Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

Ioannis Panagiotopoulos; Nikolaos Kotsopoulos; Georgios-Ioannis Verras; Francesk Mulita; Anastasia Katinioti; Efstratios Koletsis; Konstantinos Triantafyllou; John Yfantopoulos

doi:10.5114/kitp.2022.114551

Perceval S, sutureless aortic valve: cost-consequence analysis

Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol. 2022 Mar;19(1):22-27. doi: 10.5114/kitp.2022.114551. Epub 2022 Mar 24.

Authors

Ioannis Panagiotopoulos¹, Nikolaos Kotsopoulos², Georgios-Ioannis Verras³, Francesk Mulita³, Anastasia Katinioti⁴, Efstratios Koletsis¹, Konstantinos Triantafyllou⁵, John Yfantopoulos⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, General University, Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece.
² Division of Health Economics, Global Market Access Solutions, St-Prex, Switzerland.
³ Department of Surgery, General University, Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece.
⁴ Cardiology Unit, Hippokration Hospital, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece.
⁵ Hepatogastroenterology Unit, 2 Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
⁶ MBA - Health Department of Economics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Abstract

Introduction: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have the potential of shortening ischemic time.

Aim: We conducted the present study to assess the clinical and economic impact of the biological, sutureless, self-expanding Perceval S valve since the effect of shortened operative times on hospital costs remains unclear.

Material and methods: This is a retrospective analysis. From January 2018 to January 2019, 29 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with the Crown PRT bioprosthetic Aortic Valve, whereas 35 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with Perceval S (auto-expanded, sutureless, bioprosthesis). Preoperative data, hospital outcome, and health care resource consumption were compared, using χ² and t-test.

Results: Aortic cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and operation times were significantly shorter in the Perceval S group (p < 0.001). Patients in the sutureless group required blood transfusion less frequently (p = 0.03) and had a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.01). Hospital stay (p = 0.57) and pacemaker implantation were similar between groups. The reduction of aortic cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation times, and ICU stay resulted in reduced resource consumption in the sutureless group.

Conclusions: The use of the Perceval S valve is clinically safe and effective. A shorter procedural time in the sutureless group is associated with better clinical outcomes and reduced hospital costs.

Keywords: Perceval S; aortic valve replacement; cost effectiveness; sutureless aortic valve.

Copyright: © 2022 Polish Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons (Polskie Towarzystwo KardioTorakochirurgów) and the editors of the Polish Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (Kardiochirurgia i Torakochirurgia Polska).