Key result
Perceval S sutureless valve linked to ~45% shorter cross-clamp time and reduced ICU stays vs conventional valves.
Why the study?
Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential to shorten ischemic time, but the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.
Does the Perceval S sutureless aortic valve improve clinical outcomes and reduce hospital costs compared to the Crown PRT bioprosthetic valve in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=64)
No
Does the Perceval S sutureless aortic valve improve clinical outcomes and reduce hospital costs compared to the Crown PRT bioprosthetic valve in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 37.6% vs 68.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
The Perceval S sutureless aortic valve reduces operative times, ICU stay, and blood transfusions compared to standard bioprostheses, leading to reduced hospital resource consumption.
Introduction: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.Aim: We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.Material and methods: This is a retrospective analysis.From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis).Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ 2 and t-test.Results: Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001).Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01).Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups.The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.Conclusions: The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective.A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Panagiotopoulos et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease requiring replacement (n=64). Perceval S sutureless bioprosthetic aortic valve vs. Crown PRT conventional bioprosthetic aortic valve was evaluated on Aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (minutes) (p=<0.001). The Perceval S sutureless aortic valve significantly reduced mean aortic cross-clamp time to 37.6 minutes compared to 68.2 minutes for conventional valves, leading to shorter intensive care unit stays and lower hospital costs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: