BACKGROUND: A new quadricusp stentless mitral bioprosthetic valve (QMV) is evaluated and compared with current standards. METHODS AND RESULTS: Since August 1997, 67 patients were prospectively evaluated: 23 patients received a QMV, 23 had mitral valve repair (MVR), and 21 received conventional mitral valve replacement (MVP). Patient age was 69+/-8, 64+/-10, and 62+/-9 years for QMV, MVR, and MVP treatment, respectively. The underlying pathology was mitral stenosis, incompetence, and mixed disease in a corresponding 8, 9, and 6 patients for QMV, 1, 22, and 0 patients for MVR, and 2, 12, and 7 patients for MVP. The papillary muscles were sufficient in all QMV cases to suspend the valve. Cross-clamp time was 59+/-19 minutes for QMV implantation. In-hospital mortality for QMV, MVR, and MVP was 1, 0, and 0 patients, respectively, and thoracotomy had to be performed again in 1, 1, and 2 patients, respectively (these outcomes were not valve related). At baseline transthoracic echocardiography, respective maximum flow velocities were 1.6, 1.4, and 1.7 m/s, and valve orifice area was 2.6, 3.5, and 3.4 cm(2). Mild transvalvular reflux was seen in 8, 7, and 2 patients; moderate reflux, in 1, 1, and 1 patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 52%, 54%, and 51% in the respective treatment groups. At follow-up, hemodynamic parameters had further improved in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: One year after clinical implantation, the QMV appears to function well and has no additional risks compared with MVR or MVP. The subvalvular apparatus is preserved by suspending the QMV at the papillary muscles; this arrangement is hemodynamically advantageous. Echocardiography reveals an excellent valve performance that resembles native mitral valve morphology and hemodynamic function. The QMV is a promising alternative for biological mitral valve replacement.
BACKGROUND: A new quadricusp stentless mitral bioprosthetic valve (QMV) is evaluated and compared with current standards. METHODS AND RESULTS: Since August 1997, 67 patients were prospectively evaluated: 23 patients received a QMV, 23 had mitral valve repair (MVR), and 21 received conventional mitral valve replacement (MVP). Patient age was 69+/-8, 64+/-10, and 62+/-9 years for QMV, MVR, and MVP treatment, respectively. The underlying pathology was mitral stenosis, incompetence, and mixed disease in a corresponding 8, 9, and 6 patients for QMV, 1, 22, and 0 patients for MVR, and 2, 12, and 7 patients for MVP. The papillary muscles were sufficient in all QMV cases to suspend the valve. Cross-clamp time was 59+/-19 minutes for QMV implantation. In-hospital mortality for QMV, MVR, and MVP was 1, 0, and 0 patients, respectively, and thoracotomy had to be performed again in 1, 1, and 2 patients, respectively (these outcomes were not valve related). At baseline transthoracic echocardiography, respective maximum flow velocities were 1.6, 1.4, and 1.7 m/s, and valve orifice area was 2.6, 3.5, and 3.4 cm(2). Mild transvalvular reflux was seen in 8, 7, and 2 patients; moderate reflux, in 1, 1, and 1 patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 52%, 54%, and 51% in the respective treatment groups. At follow-up, hemodynamic parameters had further improved in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: One year after clinical implantation, the QMV appears to function well and has no additional risks compared with MVR or MVP. The subvalvular apparatus is preserved by suspending the QMV at the papillary muscles; this arrangement is hemodynamically advantageous. Echocardiography reveals an excellent valve performance that resembles native mitral valve morphology and hemodynamic function. The QMV is a promising alternative for biological mitral valve replacement.
Authors: Bhuyan Ritwick; Krishanu Chaudhuri; Gareth Crouch; James R M Edwards; Michael Worthington; Robert G Stuklis Journal: Minim Invasive Surg Date: 2013-12-05