Key result
Sutureless AVR demonstrates similar hospital mortality and costs to standard sutured valves in high-risk patients.
Why the study?
Does sutureless aortic valve replacement improve hospital outcomes and reduce resource consumption compared to sutured aortic valve replacement in patients > 65 years?
Cohort (n=231)
No
Does sutureless aortic valve replacement improve hospital outcomes and reduce resource consumption compared to sutured aortic valve replacement in patients > 65 years?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients yields similar in-hospital mortality and costs as sutured valves, while significantly reducing operative times.
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) by sutureless prostheses is changing surgeon options, although which patients benefit most, as well as their possible economic impact is still to be defined. METHODS: Perceval-S prosthesis (LivaNova) is reserved, at the documented Institution, for patients at perceived high surgical risk. This retrospective analysis of outcome and resource consumption compared Perceval with other tissue valves. To clarify the comparison, only patients respecting 'instructions-for- use' of Perceval were reviewed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: > 65 years, +/- coronary artery bypass grafting, patent foramen ovale closure or myectomy. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: bicuspid, combined valve or aortic sur- gery. Costs were calculated per patient on a daily basis including preoperative tests, operating costs (hourly basis), disposables, drugs, blood components and personnel. RESULTS: The sutureless group (SU-AVR) had a higher risk profile than the sutured group (ST-AVR). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in SU-AVR (isolated AVR: cross-clamp 52.9 ± 12.6 vs. 69 ± 15.3 min, p < 0.001; CPB 79.4 ± 20.3 vs. 92.7 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was 0.9% in SU-AVR and nil in ST-AVR, p = 0.489; intubation 7 (IQR 5-10.7) and 7 h (IQR 5-9), p = 0.785; intensive care unit 1 (IQR 1-1) and 1 day (IQR 1-1), p = 0.258; ward stay 5.5 (IQR 4-7) and 5 days (IQR 4-6), p = 0.002; pacemaker 5.7% (6/106) and 0.9% (1/109), p = 0.063, respectively. Hospital costs (excluding the prosthesis) were $12,825 (IQR 11,733-15,334) for SU-AVR and $12,386 (IQR 11,217-14,230) in ST-AVR, p = 0.055. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher operative risks in SU-AVR, hospital mortality, morbidity and resource consumption did not differ. Operative times were shorter with the sutureless device and this improve- ment, along with more frequent ministernotomy, may have improved many postoperative aims.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Villa et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease requiring replacement (n=231). Sutureless aortic valve replacement (Perceval-S prosthesis) vs. Standard sutured tissue valve replacement was evaluated on Hospital mortality (p=0.489). Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients resulted in similar hospital mortality (0.9% vs 0%, p=0.489) and overall hospital costs compared to standard sutured valves.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: