The Perceval S aortic valve has the potential of shortening surgical time: does it also result in improved outcome?

Background: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening surgical time. However, whether shorter operative times may also result in improved patient outcomes remains to be established.

Methods: One hundred patients underwent minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacement. Of these, 50 patients received a Perceval (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy) bioprosthesis (group P) and 50 patients received a non-Perceval valve (group NP).

Results: The group P patients were older (77.5 ± 5.3 versus 71.7 ± 10 years, p = 0.001) and at higher risk (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [EuroSCORE] 9.9 ± 6.5 versus 4.3 ± 1, p = 0.001) than group NP patients. One implant failure occurred in group P (p = 0.5), and conversion to full sternotomy was necessary in 1 patient from each group. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 39.4% and 34% shorter in group P (both p < 0.001). Within 30 days, a total of 5 patients died (2 in group P and 3 in group NP, p = 0.5). No significant differences were observed between groups in postoperative arrhythmias and need for pacemaker implantation (p = 0.3 and p = 0.5, respectively). Despite the higher surgical risk, group P patients less frequently required blood transfusion (1.1 ± 1.1 units versus 2.3 ± 2.8 units, p = 0.007), and had a shorter intensive care unit stay (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 2.8 ± 1.9 days, p = 0.002) and a shorter intubation time (9.2 ± 3.6 hours versus 15 ± 13.8 hours, p = 0.01). Group NP patients had a mean prosthesis size significantly smaller than for group P (23 ± 2 mm versus 23.9 ± 1.1 mm, p = 0.01). The Perceval valve provided comparable hemodynamic performance to that of non-Perceval valves (mean gradient 8.4 ± 6 mm Hg versus 10 ± 4.9 mm Hg, p = 0.24).

Conclusions: Sutureless implantation of the Perceval valve is associated with shorter cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, resulting in improved clinical outcome. In addition, it compares favorably with conventional valves in terms of mortality and outcome variables.