<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">WJCS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>World Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-3202</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/wjcs.2022.126009</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">WJCS-118020</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Thrombocytopenia Following Perceval Suture-Less Aortic Valve Implantation
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nael</surname><given-names>Al-Sarraf</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Husain</surname><given-names>Esmaeil</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sara</surname><given-names>Samani</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Moudhi</surname><given-names>Almaie</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ashraf</surname><given-names>Abdelsalam</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jamal</surname><given-names>Al-Fadhli</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Cardiac Surgery, Chest Diseases Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>24</day><month>06</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>06</issue><fpage>119</fpage><lpage>127</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>22,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>24,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Objectives: 
  Thrombocytopenia has been reported following implantation of Perceval suture
  -
  less aortic valve. However, the time course of thrombocytopenia and platelet recovery is unknown. In addition, the effect of thrombocytopenia on post-operative outcome is unknown. We sought to study this observation and correlate that with short
  -
  term outcome.<b> Methods: </b>This is a<b> </b>retrospective review of a prospectively collected database over
   a 
  3-year period of all isolated aortic valve replacements (70 patients) using bioprosthetic valves (sutured Magna and suture
  -
  less Perceval). All preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables were collected and analyzed. Platelets count and mean platelet volumes were collected and analyzed in respect to the type of valve used and their time course. <b>Results: </b>The cohort consisted of 70 consecutive patients of 
  which 
  42 underwent Perceval suture
  -
  less valve (group Perceval) and 28 underwent bioprosthetic sutured valve (group Magna). There was no difference in platelets count and mean platelet volume at baseline. However, Perceval group had significant drop in platelet count from day 1 to day 3 post-operatively, followed by a gradual increase in platelet count until discharge. Mean platelet volume, however, was not different between the two types of valves. Postoperative outcomes were similar in the two groups with exception of intensive care and 
  a 
  hospital stay which were significantly shorter in Perceval group.<b> Conclusion:</b>
  <b> </b>
  Thrombocytopenia following Perceval 
  suture
  -
  less valve is observed from day 1 postoperatively and it is a transient phenomenon. It does not correlate with worse clinical outcomes postoperatively. Larger studies are needed to elucidate the mechanism and its impact.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Thrombocytopenia</kwd><kwd> Perceval</kwd><kwd> Aortic Valve Replacement</kwd><kwd> Suture-Less</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Few studies have observed the high incidence of thrombocytopenia after suture-less Perceval valve implantation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref1">1</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref6">6</xref>]. However, the time course of decline and recovery has not been fully reported previously. In addition, the impact of this thrombocytopenia on clinical outcomes is not clear. As such, we have examined our experience with both suture-less Perceval valve and sutured bioprosthetic valve (Magna) on the platelets count and correlated that with clinical outcomes.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Patients</title><p>This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected departmental database (Cardio science Lifeline EMR, Manorama infosultions Pvt. Ltd. India). All patients who underwent isolated bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the department of cardiac surgery at Chest Diseases hospital in Kuwait from January 2018 to January 2021 were reviewed. A total of 70 consecutive patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of biological valve used (Perceval suture-less valve and Magna bioprosthetic valve). Patients who underwent any combined surgery or isolated AVR using mechanical valve or those requiring redo operations were excluded from the study. All data were collected prospectively in a departmental database through the input of a dedicated database manager. The database was strictly controlled with yearly departmental reports generated of departmental performance for audit purposes. Any missing information and all laboratory blood results were collected by reviewing patients’ charts and accessing hospital laboratory system. Outcome measured studied included postoperative complications, in hospital mortality, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay. This study and the database were both approved by the ministry of health and our institutional review board. Individual patient consent was obtained for entry into the database. However, our review board waived the need for individual patient consent for this study.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Cardiopulmonary Bypass (CPB) and Definitions</title><p>All isolated AVR were performed through sternotomy (either mini sternotomy or full standard sternotomy) with full CPB. Following full anticoagulation with heparin given at a dose of 300 IU/Kg to maintain activated clotting time of 450 - 600 seconds, CPB was instituted using ascending aorta cannulation and two-stage right atrial venous cannulation. A roller pump (Sorin S5) and hollow fiber membrane oxygenator (Sorin Inspire 8F) were used. The extracorporeal circuit was primed with 1200 ml of Plasma-Lyte and 5000 IU of heparin. CPB was maintained with non-pulsatile flow with a minimum flow rate of 2.4 L/min/m<sup>2 </sup>at normothermia with temperature allowed to drift to 34 degrees Celsius. Shed blood was recycled using cardiotomy suction. Acid/base managed with alpha stat control. Myocardial protection was achieved with intermittent antegrade cold blood cardioplegia with/without retrograde cardioplegia in case of significant aortic regurgitation. Left ventricular vent was used in all cases. Following the closure of aortotomy, hot shot warm cardioplegia is given antegrade and aortic cross clamp removed. Heparin was reversed with protamine at 1:1 ratio after weaning from CPB.</p><p>Thrombocytopenia is defined as low platelet count of &lt;140 &#215; 10<sup>9</sup>/L (normal reference range (140 - 400) &#215; 10<sup>9</sup>/L). Renal complications refer to postoperative renal failure that required dialysis or managed conservatively in patients with no prior history of same or patients with pre-existing renal impairment that worsened after surgery requiring new onset dialysis. Neurological complications refer to the incidence of transient ischemic attacks or permanent stroke or reversible ischemic neurological deficits. Pulmonary complications refer to postoperative chest infection, re-intubation, tracheostomy insertion, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory arrest and pleural effusion requiring drainage. In hospital mortality refer to all deaths that occurred within 30 days of surgery.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Valve Implantation Technique</title><p>After transverse aortotomy is made, native aortic valve is de-calcified and debrided followed by irrigation and sizing of the annulus. For Perceval valve, aortotomy is made 1 - 2 cm higher than the level used for Magna valve. Perceval valve is constructed from bovine pericardium fixed in a metal cage made of Nitinol. Currently, 4 sizes are available: small (19 - 21 mm), medium (22 - 23 mm), large (24 - 25 mm) and extra-large (&gt;25 mm) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref7">7</xref>]. To place the valve in position, 3 guiding sutures (4/0 prolene) are placed in the nadir of each cusp of aortic valve. These are then passed through the corresponding loops of the Perceval valve and the prosthesis is then lowered to position. Once the delivery system is in position, the stent is deployed leaving the new valve in place. Then, the delivery system and guiding sutures are removed. The field is rinsed with warm saline and post dilatation balloon is inserted in the valve and dilated for 30 seconds at 4 atmospheric pressure to optimize the area of contact between prosthesis and aortic annulus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref8">8</xref>]. Standard two-layer closure of aortotomy is then made with running 4/0 prolene suture. Trans-esophageal echo is used after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass to assess the new valve and the presence of any para valvular leak.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Data Analysis</title><p>Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 17 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Univariate analysis was used to compare the variables between the two groups. Student t-test was used to compare numerical variables and continuous variables. Fischers Exact test was sued to compare discrete categorical variables. P-value &lt; 0.05 was used as a point of statistical significance in the analysis.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>Our cohort consisted of 70 patients (42 patients with Perceval suture-less valve and 28 patients with Magna bioprosthetic valve). Age ranged from 17 to 82 years old with mean (&#177; SD) of 56.1 &#177; 15.6. There were 35 females and 35 males (50% each). There was one in hospital death in the whole cohort in the Perceval group (1.4% mortality due to pneumonia and sepsis). Preoperative factors and patients’ characteristics are summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. As shown in this table, the two groups were similar in most baseline characteristics with the exception of age, hyperlipidemia and ejection fraction. Patients receiving Magna valve were on average 10 years younger compared to those receiving Perceval valve with lower incidence of dyslipidemia and lower ejection fraction. As expected, aortic cross clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were both significantly shorter in the suture-less Perceval group compared to the sutured Magna valve group reflecting the difference in the implantation technique [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref9">9</xref>].</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the platelet count and mean platelet volume between the two groups. As shown, the mean platelets count at baseline was similar in the two valve groups. However, by day 1 onwards until day 7, the mean platelet counts were significantly lower in the suture-less Perceval valve group than in the Magna</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Preoperative and intra-operative variables among the two groups</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Perceval valve (n = 42)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Magna valve (n = 28)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age (years) Mean &#177; SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.0 &#177; 13.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.3 &#177; 17.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gender Male female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (48%) 22 (52%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (54%) 13 (46%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ejection fraction (%) Mean &#177; SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.1 &#177; 7.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.7 &#177; 13.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CPB time Mean &#177; SD (minutes)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >109.5 &#177; 27.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >138.1 &#177; 33.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cross clamp time Mean &#177; SD (minutes)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.1 &#177; 24.