Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis for Degenerative Aortic Valve Stenosis: Initial Experience With 67 Patients
-
Published:2021-12-28
Issue:6
Volume:24
Page:E1065-E1069
-
ISSN:1522-6662
-
Container-title:The Heart Surgery Forum
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:HSF
Author:
Lazovic Dejan,Kocica Mladen,Vucicevic Filip,Kocica Milica,Grujic Milos,Terzic Dusko,Djordjevic Aleksandar,Grujic Danko,Cvetkovic Dragan
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the characteristics (positive and negative) of Perceval S valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis. The study included 67 patients operated on at our institution and a mean follow-up period of 18 months.
Methods: From June 2016 to November 2019, 209 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis. Of these, 67 patients were included in the study based on the exclusion and inclusion criteria set before the study began. Their data were recorded during their hospital stay (preoperative, intraoperative, and early and late postoperative time).
Results: Fifty-four patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (group I) with a Perceval S prosthesis, and 13 patients had combined aortic valve replacement procedures and CABG procedures (group II). Patients were implanted with the following prosthesis sizes: S (N = 12), M (N = 18), L (N = 28), or XL (N = 9). The Perceval S valve successfully was implanted in 67 (91.8%) patients (in 6 patients, the preoperative transthoracic echocardiographic data did not coincide with intraoperative TEE and surgical measurement of the size of the annulus in the suture). Surgical approaches in patients were medial sternotomy (N = 48), mini sternotomy (N = 15), and thoracotomy through the second intercostal space to the right (N = 4). The mean clamping time of the aorta and CPB length for isolated cases was 54 and 82 minutes, respectively, and 96 and 120 minutes for combined procedures. Four (5.9%) patients died within 30 days.
Conclusion: Early postoperative results showed that the Perceval S valve was safe. Further follow up is required to evaluate the long-term duration of patients with this bioprosthesis.
Publisher
Carden Jennings Publishing Co.
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Surgery,General Medicine