Sutureless perceval aortic valve versus conventional stented bioprostheses: Meta-analysis of postoperative and midterm results in isolated aortic valve replacement

84Citations
Citations of this article
76Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background--Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. Methods and Results--A total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-1.88]; P=0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P=0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 0.56-3.21]; P=0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 [95% CI, 0.60-1.06]; P=0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.16±1.2 versus 2.13±2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI, -1.22 to -0.75]; P=0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 [95% CI, 1.44-4.17]; P=0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42±1.73 versus 22.8±1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.62-1.18]; P=0.001), even during follow-up (10.98±5.7 versus 13.06±6.2; mean difference: -2.08 [95% CI, -3.96 to -0.21]; P=0.030). We found no difference in 1-year mortality. Conclusions--The Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high-risk patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Meco, M., Montisci, A., Miceli, A., Panisi, P., Donatelli, F., Cirri, S., … Glauber, M. (2018, February 1). Sutureless perceval aortic valve versus conventional stented bioprostheses: Meta-analysis of postoperative and midterm results in isolated aortic valve replacement. Journal of the American Heart Association. American Heart Association Inc. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006091

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free