Sternal‐sparing aortic valve replacement with sutureless valve in bicuspid valve

Abstract

Over the last decade, sutureless valves (Perceval, LivaNova PLC) were brought to the market as an alternative to stented valves for patients requiring surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, Perceval demands special steps for implantation, among which we can mention specific training for the surgical team members. Sternal‐sparing cardiac procedures are conceived to limit surgical trauma, but the technical requirements and preoperative planning are more challenging than those for conventional sternotomy. SAVR is frequently carried out through an upper hemisternotomy, but the right anterior thoracotomy (RAT) represents an even less traumatic, technical advancement. In the context of SAVR with RAT, Perceval has been considered the “perfect marriage.” In patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), some surgeons initially avoided the Perceval valve but, with growing experience, the prosthesis has been used for a wide variety of indications. According to an international consensus statement recently published, there are 3 BAV types: the fused BAV, the 2‐sinus BAV and the partial‐fusion BAV, each with specific phenotypes. The 2‐sinus BAV has 2 cusps, roughly equal in size and shape, each cusp occupying 180° of the annular circumference, with only 2 aortic sinuses, resulting in a 2‐sinus/2‐cusp valve without raphe and with 180° commissural angles. Since the elliptic aortic annulus in BAV patients poses a challenge for sutureless valves and the RAT approach has been increasingly adopted for minimally invasive SAVR, our description of the surgical technique focuses on the specific procedural details in the scenario of 2‐sinus BAV laterolateral phenotype.

Multicentre experience of sutureless prostheses inside degenerated stentless aortic valves and bioroots

“…From 2018 to 2023, 17 patients received a Perceval sutureless valve (Corcym UK Limited, London, UK) inside either a degenerated Freestyle prosthesis (Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland) in 15 Patients, inside a failed Bioroot (25 mm Perimount) and a failed Ross procedure in 1 patient, respectively. Procedural steps have been described [ 5 ]. In addition to clinical data, we assessed the combined end-point ‘device success’ by the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-3) [ 6 ].…”