Vol 7, No 2 (2022)
Original article
Published online: 2022-06-14

open access

Page views 4355
Article views/downloads 318
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Feasibility of clinical application of Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in emergency patients with unexpected intraoperative findings

Michał Bociański1, Mateusz Puślecki123, Anna Olasińska-WIśniewska1, Bartłomiej Perek1, Piotr Buczkowski1, Marek Jemielity
Medical Research Journal 2022;7(2):151-156.

Abstract

Introduction: Sutureless aortic prostheses provide an attractive opportunity for high-risk patients with difficult surgical anatomy of the aortic root. Aim of the study: To assess the outcomes of emergent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in a group of high-risk patients in whom their implantation had not been considered before surgery.

Material and methods: Since 2018, 53 sutureless aortic bioprostheses have been implanted in our center. In this single-center retrospective study, 7 high-risk (median EuroSCORE II 9.43%) patients (4 women and 3 men; median age 63 [28 to 73] years) were identified to undergo emergent procedures. They were operated on for active endocarditis on the native valves with extensive destruction of the annulus (n = 4), endocarditis on a previously implanted bioprosthesis (n = 1), organizing thrombus of the mechanical valve (n = 1), and diffuse aortitis (n = 1). Implantation feasibility, as well as postprocedural mortality and morbidity, were evaluated.

Results: The following sizes of bioprostheses were used: XL (n = 3); L (n = 2); M (n = 1), and S (n = 1). The median (minimum; maximum) cross-clamping aortic time was 64 (37; 73) minutes while cardiopulmonary bypass time was 86 (49; 188) minutes, respectively. All patients survived operations and the first 30 days. Two of them died in the hospital because of multiorgan failure on 35th and 45th postoperative days. The follow-up period ranging from 6 to 40 months was completed by all who were discharged alive.

Conclusions: Despite the well-known advantages of sutureless valves, they can be also used successfully in patients in whom standard prosthesis implantation is either impossible or highly demanding, including emergency cases with unexpected intraoperative findings.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Iung B, Vahanian A. Epidemiology of acquired valvular heart disease. Can J Cardiol. 2014; 30(9): 962–970.
  2. Martínez-Comendador J, Castaño M, Gualis J, et al. Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017; 25(1): 114–121.
  3. Coffey S, Cairns BJ, Iung B. The modern epidemiology of heart valve disease. Heart. 2016; 102(1): 75–85.
  4. Leontyev S, Borger MA, Modi P, et al. Redo aortic valve surgery: Influence of prosthetic valve endocarditis on outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 142(1): 99–105.
  5. Rijo D, Simões Costa S, Monteiro JP, et al. Aortic valve replacement with Perceval® bioprosthesis: initial single-center experience. Rev Port Cir Cardiotorac Vasc. 2017; 24(3-4): 123.
  6. Carrel T, Heinisch PP. History, development and clinical perspectives of sutureless and rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2020; 9(5): 375–385.
  7. Olasińska-Wiśniewska A, Buczkowski P, Perek B, et al. Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: competitor or alternative for transcatheter aortic valve implantation? Single center experience with perceval valves. Cardiol J. 2021 [Epub ahead of print].
  8. Généreux P, Piazza N, Alu MC, et al. VARC-3 WRITING COMMITTEE. Valve academic research consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur Heart J. 2021; 42(19): 1825–1857.
  9. Kim DoJ, Lee S, Joo HC, et al. Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in 121 patients who underwent perceval sutureless aortic valve implantation - early results from a single korean institution. Circ J. 2021; 85(7): 1011–1017.
  10. Fischlein T, Folliguet T, Meuris B, et al. Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement Investigators. Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021; 161(3): 920–932.
  11. Laborde F, Fischlein T, Hakim-Meibodi K, et al. Cavalier Trial Investigators. Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the Perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective european multicentre study (the cavalier trial)†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 49(3): 978–986.
  12. Glauber M, Di Bacco L, Cuenca J, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless valves: results from an international prospective registry. Innovations (Phila). 2020; 15(2): 120–130.
  13. Meco M, Montisci A, Miceli A, et al. Sutureless perceval aortic valve versus conventional stented bioprostheses: meta-analysis of postoperative and midterm results in isolated aortic valve replacement. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(4).
  14. Mashhour A, Zhigalov K, Mkalaluh S, et al. Outcome of a modified Perceval implantation technique. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020; 68(7): 602–607.
  15. Roselló-Díez E, Cuerpo G, Estévez F, et al. Use of the perceval sutureless valve in active prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 105(4): 1168–1174.
  16. Summers MR, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis after TAVR and SAVR: insights from the PARTNER trials. Circulation. 2019; 140(24): 1984–1994.
  17. Gürsoy MO, Kalçık M, Yesin M, et al. A global perspective on mechanical prosthetic heart valve thrombosis: Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Anatol J Cardiol. 2016; 16(12): 980–989.
  18. Rojo-Leyva F, Ratliff N, Cosgrove D, et al. Study of 52 patients with idiopathic aortitis from a cohort of 1,204 surgical cases. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2000; 43(4): 901, doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200004)43:4<901::aid-anr23>3.0.co;2-u.