Share this page on LinkedIn
Share This Page on Google+
Share This Page on Twitter
tell someone about this page print this page
You are here: Contents > 2017 > Volume 26 Number 1 January 2017 > AORTIC VALVE DISEASE > Sutureless Valves Reduce Hospital Costs Compared to Traditional Valves

Sutureless Valves Reduce Hospital Costs Compared to Traditional Valves

François Laborde1,4, Thierry Folliguet2, Gabriel Ghorayeb3, Konstantinos Zannis1

1Département de Pathologie Cardiaque, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
2CHU brabois, Institut Lorrain du Coeur et des Vaisseaux Louis Mathieu, Vandoeuvre les Nancy, Université de Lorraine, France
3Service de Chirurgie Cardio-Vasculaire, Hôpital privé de Parly II, Le Chesnay, France
4Electronic correspohdence:

Background and aim of the study: The study aim was to assess differences in clinical outcome, safety, and associated costs between sutureless and aortic

isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a standard bioprosthesis.

Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted to investigate 65 patients, each of whom had undergone isolated AVR with a traditional aortic valve (T) or a Perceval S sutureless aortic prosthesis (P) between January 2010 and December 2012. Cost data were drawn from the proprietary cost accounting system of the hospital, excluding acquisition costs of the devices. A linear regression model was used to estimate the mean total costs difference between groups.

Results: The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp times in the T and P groups were


80 ± 41 min and 58 ± 26 min versus 38 ± 16 min and 26 ± 10 min, respectively (p <0.0001). The mean intensive care unit and ward stays in both groups were 4.2 ± 5.9 and 11.9 ± 6.5 days versus 3.8 ± 4.7 and 10 ± 4.5 days, respectively (p = 0.68 and p = 0.05). The mean costs savings for group P compared to group T were €3,801 (p = 0.13), mainly driven by hospital stay costs. Savings between the P and T groups increased with age: €4,992 in patients aged 70-79 years and €9,326 in those aged 80+ years, and with risk (€4,296 for high-risk patients).

Conclusion: Sutureless aortic valves present shorter procedural times and lower hospital costs compared to traditional valves, with higher cost savings at increased patient age and risk. Sutureless aortic valves seem to be cost-effective in patients undergoing AVR.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2017;26:1-8

Sutureless Valves Reduce Hospital Costs Compared to Traditional Valves

Click the above hyperlink to view the article, right click (Ctrl click on a Mac) to open in a new browser window or tab.

Purchase this Article

Please click the button below to purchase this article. Single article purchases are provided at $50.00 per article. Upon clicking the button below, single article user account subscription details are requested and, upon successful payment, a single article user account is created. Single articles are availble in your account for seven days after purchase.