Home > Journals > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2018 April;66(2) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2018 April;66(2):180-90



Publication history
Cite this article as


A Journal on Heart and Vascular Diseases

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,695




Minerva Cardioangiologica 2018 April;66(2):180-90

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4725.17.04564-9


language: English

Stentless sutureless and transcatheter valves: a comparison of the hemodynamic performance of different prostheses concept

Alberto REPOSSINI 1 , Theodor FISCHLEIN 2, Marco SOLINAS 3, Lorenzo DI BACCO 1, Bruno PASSARETTI 4, Herko GRUBITZSCH 5, Thierry FOLLIGUET 6, Giuseppe SANTARPINO 7, Roberto DI BARTOLOMEO 8, François LABORDE 9, Claudio MUNERETTO 1

1 University of Brescia, Clinical Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy; 2 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University of Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany; 3 Monasterio Foundation Heart Hospital, Massa, Massa-Carrara, Italy; 4 Cliniche Humanitas Gavazzeni Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy; 5 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 6 CHU de Nancy, Nancy, France; 7 Città di Lecce Hospital, GVM Care and Research, Lecce, Italy; 8 University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 9 Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France


BACKGROUND: Stentless aortic valves have been developed to overcome obstructive limitations associated with stented bioprostheses. A new concept of surgical sutureless (SU) bioprosthesis has been developed in the last decade. In this multi-institutional study we sought to compare hemodynamics of different bioprosthesis concept as transcatheter (TAVR), Livanova Perceval S sutureless valve and Freedom Solo Stentless (FS) valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (sAVR).
METHODS: From 2010 to 2016, 478 patients underwent sAVR with FS, 518 Perceval S and 367 patients underwent TAVR. After a propensity matched analysis 185 patients in each group were selected. Thirty-day postoperative clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated. Echocardiographic hemodynamic data were also collected at 12 and 24 months.
RESULTS: Mean prosthesis diameter was 23.8±1.3 mm for FS, 23.2±2.1 mm for Perceval S and 25.1±2.6 mm for TAVR. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% for FS, 1.9% for Perceval, 5.8% for TAVR (P=0.02). Postoperative FS peak gradients were 15.6±9.1 mmHg (mean 7.6±5.4 mmHg); SU gradients were 18.7±9.1 mmHg (mean 10.9±5.4 mmHg), TAVR peak gradients were 14.7±9.1 mmHg (mean 6.1±5.4 mmHg) P=0.018 (P<0.001). Postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.94±0.7 cm² for FS, 1.6±0.7 cm² for SU and 1.97±0.7cm² for TAVR (P<0.001). There was no prostheses-patient-mismatch (PPM) in FS group, while 4 cases and 2 cases are reported in SU and TAVR respectively. Postoperative grade 2-3 paravalvular leak (PVL) was present in 4.3% for TAVR and 0.5% in SU valves and no cases in FS. Postoperative permanent pacemaker implant rate was 11.9% for TAVR (1.0%) in FS group and 5.4% in SU valves (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: SU patients demonstrated post-operative excellent hemodynamic performance with smaller EROA and higher gradients compared to FS and TAVR. TAVR demonstrated higher mortality and pacemaker rates. Further studies are warrented to validate TAVR indications in this subset of patients.

KEY WORDS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement - Venous valves - Hemodynamics - Prostheses and implants

top of page

Publication History

Issue published online: March 5, 2018
Article first published online: November 20, 2017
Manuscript accepted: November 14, 2017
Manuscript received: November 7, 2017

Cite this article as

Repossini A, Fischlein T, Solinas M, Di Bacco L, Passaretti B, Grubitzsch H, et al. Stentless sutureless and transcatheter valves: a comparison of the hemodynamic performance of different prostheses concept. Minerva Cardioangiol 2018;66:180-90. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4725.17.04564-9

Corresponding author e-mail