Purpose: Perceval sutureless valves have gained popularity. Whether this implant performs superior to the traditional sutured prosthesis remains unclear. This meta- analysis compared the Perceval implants versus the sutured conventional valves for aortic valve replacement (AVR).
Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The following databases were accessed: PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE. All clinical investigations comparing Perceval versus the conventional prostheses for AVR were considered.
Results: The Perceval group demonstrated higher rate of pacemaker implantation (P <0.00001). Aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (P <0.00001) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (P <0.00001) were shorter in the Perceval group. Similarity was found in mean and peak pressure gradient (P = 0.8 and P = 0.2, respectively), mean aortic valve area (P = 0.3), length of intensive care unit (P = 0.4) and hospital stay (P = 0.2), rate of revision (P = 0.11), hemorrhages (P = 0.05), paravalvular leak (P = 0.3), cerebrovascular complication (P = 0.7), and early mortality (P = 0.06).
Conclusion: Given the shorter ACC time and CPB time, Perceval AVR can be an alternative in high-risk patients. The higher rate of pacemaker implantation following Perceval may limit its routine implantation.
Keywords: Perceval; aortic valve; bioprothesis; conventional; sutureless.