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.8 &#177; 25.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hypertension</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (69%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (57%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diabetes mellitus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (40%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (21%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dyslipidemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (36%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (11%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025 *</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cerebrovascular accident</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Atrial fibrillation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Renal failure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (10%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (14%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ischemic heart disease</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (26%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (11%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >COPD/asthma</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (10%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>SD: standard deviation. N/S: not significant. COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Platelets count and mean platelet volume in the two groups. Data presented as mean &#177; standard deviation</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Perceval valve</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Magna Valve</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline platelet count</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >245.9 &#177; 59.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >255.8 &#177; 77.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet count day 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >105.8 &#177; 45.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >131.5 &#177; 42.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet count day 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.9 &#177; 38.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >122.5 &#177; 44.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet count day 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.6 &#177; 38.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >126.2 &#177; 56.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet count day 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.6 &#177; 44.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >159.9 &#177; 62.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet count day 5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.5 &#177; 73.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >159.6 &#177; 64.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.008*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet count day 6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.4 &#177; 44.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >189.8 &#177; 80.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet count day 7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >125 &#177; 62.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >219 &#177; 108.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baseline mean platelet volume</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.4 &#177; 1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.75 &#177; 1.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean platelet volume day 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.6 &#177; 1.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.42 &#177; 1.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean platelet volume day 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.3 &#177; 1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.60 &#177; 1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean platelet volume day 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.5 &#177; 1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.80 &#177; 1.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03 *</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean platelet volume day 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.7 &#177; 1.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.57 &#177; 1.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean platelet volume day 5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.1 &#177; 1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.49 &#177; 1.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean platelet volume day 6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.9 &#177; 1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.77 &#177; 1.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean platelet volume day 7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.5 &#177; 1.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.49 &#177; 1.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>N/S: not significant.</p><p>sutured valve group. This effect is also shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>(A), where the platelet count dropped significantly until day 3 postoperative and then slowly increased until day 7 and returned to normal levels in follow up period (2 weeks post- operative). In the Magna group, platelet count dropped slightly by day 1 and then remain at plateau until day 4 where they started to increase towards baseline by day 7 and became higher than baseline at follow-up (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>(B)). Mean platelet volume (MPV) was not different between the two groups in most of the time points collected and remained around the level of baseline values. By examining the time curves of MPV in both groups, they remained around the baseline value (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(A) and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(B)).</p><p>In hospital mortality was similar between the two groups (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). In addition, the rate of blood product transfusion (especially platelets) and rate of re-exploration for bleeding were similar between the two types of valves. The postoperative complications were also similar between the two groups. As shown in the table, suture-less Perceval group had significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay compared to the Magna valve. The observed thrombocytopenia in the Perceval valve group had no effect on the rate of postoperative complications when compared to the Magna bioprosthetic valve.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>One of the proposed advantages of the suture-less valves is lack of sewing ring</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Postoperative outcome in the two groups</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Outcome variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Perceval (n = 42)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Magna (n = 28)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-Value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Platelet transfusion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (24%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (36%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fresh frozen plasma transfusion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (29%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (43%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cryoprecipitate transfusion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >In-hospital mortality</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Re-explored for bleeding/tamponade</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of ICU stay (days) Mean &#177; SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1 &#177; 1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.9 &#177; 13.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of hospital stay (days) Mean &#177; SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.7 &#177; 7.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.7 &#177; 14.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Neurological complication</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Atrial fibrillation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (10%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Renal complication</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Permanent pacemaker</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (11%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low cardiac output state</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Respiratory complications</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (10%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sternal Wound infection</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N/S</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>SD: standard deviation. N/S: not significant. ICU: intensive care unit.</p><p>resulting in the implantation of larger size valve and potentially improving valve hemodynamics [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref10">10</xref>]. In addition, both aortic cross clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time are significantly shorter in the suture-less valves compared to the conventional sutured valve resulting in a potential advantage in terms of postoperative complications as we had previously reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref11">11</xref>]. However, there is an increased risk of permanent pacemaker insertion associated with the use of suture-less valves compared to the conventional valves as reported in a recent meta-analysis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref12">12</xref>]. The observation of postoperative thrombocytopenia in the Perceval valve remains a concern and its effect and time course are not well understood.</p><p>Our data are consistent with a study reported previously [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref4">4</xref>]. In that study, the authors had observed a decline of platelet count in suture-less Perceval valve until day 3 with a slight increase by day 5 postoperative and mild improvement at discharge but never reached preoperative levels. Mean platelet volume (MPV) showed significantly increased values in the Perceval vs Intuity suture-less valves post-operatively. However, careful examination of their data also showed that the MPV values of the Perceval subgroup were similar to the baseline preoperative values (as we showed in our study). In addition, they showed by using multivariate analysis that Perceval valve was as independently associated with postoperative thrombocytopenia (compared to Intuity sutures less valve). They also reported that at 1 year the platelet count was not significantly different from preoperative values in the Perceval suture-less valve. Our data were also consistent with another report [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref5">5</xref>]. In their work, thrombocytopenia was also observed post operatively in Perceval valve recipients more than Magna valve recipients. The maximal decline was at day 3 postoperatively with gradual increase from day 4 onwards but still not reaching the baseline on day 7 postoperatively. They also showed no difference in major complications postoperatively among type of valve used although their platelet transfusion was significantly higher in Perceval group when compared to Magna bioprosthetic group.</p><p>The observed thrombocytopenia in the postoperative period following Perceval suture-less valve implantation could be a transient direct toxic effects of these valves on platelets caused by the storage solutions used or the micro hemodynamic effects of the prosthetic structure. It has been reported that the anti-calcification treatment with Homocysteic acid (HCA) was the underlying mechanism for thrombocytopenia associated with Sorin valve (including Sorin S Perceval valve) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118020-ref2">2</xref>]. Our data does correlate with the thrombocytopenia that is observed with Perceval valve and shows that it is a temporary phenomenon with return to normal counts 2 weeks’ post-operative. In addition, lack of correlation between the post-operative outcome and the type of valve used show that the thrombocytopenia is a benign phenomenon.