Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 68(02): 114-123
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675847
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Sutureless versus Stented Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized PERSIST-AVR Study Design

Roberto Lorusso
1   Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart and Vascular Centre, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC + ), Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
Thierry Folliguet
2   Chirurgie Cardiaque & Transplantation, Assistance Publique, Hôpital, Henri Mondor, Université Paris 12 UPEC, France
,
Malakh Shrestha
3   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
,
Bart Meuris
4   Cardiac Surgery Department, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Arie Pieter Kappetein
5   Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Eric Roselli
6   Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
,
Catherine Klersy
7   Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Lombardia, Italy
,
Michele Nozza
8   LivaNova Plc, London, United Kingdom
,
Luc Verhees
8   LivaNova Plc, London, United Kingdom
,
Cristina Larracas
8   LivaNova Plc, London, United Kingdom
,
Giovanni Goisis
8   LivaNova Plc, London, United Kingdom
,
Theodor Fischlein
9   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Klinikum Nürnberg, Paracelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 August 2018

08 October 2018

Publication Date:
29 November 2018 (online)

Abstract

Introduction Sutureless biological valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), characterized by the absence of anchoring sutures at the aortic annulus, are gaining popularity because of ease and reproducibility of implant, shorter operating times, and enhancement of minimally invasive approaches. The stentless configuration of the sutureless valve was designed to achieve optimal hemodynamic performance.

Materials and Methods PERSIST-AVR (PERceval Sutureless Implant versus STandard Aortic Valve Replacement) is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label, international, postmarket trial (NCT02673697). The primary objective of the trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of the Perceval (LivaNova, London, UK) sutureless bioprosthesis among patients undergoing SAVR in the presence of severe aortic stenosis to demonstrate the noninferiority of Perceval as compared with standard sutured stented bioprosthetic aortic valve as an isolated procedure or combined with coronary artery bypass grafting. Sample size will be determined adaptively through interim analyses performed by an Independent Statistical Unit till a maximum of 1,234 patients, enrolled at ∼60 sites in countries where the device is commercially available. Patients will be followed up for 5 years after implant. The primary end point is the number of patients free from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular-related events at 1 year. Additional secondary outcomes will be assessed up to 5 years.

Discussion PERSIST-AVR is the first prospective, randomized study comparing in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes in a robust population of patients undergoing SAVR with either the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis or a conventional sutured stented bioprosthesis up to 5 years.

 
  • References

  • 1 Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F. , et al; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG); Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42 (04) S1-S44
  • 2 Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO. , et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63 (22) 2438-2488
  • 3 Martin E, Dagenais F, Voisine P. , et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement outcomes in the transcatheter era. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150 (06) 1582-1588
  • 4 Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Stamato NJ. , et al. Utilization and 1-year mortality for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement in New York patients with aortic stenosis: 2011 to 2012. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (06) 578-585
  • 5 Holzhey D, Mohr FW, Walther T. , et al. Current results of surgical aortic valve replacement: insights from the German Aortic Valve Registry. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101 (02) 658-666
  • 6 Barnett SD, Ad N. Surgery for aortic and mitral valve disease in the United States: a trend of change in surgical practice between 1998 and 2005. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (06) 1422-1429
  • 7 ISTHMUS Investigators. The Italian study on the Mitroflow postoperative results (ISTHMUS): a 20-year, multicentre evaluation of Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 39 (01) 18-26 , discussion 26
  • 8 Anselmi A, Flécher E, Ruggieri VG. , et al. Long-term results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (06) 1884-1891
  • 9 David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability?. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90 (03) 775-781
  • 10 Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N. , et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99 (04) 1239-1247
  • 11 Grubitzsch H, Wang S, Matschke K. , et al. Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 804 patients receiving the Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve: results from an international prospective multicentre study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 47 (03) e97-e104
  • 12 Repossini A, Rambaldini M, Lucchetti V. , et al. Early clinical and haemodynamic results after aortic valve replacement with the Freedom SOLO bioprosthesis (experience of Italian multicenter study). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 41 (05) 1104-1110
  • 13 Lorusso R, Gelsomino S, Renzulli A. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: an alternative to transcatheter aortic valve implantation?. Curr Opin Cardiol 2013; 28 (02) 158-163
  • 14 Phan K, Tsai YC, Niranjan N. , et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4 (02) 100-111
  • 15 Pollari F, Santarpino G, Dell'Aquila AM. , et al. Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98 (02) 611-616 , discussion 616–617
  • 16 Rubino AS, Santarpino G, De Praetere H. , et al. Early and intermediate outcome after aortic valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis: results of a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 148 (03) 865-871 , discussion 871
  • 17 Meuris B, Flameng WJ, Laborde F, Folliguet TA, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Five-year results of the pilot trial of a sutureless valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150 (01) 84-88
  • 18 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF. , et al; CONSORT. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2012; 10 (01) 28-55
  • 19 Broglio KR, Connor JT, Berry SM. Not too big, not too small: a goldilocks approach to sample size selection. J Biopharm Stat 2014; 24 (03) 685-705
  • 20 Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Généreux P. , et al; Valve Academic Research Consortium-2. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145 (01) 6-23