Sutureless Perceval Aortic Valve Versus Conventional Stented Bioprostheses: Meta‐Analysis of Postoperative and Midterm Results in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement

Background Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. Methods and ResultsA total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-1.88]; P=0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P=0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 0.56-3.21]; P=0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 [95% CI, 0.60-1.06]; P=0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.161.2 versus 2.13 +/- 2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI, -1.22 to -0.75]; P=0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 [95% CI, 1.44-4.17]; P=0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42 +/- 1.73 versus 22.8 +/- 1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.62-1.18]; P=0.001), even during follow-up (10.98 +/- 5.7 versus 13.06 +/- 6.2; mean difference: -2.08 [95% CI, -3.96 to -0.21]; P=0.030). We found no difference in 1-year mortality.