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 > 2013 > Volume 22 Number 2 March > DEVICE EVALUATION > Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Self-Anchoring Perceval Valve

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Self-Anchoring Perceval Valve

Malakh Shrestha, Rebecca Timm, Klaus Höffler, Nurbol Koigeldiyev, Nawid Khaladj, Christian Hagl, Axel Haverich, Samir Sarikouch

Division of Cardio-thoracic, Transplantation and Vascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Background and aim of the study: Although minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been proposed to cause less morbidity in patients, it still has not seen broad application. The study aim was to evaluate the implantation of the self-anchoring aortic valve (Perceval S; Sorin) via a mini-sternotomy.

Methods: As a part of a multicenter, European, prospective, non-randomized, clinical trial, 35 patients (30 females, five males; mean age 80 ± 4 years) with isolated aortic valve stenosis (mean gradient 48 ± 21 mm Hg) were operated on at the authors’ center. Perceval S self-anchoring valves were implanted following a mini-sternotomy, extracorporeal circulation (ECC), aortic cross-clamping, cardioplegic arrest and removal of the calcified native valve. The mean EuroSCORE and STS score were 12 ± 9% and 4 ± 2%, respectively. 

Results: There were no failures of deployment, and nor was there any intra-procedure or 30-day mortality. The mean ECC-time was 70 ± 24 min, and cross-clamp time 34 ± 10 min. The valve implantation time was 9 ± 5 min. Perioperative echocardiography revealed no significant aortic insufficiency or paravalvular leakage. The postoperative mean gradient was 16 ± 6 mmHg. At follow up, there was no paravalvular leakage or significant valvular insufficiency. No migration or dislodgement of the prosthesis occurred.

Conclusion: This trial highlights the advantages of the Perceval S self-anchoring valve which, technically is a more reproducible alternative for minimally invasive AVR. As the valve does not need to be sutured, the limited exposure is not a disadvantage even in patients with calcified or small aortic roots. This also potentially reduces the cross-clamp and ECC-times. This valve may enable a broader application of minimally invasive AVR.

The Journal of Heart Valve Disease 2013;22:230-235

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Self-Anchoring Perceval Valve

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.