Aortic valve stenosis is the most common adult valve disease in industrialized countries. The ageing population and the increase in comorbidities urge the development of safer alternatives to the current surgical treatment. Sutureless bioprosthesis have shown promising results, especially in complex procedures and in patients requiring concomitant surgeries. Objectives: Assess the clinical and hemodynamic performance, safety, and durability of the Perceval ® prosthetic valve. Methods: This single center retrospective longitudinal cohort study collected data of all adult patients with aortic valve disease who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perceval ® prosthetic valve between February 2015 and October 2020. Of the 196 patients included (mean age 77.20±5.08 years; 45.4% female; mean EuroSCORE II 2.91±2.20%), the majority had aortic stenosis. Results: Overall mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 33.31±14.09 and 45.55±19.04 minutes, respectively. Mean ICU and hospital stay were 3.32±3.24 and 7.70±5.82 days, respectively. Procedural success was 98,99%, as two explants occurred. 4 valves were reimplanted due to intra-operative misplacement. Mean transvalvular gradients were 7.82±3.62 mmHg. Pacemaker implantation occurred in 12.8% of patients, new-onset atrial fibrillation in 21.9% and renal replacement support was necessary in 3.1%. Early mortality was 2.0%.  We report no structural valve deterioration, strokes or endocarditis and one successfully treated valve thrombosis. Conclusions: Our study confirms the excellent clinical and hemodynamic performance and safety of a truly sutureless aortic valve, up to 5-year follow-up. These results were consistent in isolated and concomitant interventions, solidifying this device as a viable option for treatment of isolated aortic valve disease.

Background The increase in the prevalence of aortic stenosis due to an aging population has led to an increasing number of surgical aortic valve replacements. Over the past 20 years, there has been a major shift in preference from mechanical to bioprosthetic valves. However, despite efforts, there is still no “ideal” bioprosthesis. It is crucial to understand the structure, biology, and function of native heart valves to design more intelligent, strong, durable and physiological heart valve tissues. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to identify articles reporting the basic mechanisms of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and the biology of native valve cells. Searches were run in PubMed, MEDLINE® and Google Scholar. Search terms included subject heading and keywords for the following terms: “biological heart valve dysfunction”, “bioprosthesis dysfunction”, “bioprosthesis degeneration” and “tissue heart valves” Results All the relevant findings are summarized in specific illustrations and tables within the appropriate subsections. Structural dysfunction is a logical and expected consequence of the chemical, mechanical and immunological processes that occur during fixation, manufacture, and implantation. Conclusion Biological prosthesis valve dysfunction is a clinically significant process. It has become a major issue considering the growing rate of bioprosthesis implantation and improved long-term patient survival. Research on the field has improved in the past few years but there is still not an ideal bioprosthesis. Understanding bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration from a basic science perspective is a key point to improve technologic advances and specifications that lead to new generation of bioprosthesis.