Background and aim of the study: Sorin Pericarbon stentless pericardial valves were implanted using three different surgical techniques, and early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results were analyzed according to the method used.
Methods: Between January 2000 and December 2002, 102 Pericarbon stentless valves were implanted in 101 patients (55 females, 46 males; mean age 67.6 ± 7.1 years). Among these patients, 63 had isolated aortic valve replacement and 39 underwent a combined procedure. The inflow portion of a matching-size prosthesis was fixed to the aortic annulus either by semi-continuous Prolene suture (n = 48), interrupted simple Ethibond (n = 29) or interrupted Ethibond mattress stitches (n = 25). Valve sizes were not significantly different in the three subgroups. The aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 145 ± 31 min and 171 ± 39 min, respectively, with interrupted stitches; these times were significantly longer than in the continuous suture group (115 ± 27 min and 143 ± 45 min) or with interrupted mattress stitches (111 ± 28 min and 137 ± 34 min).
Results: Early mortality was 6.8% (n = 7) for the entire patient

group. None of the deaths was valve-related. Postoperatively, all patients were followed up (mean 26.6 ± 9.4 months). There were two late deaths (both non-valve-related). One patient developed early endocarditis, and the infected valve was re-replaced with another Pericarbon stentless valve. During the follow up period the mean and peak transvalvular gradient was decreased from 12.8 ± 8.5 mmHg to 9.1 ± 2.3 mmHg and from 22.5 ± 13.9 mmHg to 16.1 ± 4.3 mmHg respectively, and left ventricular wall thickness from 15.5 ± 2.1 mm to 12.8 ± 1.4 mm. Regurgitation was not more than trivial for any of the implanted valves. The implantation technique did not significantly affect the hemodynamic performance of the Pericarbon stentless valve.
Conclusion: The Sorin Pericarbon stentless pericardial prosthesis showed excellent hemodynamic performance, even if implanted in a matching-size aortic root. The implantation technique used had no significant influence on valve performance.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2005;14:72-77