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Limitations</title><p>Although our data were prospectively enrolled in the departmental database, the analysis was a retrospective design which only can raise association rather than casualty. In addition, our sample size of isolated aortic valve surgery enrolled was small (70 patients total). Another limitation is that the platelet counts, and mean platelet volume were measured based on the clinical situation and not consistently in the same exact time points in all patients. However, within these limitations, we believe that our work will shed more light on the observation of thrombocytopenia following Perceval valve implantation and can stimulate more research into the subject.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusion</title><p>Thrombocytopenia occurs following Perceval valve implantation and it is a transient phenomenon with improvement after 3 days post-surgery and full recovery within 2 weeks of surgery. This observation does not seem to have an effect on the postoperative outcomes of patients receiving Perceval valve. This phenomenon is not seen to that extent in the sutured bioprosthetic valve and may be due to the design or the preservation method used in the Perceval valve.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Al-Sarraf, N., Esmaeil, H., Samani, S., Almaie, M., Abdelsalam, A. and Al-Fadhli, J. (2022) Thrombocytopenia Following Perceval Suture-Less Aortic Valve Implantation. World Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 12, 119-127. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjcs.2022.126009</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.118020-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Santarpino, G. and Vogt, F. (2017) Thrombocytopenia after Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation: Does It Really Matter? The Journal of Heart Valve Disease, 26, Article No. 492.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stanger, O., Grabherr, M., Gahl, B., Longnus, S., Meinitzer, A., Fiedler, M., et al. (2017) Thrombocytopaenia after Aortic Valve Replacement with Stented, Stentless and Sutureless Bioprostheses. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 51, 340-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezw295</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Albacker, T.B. (2015) Thrombocytopenia Associated with Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: A Word of Caution. The Heart Surgery Forum, 18, E093-E097. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1324</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jiritano, F., Cristodoro, L., Malta, E, and Mastroroberto, P. (2016) Thrombocytopenia after Sutureless Aortic Valve Implantation: Comparison between Intuity and Perceval Bioprostheses. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 152, 1631-1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.07.054</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mujtaba, S.S., Ledingham, S., Shah, A.R., Schueler, S., Clark, S. and Pillay, T. (2018) Thrombocytopenia after Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparison Between Sutureless Perceval S Valve and Perimount Magna Ease Bioprosthesis. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 33, 169-175. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2017-0157</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sánchez, E., Corrales, J.A., Fantidis, P., Tarhini, I.S., Khan, I., Pineda, T., et al. (2016) Thrombocytopenia after Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval S Sutureless Bioprosthesis. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease, 25, 75-81.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chandola, R., Teoh, K., Elhenawy, A. and Christakis, G. (2015) Perceval Sutureless Valve-Are Sutureless Valves Here? Current Cardiology Reviews, 11, 220-228. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573403X11666141113155744</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miceli, A., Santarpino, G., Pfeiffer, S., Murzi, M., Gilmanov, D., Concistré, G., Quaini, E., Solinas, M., Fischlein, T. and Glauber, M. (2014) Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Perceval S Sutureless Valve: Early Outcomes and One-Year Survival from Two European Centers. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 148, 2838-2843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.02.085</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Laborde, F., Fischlein, T., Hakim-Meibodi, K., Misfeld, M., Carrel, T., Zembala, M., Madonna, F., Meuris, B., Haverich, A. and Shrestha, M., and Cavalier Trial Investigators (2016) Clinical and Haemodynamic Outcomes in 658 Patients Receiving the Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve: Early Results from a Prospective European Multicentre Study (the Cavalier Trial). European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 49, 978-986. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv257</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pollari, F., Santarpino, G., Dell’Aquila, A.M., Gazdag, L., Alnahas, H., Vogt, F., Pfeiffer, S. and Fischlein, T. (2014) Better Short-Term Outcome by Using Sutureless Valves: A Propensity-Matched Score Analysis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 98, 611-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.04.072</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Sarraf, N., Thalib, L., Hughes, A., Houlihan, M., Tolan, M., Young, V., et al. (2011) Cross Clamp Time is an Independent Predictor of Mortality and Morbidity in Low- and High-Risk Cardiac Patients. International Journal of Surgery, 9, 104-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.10.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118020-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hurley, E.T., O’Sullivan, K.E., Segurado, R. and Hurley, J.P. (2015) A Meta-Analysis Examining Differences in Short-Term Outcomes between Sutureless and Conventional Aortic Valve Prostheses. Innovations (Phila), 10, 375-382.https://doi.org/10.1097/imi.0000000000000221</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>