Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2025
14:14
Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
14.1K
Conventional Prostheses versus Sutureless Perceval for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis.
Giorgia Colarossi1,2, Filippo Migliorini3, Michael Becker2
1Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Summary
The Perceval sutureless valve offers shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times during aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, it is associated with a higher rate of pacemaker implantation compared to traditional sutured valves.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Medical Devices
- Biomaterials
Background:
- Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) is gaining traction.
- The comparative efficacy of Perceval sutureless valves versus traditional sutured prostheses for AVR remains under investigation.
Approach:
- A systematic meta-analysis was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
- Searches were conducted across major databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE.
- Included studies focused on clinical investigations comparing Perceval valves with conventional sutured prostheses for AVR.
Key Points:
- The Perceval group showed significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times.
- A higher rate of pacemaker implantation was observed in the Perceval group (P <0.00001).
- No significant differences were found in pressure gradients, aortic valve area, ICU/hospital stay, revision rates, hemorrhages, paravalvular leaks, cerebrovascular complications, or early mortality.
Conclusions:
- Perceval AVR presents a viable alternative, particularly for high-risk patients, due to reduced ACC and CPB times.
- The increased need for pacemaker implantation following Perceval implantation may influence its widespread adoption.
