Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis

Objective: To highlight the main target points covered by clinical studies on the Perceval sutureless valve for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and raise a point of discussion for further expansion of its use when compared with stented bioprostheses (SB) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: We reviewed clinical trials and retrospective studies published up to date and compared the outcomes in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) stroke, paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding and long-term outcomes. Results: Clinical studies showed that 30-day mortality ranged from 0-4% for Perceval and 2.9-7% for TAVR. The incidence of PVL (Perceval 1.9-19.4 vs. TAVR 9-53.5%), PPI (Perceval 2-11.2 vs. TAVR 4.9-25.5%), stroke (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0-2.8%), MI (Perceval 0 vs. TAVR 0-3.5%), were all higher in the TAVR group. Compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0-6.4% for Perceval and 0-5.9% for SB. The incidence of PVR (Perceval 1-19.4 vs. SB 0-1%), PPI (Perceval 2-10.7 vs. SB 1.8-8.5%), stroke (Perceval 0-3.7 vs. SB 1.8-7.3%) and MI (Perceval 0-7.8 vs. SB 0-4.3%) were comparable among the groups. In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, mortality rate was (0-4%) and PVL incidence was (0-2.3%). However, there was a high incidence of PPI (0-20%), and stroke (0-8%). Long-term survival ranged between 96.7-98.6%. Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its implantation speed, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, the reduced aortic cross-clamp time and the shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.