ascending aorta. We present the treatment options in this situation, the difficulties affronted intraoperatively, the significance of the preoperative chest computed tomography scan and the use of the Perceval S aortic valve as ideal bioprosthesis implantation. This is a self-expanding, self-anchoring, and sutureless valve with a wide indication in all patients requiring aortic bioprosthesis.

Aortic Root Enlargement or Sutureless Valve Implantation?

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with a small aortic annulus is a challenging issue. The importance of prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) post aortic valve replacement (AVR) is controversial but has to be avoided. Many studies support the fact that PPM has a negative impact on short and long term survival. In order to avoid PPM, aortic root enlargement may be performed. Alternatively and keeping in mind that often some comorbidities are present in old patients with small aortic root, the Perceval S suturelles valve implantation could be a perfect solution. The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis provides reasonable hemodynamic performance avoiding the PPM and providing the maximum of aortic orifice area. We would like to see in the near future the role of the aortic root enlargement techniques in the era of surgical implantation of the sutureless valve (SAVR) and the transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI).