Risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis

Dokollari, Aleksander; Margaryan, Rafik; Torregrossa, Gianluca; Sicouri, Serge; Cameli, Matteo; Mandoli, Giulia Elena; Prifti, Edvin; Veshti, Altin; Bonacchi, Massimo; Gelsomino, Sandro

doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2023.04.006

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Long-term echocardiographic outcomes of SU-AVR evidenced a preserved EF of around 60%, a mean transvalvular gradient of 8.8-9.3 mmHg, and an EOA of 1.8. Echocardiographic risk predictors for all-cause death in SU-AVR included left ventricle dysfunction of grade 3 [32]. Other studies using SB have shown an EF of 62% and a mean gradient of 20.6 mmHg [55], while risk predictors for death included the E/e' index.…”

Section: Long-term Echocardiographic Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In addition, risk predictors for SU-AVR that impact all-cause death included female sex [53]. On the other hand, SB outcomes at 5-year follow-up have shown an overall incidence of cardiac death of 2-2.6%, repeat intervention of 3-3.7%, and structural valve deterioration of 1-1.3% [32]. In addition, risk predictors for all-cause mortality include age, creatinine level, presence of CAD, and NYHA class [54].…”

Section: Long-term Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Dokollari

Torregrossa

Bisleri

et al. 2023

JCDD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1–19.4% vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7% vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0–7.8% vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0–3.7% vs. SB 1.8–7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0–4% and PVL incidence was 0–2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.

show abstract

Section: Long-term Echocardiographic Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Long-term Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Dokollari

Torregrossa

Bisleri

et al. 2023

JCDD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Editorial: Sutureless aortic valve replacement: What does a shorter cross clamp time gain the patient?

Holst

Magruder

Thourani

2023

Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval Bioprosthesis Superior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Promising Option for the Gray-Zone of Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures—A State-of-the-Art Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Future Directions

Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh,

Takemoto,

Shafiei

et al. 2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The management of patients with aortic valve pathologies can sometimes fall into a “gray zone”, where the optimal treatment approach is not straightforward. The comparative benefits of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) using the Perceval bioprosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the “gray zone” of aortic valve replacement procedures remain a topic of debate. To further explore this issue, we conducted a study with pairwise, single-arm, and Kaplan–Meier-based meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis versus TAVI, as well as to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and durability of SUAVR with the Perceval bioprosthesis over mid-term and long-term follow-up periods. Methods: The PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. All study types were included, except study protocols and animal studies, without time restrictions. The final search was carried out in May 2024. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates between the two groups. SUAVR showed a lower incidence of new-onset myocardial infarction but was associated with higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation and major bleeding. TAVI had higher rates of left bundle branch block and major vascular complications. Conclusions: Our findings show that SUAVR has a lower incidence of complications and a favorable mid-term overall survival compared to TAVI. SUAVR has more advantages compared to TAVI and can be considered a valuable and promising option for the “grey zone” of aortic valve pathologies.

show abstract

Risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Early and Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sutureless vs. Sutured Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement

Editorial: Sutureless aortic valve replacement: What does a shorter cross clamp time gain the patient?

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval Bioprosthesis Superior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Promising Option for the Gray-Zone of Aortic Valve Replacement Procedures—A State-of-the-Art Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Future Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About