Sutureless Perceval valve reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time by 21.4% (53.45 vs 68.02 min, p<0.001), aortic cross-clamp time by 24.6% (40 vs 53.24 min, p<0.001), intubation time by 31.4% (11.9 vs 17.36 hours, p<0.001), ICU stay by 28.4% (5.47 vs 7.64 days, p=0.036), hospital discharge time by 28.4% (5.47 vs 7.64 days, p=0.036), and inotropic support need from 24.1% to 2.8% in patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.
Observational (n=160)
No
Does sutureless bioprosthetic valve (Perceval) improve clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared to conventional stented bioprosthetic valve (St. Jude) in patients undergoing minimally invasive AVR?
Sutureless AVR with the Perceval valve significantly reduces operative times and improves early postoperative recovery compared to conventional stented bioprostheses in minimally invasive AVR.
Effect estimate: Inotropic support requirement (Perceval 2.8% vs St Jude 24.1%, p<0.001)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.8% vs 24.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
Background: To compare the clinical outcomes between isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a conventional stented bioprosthetic valve (St. Jude, Epic™ Valve Porcine) and a sutureless bioprosthetic valve (Perceval). Methods: This single-center retrospective study evaluated 160 patients who underwent isolated surgical minimally invasive AVR between January 2020 and December 2024. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data, as well as echocardiographic findings, were analyzed and compared. Results: Patients were divided into two groups: Perceval (n = 73) and St. Jude (n = 87). Patients in the Perceval group were older and had higher EuroSCORE 2 scores. The Perceval group showed significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times (53.45 ± 24.18 vs. 68.02 ± 21.05 min; p < 0.001; and 40 ± 20.11 vs. 53.24 ± 17.34 min; p < 0.001). The intensive care unit (ICU) stay, intubation time, and hospital discharge time were significantly shorter in the Perceval group (p < 0.05). The requirement for inotropic support was also lower (2.8% vs. 24.1%, p < 0.001). At the 30-day follow-up, the perceval group had significantly lower mean and maximum transvalvular gradients. Complication rates were low in both groups, with one case of permanent pacemaker implantation and two reinterventions in the Perceval group. Conclusion: Sutureless AVR with a Perceval valve is a safe and effective alternative to conventional stented bioprostheses, particularly in elderly patients. It offers shorter operative times and improves early postoperative recovery without compromising the clinical or hemodynamic outcomes.
Atilgan et al. (Wed,) conducted a observational in Patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (n=160). Sutureless Perceval bioprosthetic valve vs. Conventional St. Jude Epic™ V alve Porcine bioprosthesis was evaluated on Composite primary endpoint including cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, intubation time, ICU stay, hospital discharge time, inotropic support requirement, transvalvular gradients at 30 and 180 days (Inotropic support requirement (Perceval 2.8% vs St Jude 24.1%, p<0.001), p=<0.001). Sutureless Perceval valve reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time by 21.4% (53.45 vs 68.02 min, p<0.001), aortic cross-clamp time by 24.6% (40 vs 53.24 min, p<0.001), intubation time by 31.4% (11.9 vs 17.36 hours, p<0.001), ICU stay by 28.4% (5.47 vs 7.64 days, p=0.036), hospital discharge time by 28.4% (5.47 vs 7.64 days, p=0.036), and inotropic support need from 24.1% to 2.8% in patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.