Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 27, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Cardiac Procedure Testing Prior to Embarking on Large Animal Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis
Ioannis Panagiotopoulos1, Nikolaos Kotsopoulos2, Georgios-Ioannis Verras3
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, General University, Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Insights
Sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Perceval S valve is safe and effective. Shorter procedure times lead to better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Medical Devices
- Health Economics
Background:
- Sutureless aortic valve prostheses offer potential for reduced ischemic times during surgery.
- The economic impact of shortened operative times with sutureless valves requires further investigation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of the Perceval S sutureless, self-expanding biological valve.
- To determine if reduced operative times translate to lower hospital costs.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis comparing 29 patients receiving Crown PRT valve and 35 patients receiving Perceval S valve.
- Data collected included preoperative details, hospital outcomes, and healthcare resource consumption.
- Statistical analysis used chi-squared and t-tests.
Main Results:
- Significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001).
- Fewer blood transfusions and shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stays were observed in the sutureless group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively).
- Reduced resource consumption noted in the sutureless group due to shorter procedural and ICU times.
Conclusions:
- The Perceval S valve demonstrates clinical safety and effectiveness.
- Shorter procedural times associated with sutureless valves correlate with improved clinical outcomes and decreased hospital expenditures.
Introduction:
Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.
Aim:
We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.
Material And Methods:
This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ2 and t-test.
Results:
Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.
Conclusions:
The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.
