Ten-year experience with sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis: single-centre analysis in 1157 implants
- PMID: 37115966
- DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001475
Ten-year experience with sutureless Perceval bioprosthesis: single-centre analysis in 1157 implants
Abstract
Aims: We describe long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in the largest single-centre cohort of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) bioprosthesis.
Methods: Between March 2011 and March 2021, 1157 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Mean age was 77 ± 6 years (range: 46-89 years) and mean EuroSCORE II was 6.7 ± 3.2% (range: 1.7-14.2%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 266 patients (23%).
Results: Thirty-day mortality was 1.38% (16/1157). Eight hundred and twenty of 891 (92%) isolated AVRs underwent minimally invasive surgery with a ministernotomy ( n = 196) or right minithoracotomy ( n = 624) approach. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 81.1 ± 24.3 and 50.6 ± 11.7 min for isolated AVR and 144.5 ± 34.7 and 96.4 ± 21.6 min for combined procedures. At mean follow-up of 53.08 ± 6.7 months (range: 1-120.5 months), survival was 96.5% and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 13.7 ± 5.8 mmHg. Left ventricular mass decreased from 152.8 to 116.1 g/m 2 ( P < 0.001) and moderate paravalvular leakage occurred in three patients without haemolysis not requiring any treatment. Freedom from reoperation was 97.6%. Eight patients required surgical reintervention and 19 patients transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure for structural prosthesis degeneration at a mean of 5.6 years after first operation (range: 2-9 years).
Conclusion: AVR with a Perceval bioprosthesis is associated with good clinical results and excellent haemodynamic performance in our 10-year experience. Structural degeneration rate of Perceval is comparable with other bioprosthetic aortic valves. Sutureless technology may reduce operative time especially in combined procedures and enable minimally invasive AVR.
Copyright © 2023 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.
References
-
- Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63:2438–2488.
-
- Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42:S1–44.
-
- Goodney PP, O’Connor GT, Wennberg DE, Birkmeyer JD. Do hospitals with low mortality rates in coronary artery bypass also perform well in valve replacement? Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 76:1131–1136. discussion 1136–7.
-
- Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137:82–90.
-
- Magovern GJ, Cromie HW. Sutureless prosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1963; 46:726–736.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources