Perceval Valve Intermediate Outcomes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis at 5-year Follow-up

Overview

Journal J Cardiothorac Surg

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Cardiology & Vascular Diseases
General Surgery
Pulmonary Medicine

Date 2023 Apr 11

PMID 37041628

Authors

Jarrod Jolliffe

Simon Moten

Amit Tripathy

Peter Skillington

James Tatoulis

Claudio Muneretto

Lorenzo Di Bacco

Hericka Bruna Figueiredo Galvao

John Goldblatt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

Methods: A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

Results: Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

Key Question: What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

Key Findings: Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

Key Outcomes: Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

Citing Articles

Midterm Outcomes of Right Anterior Mini Thoracotomy Aortic Valve Replacement.

Hassanabad A, Fatehi Hassanabad M, Israr-Ul-Haq M, Maitland A, Kent W CJC Open. 2024; 6(12):1484-1490.

PMID: 39735951 PMC: 11681344. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjco.2024.09.004.

Repair of severe aortic insufficiency and stenosis after Ozaki surgery with Perceval™ sutureless aortic valve.

Ozcobanoglu S, Gunduz E Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg. 2024; 32(4):453-456.

PMID: 39651054 PMC: 11620519. DOI: 10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2024.25223.

Sutureless Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Systematic Review with Long-Term Results.

Chiariello G, Di Mauro M, Villa E, Koulouroudias M, Bruno P, Mazza A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(22).

PMID: 39597973 PMC: 11595112. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13226829.

Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Trifecta sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: immediate results of the study.

Nardi P, Altieri C, Pisano C, Buioni D, Agneni F, Grizzi G Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol. 2024; 21(3):153-161.

PMID: 39484109 PMC: 11523484. DOI: 10.5114/kitp.2024.143499.

Differences between valve types in anatomic changes of the aortic root after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Kawamura A, Shimamura K, Yoshioka D, Misumi Y, Yamashita K, Maeda K JTCVS Tech. 2024; 27:51-59.

PMID: 39478919 PMC: 11519014. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2024.07.014.

References

Brookes J, Mathew M, Brookes E, Jaya J, Almeida A, Smith J . Predictors of Pacemaker Insertion Post-Sutureless (Perceval) Aortic Valve Implantation. Heart Lung Circ. 2020; 30(6):917-921. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2020.11.004. View

Riess F, Cramer E, Hansen L, Schiffelers S, Wahl G, Wallrath J . Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009; 37(1):145-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.04.073. View

White A, Bozso S, Lakey O, Hong Y, Wang S, Nagendran J . Rapid deployment valves versus conventional tissue valves for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020; 163(6):2036-2042. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.06.022. View

Brown J, OBrien S, Wu C, Sikora J, Griffith B, Gammie J . Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 137(1):82-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015. View

Yi B, Zeng W, Lv L, Hua P . Changing epidemiology of calcific aortic valve disease: 30-year trends of incidence, prevalence, and deaths across 204 countries and territories. Aging (Albany NY). 2021; 13(9):12710-12732. PMC: 8148466. DOI: 10.18632/aging.202942. View

Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A, Hendry P, Masters R, Mesana T . Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses. Circulation. 2010; 122(11 Suppl):S10-6. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.928085. View

Dellgren G, David T, Raanani E, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, Rakowski H . Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002; 124(1):146-54. DOI: 10.1067/mtc.2002.121672. View

Meco M, Miceli A, Montisci A, Donatelli F, Cirri S, Ferrarini M . Sutureless aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of comparative matched studies using propensity score matching. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017; 26(2):202-209. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivx294. View

Barbanti M, Tamburino C, DErrigo P, Biancari F, Ranucci M, Rosato S . Five-Year Outcomes of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in a Real World Population. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12(7):e007825. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.007825. View

10.

Chang H, Kim W, Ahn J, Carriere K, Jeong D, Cho Y . Late clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves. J Thorac Dis. 2020; 11(12):5372-5381. PMC: 6988060. DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2019.11.65. View

11.

Dedeilias P, Baikoussis N, Prappa E, Asvestas D, Argiriou M, Charitos C . 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. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 11(1):54. PMC: 4827171. DOI: 10.1186/s13019-016-0438-7. View

12.

Klop I, Kougioumtzoglou A, Kloppenburg G, van Putte B, Sprangers M, Klein P . Short-term outcome of the intuity rapid deployment prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020; 31(4):427-436. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa131. View

13.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann H, Oxman A, Kunz R, Brozek J . GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4):401-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. View

14.

Sa M, Jabagi H, Dokollari A, Awad A, Van den Eynde J, Malin J . Early and late outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid-deployment valves versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data of matched studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022; 99(6):1886-1896. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30162. View

15.

Leon M, Smith C, Mack M, Makkar R, Svensson L, Kodali S . Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(17):1609-20. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514616. View

16.

Park S, Rhee Y, Lee C, Kim H, Kim J, Choo S . 3-Dimensional computed tomographic assessment predicts conduction block and paravalvular leakage after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021; 61(4):899-907. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab431. View

17.

Du Y, Gossl M, Garcia S, Enriquez-Sarano M, Cavalcante J, Bae R . Natural history observations in moderate aortic stenosis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2021; 21(1):108. PMC: 7893941. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-021-01901-1. View

18.

Gersak B, Glauber M, Bouchard D, Jug J, Solinas M . Oversizing Increases Pacemaker Implantation Rate After Sutureless Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement. Innovations (Phila). 2020; 15(5):449-455. DOI: 10.1177/1556984520938897. View

19.

Lamberigts M, Szecel D, Rega F, Verbrugghe P, Dubois C, Meuris B . Sutureless aortic valves in isolated and combined procedures: Thirteen years of experience in 784 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022; 167(5):1724-1732.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.09.053. View

20.

Fischlein T, Meuris B, Folliguet T, Hakim-Meibodi K, Misfeld M, Carrel T . Midterm outcomes with a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis in a prospective multicenter cohort study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021; 164(6):1772-1780.e11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.12.109. View