Literature DB >> 25790630

Aortic valve replacement with the perceval S bioprosthesis: single-center experience in 143 patients.

Konstantinos Zannis, Jérémie Joffre, Daniel Czitrom, Thierry Folliguet, Milena Noghin, Milena Noghin Emmanuel Lansac, Laurens Mitchell-Heggs, Mathieu Debauchez, Francois Laborde.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most frequent heart valve disease in western countries, and its prevalence increases with age. Sutureless valves have recently become available that allow the surgical procedures to be shortened. The study aim was to assess clinical outcome after sutureless aortic valve replacement (SAVR) performed with the Perceval S bioprosthesis at the authors' institution.
METHODS: Between June 2007 and November 2011, a total of 143 patients (78 females, 65 males; mean age 79.4 +/- 5.9 years) was prospectively enrolled and followed at the authors' center. The median preoperative logistic EuroSCORE was 12.04 +/- 10.7. Preoperatively, 58.8% of patients were in NYHA class III or IV, and the mean gradient and effective orifice area (EOA) were 38.8 +/- 17 mmHg and 0.76 +/- 0.24 cm2, respectively. Isolated SAVR was performed in 95 patients (66.4%), while associated procedures were necessary in 48 patients (33.6%). The follow up was 100% complete (mean 13.4 +/- 11.6 months; range: 0-5 years; total cumulative follow up 155 patient-years).
RESULTS: The procedural success rate was 99.3%. The mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 32.0 +/- 14.9 min and 44.7 +/- 18.6 min, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 4.9% (n=7). Pacemaker implantation was required in seven patients (4.9%). Survival at five years was 85.5%. Reoperation was necessary in seven patients (4.9%); early reoperations were due to paravalvular leak (n = 3; 2.0%) and intra-prosthetic regurgitation (n=3; 2.0%). One late reoperation (at 29 months) was required, due to fibrous pannus overgrowth. One late endocarditis (0.7%) occurred at 26 months and was medically treated. No structural valve deterioration occurred during the follow up. At 12 months, 94.4% of survivors were in NYHA class I-II, and the mean pressure gradient and EOA were 9.0 +/- 3.4 mmHg and 1.60 +/- 0.3 cm2, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The Perceval S valve appears to be a safe option for SAVR, though further follow up is needed to evaluate the long-term outcome with this bioprosthesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25790630

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis        ISSN: 0966-8519


  9 in total

1.  Early results of the Sorin® Perceval S sutureless valve: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Karan Sian; Sheila Li; Daneish Selvakumar; Ross Mejia
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Right anterior mini-thoracotomy and sutureless valves: the perfect marriage.

Authors:  Marco Solinas; Giacomo Bianchi; Francesca Chiaramonti; Rafik Margaryan; Enkel Kallushi; Tommaso Gasbarri; Filippo Santarelli; Michele Murzi; Pierandrea Farneti; Alessandro Leone; Simone Simeoni; Egidio Varone; Federica Marchi; Mattia Glauber; Giovanni Concistrè
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-07

3.  Recent improvement in operative techniques lead to lower pacemaker rate after Perceval implant.

Authors:  Olivier Fabre; Mihai Radutoiu; Ionut Carjaliu; Olivier Rebet; Laurence Gautier; Ilir Hysi
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2022-07-09

4.  Mid-term follow-up after suture-less aortic heart valve implantation.

Authors:  Grzegorz Filip; Radoslaw Litwinowicz; Boguslaw Kapelak; Jacek Piatek; Magdalena Bartus; Janusz Konstanty-Kalandyk; Maciej Brzezinski; Krzysztof Bartus
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Mid-term assessment of structural valve deterioration of perceval S sutureless prosthesis using the last European consensus definition.

Authors:  José Manuel Martínez-Comendador; Francisco Estevez-Cid; Miguel González Barbeito; Carlos Velasco García De Sierra; Alberto Bouzas Mosquera; Cayetana Barbeito; José Cuenca Castillo; José Herrera-Noreña
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-04-19

6.  The perceval S aortic valve implantation in patients with porcelain aorta; is this ideal option?

Authors:  Nikolaos G Baikoussis; Panagiotis Dedeilias; Efstathia Prappa; Michalis Argiriou
Journal:  Ann Card Anaesth       Date:  2017-01

7.  Aortic valve replacement in elderly with small aortic root and low body surface area; the Perceval S valve and its impact in effective orifice area.

Authors:  Panagiotis Dedeilias; Nikolaos G Baikoussis; Efstathia Prappa; Dimitrios Asvestas; Michalis Argiriou; Christos Charitos
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 1.637

8.  Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies.

Authors:  Farid Foroutan; Gordon H Guyatt; Kathleen O'Brien; Eva Bain; Madeleine Stein; Sai Bhagra; Daegan Sit; Rakhshan Kamran; Yaping Chang; Tahira Devji; Hassan Mir; Veena Manja; Toni Schofield; Reed A Siemieniuk; Thomas Agoritsas; Rodrigo Bagur; Catherine M Otto; Per O Vandvik
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-09-28

Review 9.  Update in Heart Rhythm Abnormalities and Indications for Pacemaker After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Authors:  Marina Saadi; Ana Paula Tagliari; Luiz Cláudio Danzmann; Eduardo Bartholomay; Adriano Nunes Kochi; Eduardo Keller Saadi
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018 May-Jun
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.