Hemodynamic Performance of Sutureless vs. Conventional Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: The 1-Year Core-Lab Results of the Randomized PERSIST-AVR Trial

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

OBJECTIVE

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).

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Thrombocytopenia among Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Sutureless Perceval S Bioprosthesis: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The sutureless Perceval S bioprosthesis is associated with postoperative thrombocytopenia. Our objectives were to compare the incidence, severity, and clinical implications of thrombocytopenia after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Perceval S or the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent AVR between March 2016 and August 2019 using the Perceval or Trifecta were retrospectively included. The primary endpoint was the nadir in platelet counts within 15 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included postoperative hemolysis and inflammatory parameters, as well as clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 156 patients were included (Perceval, n = 103; Trifecta, n = 53). Preoperatively, there was no difference in platelet counts between the two groups. Postoperatively, the Perceval S bioprosthesis was associated with a greater decrease in platelet counts. The nadir was reached at Day 3 for both groups, but thrombocytopenia was more severe for the Perceval S (Perceval S vs. Trifecta, 89.2 ± 37.7 × 109/L vs. 106.5 ± 34.1 × 109/L, p = 0.01). No difference regarding lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and white blood cells count was found. All-cause 30-day mortality rates (both valves, 2%, p = 0.98), hospital lengths of stay, and re-operation rates were similar.

CONCLUSION

The Perceval S bioprosthesis was associated with more severe postoperative thrombocytopenia. This did not translate into higher short-term morbidity or mortality.

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.

Sutureless Biological Aortic Valve Replacement (Su-AVR) in Redo operations: a retrospective real-world experience report of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This 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.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

The 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).

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Considering alternatives to transcatheter heart valves for managing patients with severe aortic valve stenosis

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is becoming the standard of care for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Yet, some patients with AS are not indicated/eligible for TAVI. Several noninvasive, catheter-based or surgical alternatives exist, and other therapeutic options are emerging.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of non-TAVI options for severe AS. Non-invasive, transcatheter, and alternative surgical strategies are discussed, emphasizing their backgrounds, techniques, and outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Alternative therapies to TAVI, whether device-based or non-device-based, continue to evolve or emerge and provide either alternative treatments or a bridge to TAVI, for patients not meeting indications for, or having contraindications to TAVI.Although TAVI and SAVR are the current dominant therapies, there are still some patients that could benefit in the future from other alternatives.Data on alternative options for such patients are scarce. Many advantages and disadvantages arise when selecting a specific treatment strategy for individual patients.Head-to-head comparison studies could guide physicians toward better patient selection and procedural planning. Awareness of therapeutic options, indications, techniques, and outcomes should enable heart teams to achieve optimized patient selection. Furthermore, it can increase the use of these alternatives to optimize the management of AS among different patient populations.

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.

The Sutureless Biological Bentall Procedure: A New Technique to Create a Modular Valve-Conduit Construct

The Perceval sutureless valve (Corcym, Saluggia, Italy) has been effectively adopted by surgeons for the treatment of degenerative aortic valve stenosis. Its simplified true sutureless implantation technique has proven useful for minimally invasive cases, but the use of Perceval as part of more complex root replacement has not previously been described. We present a novel technical modification to the manufactured biologic Bentall, called the sutureless biological Bentall. This technique allows for a true modular valve-conduit construction that will simplify future reintervention.

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

INTRODUCTION

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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%.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

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.