Mehmet ŞENGÖRVeysel BAŞARTaylan ADADEMİRDavut ÇEKMECELİOĞLUOsman TÜREFatih ÖZTÜRKHızır Mete ALP2024-05-252024-05-2520202149-298010.5578/khj.69779https://doi.org/10.5578/khj.69779https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/425181/comparison-of-perioperative-results-of-sutureless-and-conventional-valves-in-aortic-valve-replacement-surgeryhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/1891Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the early and midterm results of sutureless and conventional bioprosthetic valves in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) due to aortic stenosis.Patients and Methods: Patients who underwent a bioprosthetic AVR due to aortic stenosis in our institutionbetween 2012 and 2017 were included in our study. The patients were divided into two groups on the basisof type of aortic valve prosthesis used as a sutureless valve (SU-AVR) (n= 62) and a conventional valve (CAVR) (n= 69).Results: The EuroSCORE II in the sutureless group was found to be significantly higher as compared to theconventional group (p= 0.0121). Patients in the sutureless group underwent more mini-incisional approaches:22 (36%) versus 4 (6%, p= 0.0002). The mean aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time weresignificantly lower in the sutureless group as compared to the conventional one (53.8 ± 34.2 vs. 79.2 ± 36.3minutes and 87.5 ± 40.7 vs. 117.4 ± 66.3 minutes, p< 0.0001). The mean follow-up time was 19.5 ± 15.7months in the sutureless group and 28.0 ± 21.0 months in the conventional group. The overall survival rate ofthe sutureless and the conventional group was found to be 72.6% and 78.3%, respectively, (p= 0.253) whenKaplan-Meier analysis was done.Conclusion: Although SU-AVR patients are found to have a higher preoperative risk score compared to theconventional group, yet it can be performed with comparable mortality and morbidity to C-AVR. Therefore, SUAVR is a promising alternative to C-AVR, especially in elderly and high-risk patients with comorbid diseases.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArticle0