Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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

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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app