Key result
Aortic valve replacement with the Perceval bioprosthesis demonstrated low rates of moderate structural valve deterioration (8.8%) and bioprosthetic valve failure (2.9%) at 4 years.
Why the study?
Durability of sutureless aortic bioprosthetic valves remains a major issue, prompting an assessment of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure of the Perceval bioprosthesis using new standardized definitions.
What is the incidence of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure at mid-term follow-up in patients receiving the Perceval S sutureless prosthesis?
Cohort (n=214)
What is the incidence of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure at mid-term follow-up in patients receiving the Perceval S sutureless prosthesis?
The Perceval S sutureless bioprosthesis demonstrates favorable mid-term durability with low rates of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure.
Low 4-year SVD/BVF rates support Perceval S use in selected patients; leaves open need for randomized long-term data.
OBJECTIVES: Durability of sutureless aortic bioprosthetic valves remains a major issue. The aim of this study was to assess structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) of the Perceval bioprosthesis using the new proposed standardized definitions. METHODS: All patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with sutureless Perceval S prostheses up to September 2016 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was performed. New standardized definitions were used to assess the durability of sutureless bioprosthetic valves. From 2013 to 2016, 214 patients were included. RESULTS: The mean age and EuroSCORE II were 79 years and 2.74. Thirty-day mortality was 0.47%. The survival rate was 96.8%, 88.1% and 85.7% at 1, 3 and 4 years, respectively. The median echocardiographic follow-up was 3.28 years. The mean pressure gradient was 11.3 mmHg. No cases showed evidence of severe SVD, 17 patients had moderate SVD with a mean pressure gradient of 24 mmHg and 8 patients had definite late BVF. The incidence of moderate SVD and BVF at 4 years was 8.8% and 2.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term follow-up to 6.3 years after aortic valve replacement with the Perceval bioprosthesis documents favourable haemodynamic and clinical outcomes and low rates of SVD and BVF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martínez‐Comendador et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=214). Perceval S sutureless prosthesis was evaluated on Structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). Aortic valve replacement with the Perceval bioprosthesis demonstrated low rates of moderate structural valve deterioration (8.8%) and bioprosthetic valve failure (2.9%) at 4 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: