Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Technology: The Sutureless Valve Prostheses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Management of Aortic Pathology

  • 1631 Accesses

Abstract

The sutureless concept of aortic valve implantation was developed in the early 1960s; however, this approach fell out of favour due to frequent valve-related thromboembolic complications and severe paravalvular leakage. More recently, with the advent of bovine pericardial valve prostheses, new sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses have been reintroduced based on modern experience with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. There are two types of sutureless and rapid deployment aortic prostheses currently available on the market: the Perceval™ (LivaNova, Saluggia, Italy) and the Intuity Elite™ (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif., USA) valves. By avoiding the placement and tying of sutures, sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has shown to minimize operative times and facilitate minimally invasive approaches. Moreover, current evidence suggests that sutureless and rapid deployment valves provide excellent haemodynamic results. Nevertheless, there is still a paucity of robust evidence on long-term SU-AVR outcomes; thus, to adequately assess the encouraging haemodynamic profile and the durability of these prostheses, further clinical trials are warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, Delahaye F, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Levang OW, Tornos P, Vanoverschelde J-L, Vermeer F, Boersma E. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1231–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Osnabrugge RLJ, Mylotte D, Head SJ, Van Mieghem NM, Nkomo VT, LeReun CM, Bogers AJJC, Piazza N, Kappetein AP. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1002–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ross J, Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. Circulation. 1968;38:61–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JAH, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sundt TM, Bailey MS, Moon MR, Mendeloff EN, Huddleston CB, Pasque MK, Barner HB, Gay WA. Quality of life after aortic valve replacement at the age of >80 years. Circulation. 2000;102:S70–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. Survival in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis is dramatically improved by aortic valve replacement: results from a cohort of 277 patients aged 80 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30:722–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Collart F, Feier H, Kerbaul F, Mouly-Bandini A, Riberi A, Mesana TG, Metras D. Valvular surgery in octogenarians: operative risks factors, evaluation of Euroscore and long term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;27:276–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Iung B, Cachier A, Baron G, Messika-Zeitoun D, Delahaye F, Tornos P, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Boersma E, Ravaud P, Vahanian A. Decision-making in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis: why are so many denied surgery? Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2714–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Magovern GJ, Cromie HW. Sutureless ürpsthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1963;46:726–36.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Magovern GJ, Liebler GA, Park SB, Burkholder JA, Sakert T, Simpson KA. Twenty-five-year review of the Magovern-Cromie sutureless aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;48:S33–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Phan K, Tsai YC, Niranjan N, Bouchard D, Carrel TP, Dapunt OE, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:100–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Flameng W, Herregods MC, Hermans H, Van der Mieren G, Vercalsteren M, Poortmans G, Van Hemelrijck J, Meuris B. Effect of sutureless implantation of the Perceval S aortic valve bioprosthesis on intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ranucci M, Frigiola A, Menicanti L, Castelvecchio S, de Vincentiis C, Pistuddi V. Aortic cross-clamp time, new prostheses, and outcome in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2012;21:732–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo A, Candolfi P, Mirza A, Loardi C, May M, El-Khoury R, Marchand M, Aupart M. Very long-term outcomes of the carpentier-edwards perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:831–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Sarraf N, Thalib L, Hughes A, Houlihan M, Tolan M, Young V, McGovern E. Cross-clamp time is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in low- and high-risk cardiac patients. Int J Surg. 2011;9:104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Salis S, Mazzanti VV, Merli G, Salvi L, Tedesco CC, Veglia F, Sisillo E. Cardiopulmonary bypass duration is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2008;22:814–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pollari F, Santarpino G, Dell’Aquila AM, Gazdag L, Alnahas H, Vogt F, Pfeiffer S, Fischlein T. Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:611–6. discussion 616-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistré G, Grossmann I, Hinzmann M, Fischlein T. The Perceval S aortic valve has the potential of shortening surgical time: does it also result in improved outcome? Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shrestha M, Folliguet TA, Pfeiffer S, Meuris B, Carrel T, Bechtel M, Flameng WJ, Fischlein T, Laborde F, Haverich A. Aortic valve replacement and concomitant procedures with the Perceval valve: results of European trials. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1294–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eichstaedt HC, Easo J, Härle T, Dapunt OE. Early single-center experience in sutureless aortic valve implantation in 120 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:370–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chandola R, Teoh K, Elhenawy A, Christakis G. Perceval sutureless valve—are sutureless valves here? Curr Cardiol Rev. 2015;11:220–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrari E, Siniscalchi G, Marinakis S, Berdajs D, von Segesser L. ‘Fast-implantable’ aortic valve implantation and concomitant mitral procedures. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19:682–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Forcillo J, Bouchard D, Nguyen A, Perrault L, Cartier R, Pellerin M, Demers P, Stevens LM, Carrier M. Perioperative outcomes with sutureless versus stented biological aortic valves in elderly persons. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:1629–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cosgrove DM, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:596–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Phan K, Xie A, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1499–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:670–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Phan K, Zhou JJ, Niranjan N, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:15–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lim JY, Deo SV, Altarabsheh SE, Jung SH, Erwin PJ, Markowitz AH, Park SJ. Conventional versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: pooled analysis of propensity-matched data. J Card Surg. 2015;30:125–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. König KC, Wahlers T, Scherner M, Wippermann J. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve in comparison with the stented Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 2014;23:253–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wahlers TCW, Haverich A, Borger MA, Shrestha M, Kocher AA, Walther T, et al. Early outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:1639–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Borger MA, Moustafine V, Conradi L, Knosalla C, Richter M, Merk DR, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilbring M, Alexiou K, Schumann E, Matschke K, Tugtekin SM. Isolated aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus-a high-risk group on long-term follow-up. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;61:379–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Guenzinger R, Bleiziffer S, Wagner I, Bauernschmitt R, Lange R. Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of the complete supraannular perimount magna bioprosthesis in the aortic position. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;53:226–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Botzenhardt F, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, Guenzinger R, Wagner IM, Bauernschmitt R, Lange R. Hemodynamic comparison of bioprostheses for complete supra-annular position in patients with small aortic annulus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:2054–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Rajappan K, Rimoldi OE, Camici PG, Bellenger NG, Pennell DJ, Sheridan DJ. Functional changes in coronary microcirculation after valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2003;107:3170–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Beckmann E, Martens A, Alhadi F, Hoeffler K, Umminger J, Kaufeld T, et al. Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22:744–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kocher AA, Laufer G, Haverich A, Shrestha M, Walther T, Misfeld M, et al. One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:110–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Martens S, Sadowski J, Eckstein FS, Bartus K, Kapelak B, Sievers H-H, Schlensak C, Carrel T. Clinical experience with the ATS 3f Enable® Sutureless Bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:749–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Folliguet TA, Laborde F, Zannis K, Ghorayeb G, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Sutureless perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centers. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1483–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Shrestha M, Maeding I, Höffler K, Koigeldiyev N, Marsch G, Siemeni T, Fleissner F, Haverich A. Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17:778–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Shalabi A, Spiegelstein D, Sternik L, Feinberg MS, Kogan A, Levin S, Orlov B, Nachum E, Lipey A, Raanani E. Sutureless versus stented valve in aortic valve replacement in patients with small annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:118–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Andreas M, Wallner S, Habertheuer A, Rath C, Schauperl M, Binder T, et al. Conventional versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a single-centre comparison between the Edwards Magna valve and its rapid-deployment successor. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;

    Google Scholar 

  44. Dedeilias P, Baikoussis NG, Prappa E, Asvestas D, Argiriou M, Charitos C. Aortic valve replacement in elderly with small aortic root and low body surface area; the Perceval S valve and its impact in effective orifice area. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;11:54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shrestha M, Fischlein T, Meuris B, Flameng W, Carrel T, Madonna F, et al. European multicentre experience with the sutureless Perceval valve: clinical and haemodynamic outcomes up to 5 years in over 700 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:234–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistrè G, Fischlein T. REDO aortic valve replacement: the sutureless approach. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013;22:615–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Fischlein T. Perceval sutureless approach in a patient with porcelain aorta unsuitable for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Cardiol. 2012;155:168–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Folliguet TA, Laborde F. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve replacement in aortic homograft. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:1866–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nguyen A, Fortin W, Mazine A, Bouchard D, Carrier M, El Hamamsy I, Lamarche Y, Demers P. Sutureless aortic valve replacement in patients who have bicuspid aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:851–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gersak B, Fischlein T, Folliguet TA, Meuris B, Teoh KH, Moten SC, et al. Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an International Expert Consensus Panel. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:709–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sievers H-H, Schmidtke C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133:1226–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Jessl J, DellAquila AM, Pollari F, Pauschinger M, Fischlein T. Sutureless replacement versus transcatheter valve implantation in aortic valve stenosis: a propensity-matched analysis of 2 strategies in high-risk patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:561–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Vogt F, Pfeiffer S, Dell’Aquila AM, Fischlein T, Santarpino G. Sutureless aortic valve replacement with Perceval bioprosthesis: are there predicting factors for postoperative pacemaker implantation? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22:253–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Cao C, Ang SC, Indraratna P, Manganas C, Bannon P, Black D, Tian D, Yan TD. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:10–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Nemoto S, Endo M, Kitamura M, Hirata K, Hatta M, Nakano S, Hashimoto A, Koyanagi H. Sutureless aortic valve replacement for peri-annular pseudoaneurysm and perivalvular leakage due to prosthetic valve endocarditis. Kyobu Geka. 1993;46:710–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gupta P, McCormack DJ, Szczeklik M, Ambekar S, Lall KS. Infected calcified homograft root: a sutureless solution. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:1789–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Fleissner F, Molitoris U, Shrestha M, Martens A. Stent distortion after sutureless aortic valve implantation: a new complication seen with a novel surgical technique. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20:436–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Di Eusanio M, Saia F, Pellicciari G, Phan K, Ferlito M, Dall’Ara G, Di Bartolomeo R, Marzocchi A. In the era of the valve-in-valve: is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in sutureless valves feasible? Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:214–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Miceli A, Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Murzi M, Gilmanov D, Concistré G, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve: early outcomes and one-year survival from two European centers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2838–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Haverich A, Wahlers TC, Borger MA, Shrestha M, Kocher AA, Walther T, et al. Three-year hemodynamic performance, left ventricular mass regression, and prosthetic-patient mismatch after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in 287 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2854–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Gilmanov D, Miceli A, Ferrarini M, Farneti P, Murzi M, Solinas M, Glauber M. Aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy: can sutureless technology improve clinical outcomes? Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1585–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Voigtländer T, Kahlert P, Erbel R, Mehta RH. Risk of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:129–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Généreux P, Webb JG, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, Satler LF, Fearon WF, et al. Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1043–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Gotzmann M, Bojara W, Lindstaedt M, Ewers A, Bösche L, Germing A, et al. One-year results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:1687–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, et al. PARTNER 2 Investigators. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Ailawadi G, LaPar DJ, Speir AM, Ghanta RK, Yarboro LT, Crosby IK, Lim DS, Quader MA, Rich JB. Contemporary costs associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched cost analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:154–60. discussion 160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rosato S, Santini F, Barbanti M, Biancari F, D’Errigo P, Onorati F, et al. OBSERVANT Research Group. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. D’Onofrio A, Salizzoni S, Rubino AS, Besola L, Filippini C, Alfieri O, et al. Italian Transcatheter Balloon-Expandable Registry and the Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation Research Groups. The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: a comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:99–109.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Jessl J, Dell’Aquila A, Vogt F, von Wardenburg C, et al. Clinical outcome and cost analysis of sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation with propensity score matching analysis. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1737–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiac Surgery Unit, Ospedali Riuniti, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Paolo Berretta

  2. Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Marco Di Eusanio & Marco Di Eusanio

Authors
  1. Paolo Berretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Di Eusanio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Di Eusanio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fmr Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

    Olaf H. Stanger

  2. Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

    John R. Pepper

  3. Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Lars G. Svensson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Berretta, P., Di Eusanio, M. (2019). New Technology: The Sutureless Valve Prostheses. In: Stanger, O., Pepper, J., Svensson, L. (eds) Surgical Management of Aortic Pathology. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4874-7_58

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4874-7_58

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-4872-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-4874-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation