TY - JOUR
T1 - Risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis
AU - Dokollari, Aleksander
AU - Margaryan, Rafik
AU - Torregrossa, Gianluca
AU - Sicouri, Serge
AU - Cameli, Matteo
AU - Mandoli, Giulia Elena
AU - Prifti, Edvin
AU - Veshti, Altin
AU - Bonacchi, Massimo
AU - Gelsomino, Sandro
N1 - Funding Information:
? Source of funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Data from the manuscript can be available upon reasonable request. Funding: This manuscript did not receive any funding. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2023/10
Y1 - 2023/10
N2 - Background: The aim of this study is to identify risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis aortic valve implantation. Methods: From 2013 to 2020, 101 consecutive participants who underwent isolated AVR with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis were included. Primary endpoint was analysis of all-cause mortality. We performed a propensity-adjusted analysis of patients undergoing redo sutureless vs redo sutured AVR to understand the impact of sutureless valves in redo operations. Results: Pre-operative characteristics included a mean age of 71.2-years, mean EuroScore II of 3.51 (±4.48), mean body mass index of 30.2 (±6.8). Mean follow-up was 1.5 years. Intraoperatively, mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were 65 ± 29.6 and 47.3 ± 21.3 min, respectively. Valve redeployment was necessary in 9.9 % of cases and there was one intraoperative death. There were two hospital deaths (including the operative death) while only one was cardiac related. Postoperatively, mean ejection fraction was 55.5 % (±4.1 %), mean effective orifice was 1.5 (±0.3) cm2, and mean transvalvular gradient was 14.7 (±4) mmHg. At 7-years follow-up, 87.9 % of patients were alive. Risk predictors for all-cause death were female sex and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) grade = 2. After matching, aortic cross-clamp time, inotrope use, blood product transfusions, respiratory failure, and post-operative arrhythmias were higher in the redo sutured group compared to the sutureless redo group. Conclusions: Sutureless aortic valve implantations have good clinical outcomes. Risk predictors for all-cause death included female sex and LVDD grade = 2.
AB - Background: The aim of this study is to identify risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis aortic valve implantation. Methods: From 2013 to 2020, 101 consecutive participants who underwent isolated AVR with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis were included. Primary endpoint was analysis of all-cause mortality. We performed a propensity-adjusted analysis of patients undergoing redo sutureless vs redo sutured AVR to understand the impact of sutureless valves in redo operations. Results: Pre-operative characteristics included a mean age of 71.2-years, mean EuroScore II of 3.51 (±4.48), mean body mass index of 30.2 (±6.8). Mean follow-up was 1.5 years. Intraoperatively, mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were 65 ± 29.6 and 47.3 ± 21.3 min, respectively. Valve redeployment was necessary in 9.9 % of cases and there was one intraoperative death. There were two hospital deaths (including the operative death) while only one was cardiac related. Postoperatively, mean ejection fraction was 55.5 % (±4.1 %), mean effective orifice was 1.5 (±0.3) cm2, and mean transvalvular gradient was 14.7 (±4) mmHg. At 7-years follow-up, 87.9 % of patients were alive. Risk predictors for all-cause death were female sex and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) grade = 2. After matching, aortic cross-clamp time, inotrope use, blood product transfusions, respiratory failure, and post-operative arrhythmias were higher in the redo sutured group compared to the sutureless redo group. Conclusions: Sutureless aortic valve implantations have good clinical outcomes. Risk predictors for all-cause death included female sex and LVDD grade = 2.
KW - Clinical outcomes
KW - MACCE
KW - Stroke
KW - Survival
KW - Sutured valves
U2 - 10.1016/j.carrev.2023.04.006
DO - 10.1016/j.carrev.2023.04.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 37062610
SN - 1553-8389
VL - 55
SP - 10
EP - 19
JO - Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
JF - Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
ER -