PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and hospital costs of using sutureless aortic valves vs conventional stented aortic valves.METHODS: Between 2007 and 2011, 52 elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in our center had a sutureless valve inserted. From among 180 patients who had a stented valve inserted during the same period, 52 patients were matched to the sutureless group, based on age, gender, and operation type. We compared clinical outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups.RESULTS: The sutureless group had a higher Euroscore (logistic Euroscore I) risk (12,8 vs 9,7; p = 0,02), with significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (p<0,01), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (p<0,01), intensive care unit stay (p<0,01), intubation time (p<0,01), and overall hospital stay (p=0.05). The sutureless group also revealed a significant hospital cost saving of approximately 8200 (p=0,01).CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of using the sutureless bioprosthesis were excellent. The reduced ACC and CPB times had a favorable effect on the duration of intubation and intensive care stay, resulting not only in faster recovery and discharge home, but also in a significant hospital cost reduction.