Key result
Sutureless AVR links to shorter cross-clamp and CPB times vs stented valves, with similar early mortality.
Why the study?
Sutureless aortic valve replacement offers an alternative to conventional stented bioprosthetic valves, but comparative early outcome data are limited.
Does sutureless aortic valve replacement improve early postoperative outcomes compared to stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing AVR?
Cohort (n=52)
No
Does sutureless aortic valve replacement improve early postoperative outcomes compared to stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing AVR?
Sutureless aortic valve replacement significantly reduces cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times compared to stented bioprostheses, without compromising early clinical or echocardiographic outcomes.
Supports reduced operative times with sutureless valves in observational data; should not yet change practice without randomized evidence.
OBJECTIVE: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR) offers an alternative to supra-annular stented biological aortic prostheses. This single-center study aimed to compare early outcomes after aortic valve replacement with sutureless and conventional stented bioprostheses. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed 52 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with sutureless and stented bioprostheses between January 2013 and October 2017. Sorin Perceval S sutureless valves were implanted in group 1 and Sorin Mitroflow stented bioprosthetic valves were used in group 2. Postoperative outcomes, including demographics, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, cross-clamp times, morbidity and mortality, as well as echocardiography in the first month, were compared. RESULTS: Mortality occurred in 1 (3.6%) patient in group 1, and in 2 (8.3%) patients in group 2 (P=0.186). Group 1 had significantly shorter CPB (61.6±26.1 min vs. 106.3±32.7 min, P=0.001) and crossclamp (30.9±13.6 min vs. 73.3±17.3 min, P=0.001) times. The length of stay in the intensive care unit (1.9±1.3 days vs. 2.4±4.9 days, P=0.598) and hospital stay (7.6±2.7 days vs. 7.3±2.6 days, P=0.66) were similar. Postoperatively, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in echocardiography results, and morbidities. The mean aortic valve gradient was 13.5±5.8 mmHg in group 1 and 14.5±8.0 mmHg in group 2 (P=0.634). Paravalvular regurgitation was diagnosed in 3 (10.7%) patients in group 1 and in 1 (4.2%) patient in group 2 (P=0.220). CONCLUSIONS: Su-AVR resulted in shorter cross-clamp and CPB times. However, early mortality, postoperative morbidity, and echocardiography results were similar between groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Güner et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=52). Sutureless aortic valve replacement (Sorin Perceval S) vs. Stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (Sorin Mitroflow) was evaluated on Early mortality (p=0.186). Sutureless aortic valve replacement resulted in shorter cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times compared to stented valves, with similar early mortality (3.6% vs 8.3%, P=0.186).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: