Objective: Sutureless aortic valves are an effective option for aortic valve replacement (AVR) showing non-inferiority to standard stented aortic valves for major cardiovascular and cerebral events at 1-year. We report the 1-year hemodynamic performance of the sutureless prostheses compared with standard aortic valves, assessed by a dedicated echocardiographic core lab.Methods: Perceval Sutureless Implant vs. Standard Aortic Valve Replacement (PERSIST-AVR) is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients undergoing AVR, as an isolated or combined procedure, were randomized to receive a sutureless [sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR)] (n = 407) or a stented sutured [surgical AVR (SAVR)] (n = 412) bioprostheses. Site-reported echocardiographic examinations were collected at 1 year. In addition, a subgroup of the trial population (Su-AVR n = 71, SAVR = 82) had a complete echocardiographic examination independently assessed by a Core Lab (MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington D.C., USA) for the evaluation of the hemodynamic performance.Results: The site-reported hemodynamic data of stented valves and sutureless valves are stable and comparable during follow-up, showing stable reduction of mean and peak pressure gradients through one-year follow-up (mean: 12.1 ± 6.2 vs. 11.5 ± 4.6 mmHg; peak: 21.3 ± 11.4 vs. 22.0 ± 8.9 mmHg). These results at 1-year are confirmed in the subgroup by the core-lab assessed echocardiogram with an average mean and peak gradient of 12.8 ± 5.7 and 21.5 ± 9.1 mmHg for Su-AVR, and 13.4 ± 7.7 and 23.0 ± 13.0 mmHg for SAVR. The valve effective orifice area was 1.3 ± 0.4 and 1.4 ± 0.4 cm² at 1-year for Su-AVR and SAVR. These improvements are observed across all valve sizes. At 1-year evaluation, 91.3% (n = 42) of patients in Su-AVR and 82.3% in SAVR (n = 51) groups were free from paravalvular leak (PVL). The rate of mild PVL was 4.3% (n = 2) in Su-AVR and 12.9% (n = 8) in the SAVR group. A similar trend is observed for central leak occurrence in both core-lab assessed echo groups.Conclusion: At 1-year of follow-up of a PERSIST-AVR patient sub-group, the study showed comparable hemodynamic performance in the sutureless and the stented-valve groups, confirmed by independent echo core lab. Perceval sutureless prosthesis provides optimal sealing at the annulus with equivalent PVL and central regurgitation extent rates compared to sutured valves. Sutureless valves are therefore a reliable and essential technology within the modern therapeutic possibilities to treat aortic valve disease.

Background: An unexplained condition that follows transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is platelet count reduction (PR). According to published research, patients with balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) had a greater PR than those with self-expandable valves (SEVs). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence and clinical effects of PR following TAVI. Methods: In total, 1.122 adult TAVI patients were enrolled. Propensity score matching was carried out in a 1:1 ratio between patients with BEVs and those with SEVs. The analysis included changes in platelet count, in-hospital mortality, and early postoperative adverse events. Results: Notably, 632 patients were matched (BEV:316; SEV:316). All patients’ post-procedural platelet counts changed according to a parabolic curve, using a mixed regression model for repeated analyses (estimate = −0.931; standard error = 0.421; p = 0.027). The platelet count varied comparably in patients with BEVs and SEVs (estimate = −4.276, standard error = 4.760, p = 0.369). The average time for obtaining the nadir platelet count value was three days after implantation (BEV: 146 (108–181) vs. SEV: 149 (120–186); p = 0.142). Overall, 14.6% of patients (92/632) had post-procedural platelet count <100,000/µL. There was no difference between the two prosthesis types (BEV:51/316; SEV:41/316; p = 0.266). Thrombocytopenia was found to be significantly linked to blood product transfusions, lengthier stays in the intensive care unit and hospital, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: TAVI, irrespective of the type of implanted valve, is linked to a significant but temporary PR. Thrombocytopenia increases the risk of serious complications and in-hospital death in TAVI patients. To explore and clarify the causes and associated effects, further prospective research is necessary.

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment bioprosthesis guarantees good hemodynamic results but carries the risk of paravalvular leaks. To address this issue, an annulus stabilization technique has been recently developed. Methods: Clinical and hemodynamic parameters from patients treated for aortic valve replacement with the rapid deployment bioprosthesis and a concomitant annulus stabilization technique were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Echocardiographic data at discharge and at 1-year follow-up were collected and analysed. Results: A total of 57 patients (mean age 74.3 ± 6.1 years) with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement with the rapid deployment bioprosthesis and concomitant annulus stabilization technique (mean valve size: 23.8 ± 1.9 mm). Combined procedures accounted for 56.1%. Hospital mortality was 1.8% and a new pacemaker for conduction abnormalities was implanted in 10 patients. The pre-discharge echocardiographic control showed absence of paravalvular leaks of any degree in all patients with mean valve gradient of 9.6 ± 4.0 mmHg. The 1-year echocardiographic control confirmed the good valve hemodynamic (mean gradient of 8.0 ± 2.8 mmHg) and absence of leaks. Conclusion: In this preliminary clinical experience, the annulus stabilization technique prevents postoperative paravalvular leaks after rapid deployment aortic valve implantation, up to 1-year postoperatively. Studies on larger series are of paramount importance to confirm the long-term efficacy of this new surgical technique.

Aims of the Study: We evaluated the clinical outcome and the hemodynamic and freedom from structural valve degeneration of two standard aortic bioprostheses. Methods: Clinical results, echocardiographic findings and follow-up data of patients operated for isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with the Perimount or the Trifecta bioprosthesis were prospectively collected, retrospectively analysed and compared. We weighted all the analyses by the inverse of the propensity of choosing either valves. Results: Between April 2015 and December 2019, 168 consecutive patients (all comers) underwent aortic valve replacement with Trifecta (n = 86) or Perimount (n = 82) bioprostheses. Mean age was 70.8 ± 8.6 and 68.8 ± 8.6 years for the Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (p = 0.120). Perimount patients presented a greater body mass index (27.6 ± 4.5 vs. 26.0 ± 4.2; p = 0.022), and 23% of them suffered from angina functional class 2–3 (23.2% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.002). Mean ejection fraction was 53.7 ± 11.9% (Trifecta) and 54.5 ± 10.4% (Perimount) (p = 0.994), with mean gradients of 40.4 ± 15.9 mmHg (Trifecta) and 42.3 ± 20.6 mmHg (Perimount) (p = 0.710). Mean EuroSCORE-II was 7 ± 11% and 6 ± 9% for the Trifecta and Perimount group, respectively (p = 0.553). Trifecta patients more often underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (45.3% vs. 26.8%; p = 0.016) and annulus enlargement (10.5% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.058). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 3.5% (Trifecta) and 8.5% (Perimount), (p = 0.203) while new pacemaker implantation (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) and stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) were similar. Acute MACCE were observed in 5% (Trifecta) and 9% (Perimount) of patients with an unweighted OR of 2.22 (95%CI 0.64–7.66; p = 0.196) and a weighted OR of 1.10 (95%CI: 0.44–2.76, p = 0.836). Cumulative survival at 24 months was 98% (95%CI: 0.91–0.99) and 96% (95%CI: 0.85–0.99) for Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (log-rank test; p = 0.555). The 2-year freedom from MACCE was 94% (95%CI: 0.65–0.99) for Trifecta and 96% (95%CI: 0.86–0.99) for Perimount (log-rank test; p = 0.759, HR 1.46 (95%CI: 0.13–16.48)) in the unweighted analysis (not estimable in the weighted analysis). During the follow-up (median time: 384 vs. 593 days; p = 0.0001) there were no re-operations for structural valve degeneration. Mean valve gradient at discharge was lower for Trifecta across all valve sizes (7.9 ± 3.2 vs. 12.1 ± 4.7 mmHg; p < 0.001), but the difference did not persist during follow-up (8.2 ± 3.7 mmHg for Trifecta, 8.9 ± 3.6 mmHg for Perimount; p = 0.224); Conclusions: Postoperative outcome and mid-term follow-up were similar. An early better hemodynamic performance was detected for the Trifecta valve but did not persist over time. No difference in the reoperation rate for structural valve degeneration was found.