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.