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 3 May 2017 > AORTIC VALVE DISEASE > Tackling the Issue of High Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation Rates in Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: Should Balloon Inflation be Removed from the Implantation Method of the Perceval Prosthesis?

Tackling the Issue of High Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation Rates in Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: Should Balloon Inflation be Removed from the Implantation Method of the Perceval Prosthesis?

Mathieu Charles Blouin1, Ismail Bouhout1, Philippe Demers1, Michel Carrier1, Louis Perrault1, Yoan Lamarche1, Ismail El-Hamamsy1, Denis Bouchard1,2

1Department of Cardiac Surgery, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2Electronic correspondence: denis.bouchard@icm-mhi.org

Background and aim of the study: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging alternative to standard AVR in elderly and high-risk patients. This procedure is associated with a high rate of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The study aim was to assess the impact on the rate of PPI of implanting the Perceval prosthesis without using balloon inflation.

Methods: A total of 159 patients who underwent sutureless AVR using the Perceval prosthesis was included. Balloon inflation was used in 132 patients (Balloon group) and not used in the remaining 27 (No-Balloon group). Clinical, echocardiographic and electrocardiographic outcomes were assessed.

Results: There was no significant difference in PPI rate between the two groups (26% for Balloon group versus 22% in No-Balloon group; p = 0.700). Balloon inflation had


no significant impact on the incidence of paravalvular leaks (p = 0.839), or on the need to return to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) intraoperatively due to paravalvular leak or unsatisfactory deployment (p >0.999). Mean and peak transaortic pressure gradients were similar between the two groups (p = 0.417 and p = 0.522, respectively). Cross-clamp and CPB times were shorter in the No-Balloon group (49.6 ± 15.9 min versus 61.1 ± 25.6 min and 64.1 ± 26.3 min versus 79.6 ± 35.4 min, respectively; p = 0.027 and p = 0.012, respectively).

Conclusion: The two groups had similar postoperative PPI rates. Implanting the Perceval prosthesis without balloon inflation is safe and had no impact on paravalvular leaks, intraoperative complications or hemodynamic results. Reductions in aortic cross-clamp time and CPB time were observed when the balloon was not used.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2017;26:247-254


Tackling the Issue of High Postoperative Pacemaker Implantation Rates in Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement: Should Balloon Inflation be Removed from the Implantation Method of the Perceval Prosthesis?

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.