SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
The Use of Perceval Valves in Older Patients: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Infective Endocarditis in Perceval Sutureless Valves: Incidence, Diagnostic Challenges, and Management: An Expert Opinion Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Perceval device is a sutureless, rapid-deployment valve designed to shorten aortic cross-clamp (ACC) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, with the aim of improving postoperative outcomes in older, high-risk patients. Methods: A systematic review was conducted for full articles published between 2020 and 2024, comparing the Perceval valve with conventionally sutured valves, with a focus on preoperative and operative data, as well as postoperative outcomes. Single-arm series were retained for the same purpose. Articles with at least 100 valves were included. Results: A total of six propensity score-matched series and four randomized controlled trials were identified after removing articles with data from the same patient population. Consequently, age and risk scores were comparable. The use of a minimally invasive approach and the association of other procedures, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), varied depending on the research design. Adverse postoperative events were comparable for both valve types, except for the development of conduction defects, which required the implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM). The initial PPM implantation rate was higher for the Perceval valve, as shown in 5 of the 14 comparative series; however, this rate decreased after the adaptation of surgical techniques. A meta-analysis showed that the CPB and ACC times were significantly shorter using the Perceval valve, at 14.9 (8.2-21.5) minutes and 16.6 (12.1-21.2) minutes, respectively. Platelet counts after implantation were lower with no clinical consequences, and the hemodynamic performance of the Perceval device was acceptable and stable over time. The survival and durability of the Perceval valve were also acceptable, with a reoperation rate of 1% at the 5-year follow-up. Conclusions: The Perceval valve appears to be a suitable alternative for older, high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Notably, the Perceval valve is associated with shorter surgical times and could facilitate the advantage of minimally invasive surgery. The need for postoperative PPM implantation remains an issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.