Successful Reoperation in 3 Cases of Failed Sorin Freedom Stentless Aortic Valve Using the LivaNova Perceval Sutureless Prosthesis.

Reoperations for deteriorated stentless bioprostheses are quite challenging procedures. Calcification of the aortic annulus and of the subcoronary root makes often impossible the removal of the failed valve, living a complex Bentall operation or a high-risk transcatheter aortic valve implantation valve-in-valve procedure as the only options, particularly in cases of small-size prostheses. The Perceval sutureless prosthesis (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) can be a valid alternative for failed stentless valve replacement. We report our experience with 3 complex cases of degenerated Sorin Pericarbon Freedom prosthesis treated successfully by means of Perceval sutureless implantation and demonstrating the reproducibility and the safety of this surgical approach.

Stentless Pericarbon Freedom Versus Stented Perimount Aortic Bioprosthesis: Propensity-Matched Long-Term Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: Stentless aortic valves have shown superior hemodynamic performance and faster left ventricular mass regression compared to stented bioprostheses. Yet, controversies exist concerning the durability of stentless valves. This case-matched study compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes of stentless LivaNova-Sorin Pericarbon Freedom™ (SPF) and stented Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CEP) aortic prostheses. METHODS: From 2003 through 2006, 134 consecutive patients received aortic valve replacement with SPF at our institution. This cohort was matched, according to 20 preoperative clinical parameters, with a control group of 390 patients who received CEP prosthesis during the same time. The resulting 55 + 55 matched patients were analyzed for perioperative results and long-term clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Early mortality was 0% for both groups. Lower transvalvular gradients were found in the SPF group (10.6 ± 2.9 versus 15.7 ± 3.1 mmHg, P < 0.001). Overall late mortality (mean follow-up: 10.03 years) was similar for both groups (50.1% versus 42.8%, P = 0.96). Freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) at 13 years was similar for both groups (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 73.9%, P = 0.06). Freedom from aortic valve reinterventions did not differ (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 93.5%, P = 0.55). Gradients at 13-year follow-up remained significantly lower in SPF group (10.0 ± 4.5 versus 16.2 ± 9.5 mmHg, P < 0.001). Incidence of acute bacterial endocarditis (ABE) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: SPF and CEP demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes related to late mortality, SVD, aortic valve reinterventions, and incidence of ABE and MACCE. Superior hemodynamic performance of SPF over time can make this valve a suitable choice in patients with small aortic root and large body surface area.