MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study
Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study
Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study
Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study
Journal Article

Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study

2024
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) is an alternative to conventional AVR (cAVR) for aortic stenosis. Benefits include a reduction in operative times, facilitation of minimal access surgery and superior haemodynamics compared to conventional valves. However, further evidence is required to inform guidelines, preferably in the form of propensity-matched studies that include mid-term follow-up data. Methods This was a single-centre, retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study comparing the Perceval and conventional Perimount Magna Ease valve for short- and mid-term clinical parameters and size-matched mid-term echocardiographic parameters ( n  = 102 in both groups) from 2014 to 2020. Data were extracted from a nationally managed dataset. Results There were no demographic differences between the matched groups. The Perceval group had shorter cross-clamp time (Perceval 62 [49–81] minutes; Perimount 79 [63–102] minutes, P  < 0.001), shorter bypass time (Perceval 89 [74–114] minutes; Perimount 104 [84–137] minutes, P  < 0.001), and more frequent minimally-invasive approaches (Perceval 28%; Perimount 5%, P  < 0.001). Size-matched haemodynamics showed initially higher gradients in the Perceval group, but haemodynamics equalised at 12 + months. The Perceval group had a more favourable % change in the left ventricular posterior wall dimension at 2 + years (Perceval − 4.8 ± 18; Perimount 17 ± 2). Conclusions The Perceval facilitated shorter operations, which may benefit intermediate-high-risk, elderly patients with comorbidities requiring concomitant procedures. It also facilitated minimally invasive surgery. Size-matched haemodynamic performance was similar at mid-term follow-up, with the Perceval possibly better facilitating regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.