Expert review of medical devices · 2026
Fifteen years of Perceval use, comparison in early outcomes between Perceval S and Perceval PLUS.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Szecel Delphine, Lamberigts Marie, Rega Filip, Verbrugghe Peter, Dubois Christophe, Meuris Bart
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the sutureless Perceval PLUS aortic valve was introduced, featuring a new anticalcification treatment (FREE) and a shorter inflow ring in the XL size. We aimed to evaluate its early outcomes compared to earlier Perceval S design.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1136 patients who received the Perceval bioprosthesis between 2007 and 2022, including 222 implanted with the Perceval PLUS. Patients implanted with the Perceval S were divided into two groups (S-OLD and S-NEW) depending on the sizing strategy. Survival, hemodynamic performance, and pacemaker implantation rates were assessed.
RESULTS: The cohort had a mean age of 77 years and a EuroSCORE II of 6.3%. The observed 30-day mortality was similar across groups (3.7%, p = .326). Perceval PLUS demonstrated significantly improved hemodynamics, with lower peak (20.44 ± 8.95 mmHg) and mean gradients (11.44 ± 5.12 mmHg) compared to the S design (p < .001). A permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate of 5.3% was achieved in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in the PLUS group.
CONCLUSION: Early results from the Perceval PLUS show a secure profile with maintained benefits from the Perceval platform. The Perceval PLUS shows improved hemodynamics in comparison with the Perceval S and achieves low PPI rate.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1136 patients who received the Perceval bioprosthesis between 2007 and 2022, including 222 implanted with the Perceval PLUS. Patients implanted with the Perceval S were divided into two groups (S-OLD and S-NEW) depending on the sizing strategy. Survival, hemodynamic performance, and pacemaker implantation rates were assessed.
RESULTS: The cohort had a mean age of 77 years and a EuroSCORE II of 6.3%. The observed 30-day mortality was similar across groups (3.7%, p = .326). Perceval PLUS demonstrated significantly improved hemodynamics, with lower peak (20.44 ± 8.95 mmHg) and mean gradients (11.44 ± 5.12 mmHg) compared to the S design (p < .001). A permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rate of 5.3% was achieved in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in the PLUS group.
CONCLUSION: Early results from the Perceval PLUS show a secure profile with maintained benefits from the Perceval platform. The Perceval PLUS shows improved hemodynamics in comparison with the Perceval S and achieves low PPI rate.