Literature DB >> 10660178

Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valves.

D F Del Rizzo1, A Abdoh, P Cartier, D Doty, S Westaby.   

Abstract

The hemodynamic benefits of using stentless valves for replacement of the human aortic valve have become more well known. These devices are associated with significant decrease in left ventricular (LV) mass and LV remodeling in the early postoperative period. However, no large study has examined patient-related and valve-related factors that may contribute to this phenomenon. This study examined 1,103 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a stentless porcine valve (Freestyle = 840, SPV = 263). In all cases, a subcoronary implant technique was used. Valve performance was assessed by serial echocardiograms. At 3 years' post-AVR, mean gradient was 6.3+/-5.0 mm Hg, and effective orifice area (EOA) was 2.0+/-0.7 cm2. Indexed EOA was 1.2+/-0.4 cm2/m2. There was an association between indexed EOA and the extent of LV mass regression. At 3 years after surgery, LV mass index (LVMI) was reduced to 76.3% to 78.7% of baseline in patients whose indexed EOA was >0.8 cm2/m2. In contrast, for patients with an indexed EOA that was <0.8 cm2/m2, LVMI at 3 years was 95.5% of baseline (P = .0001). Multiple linear regression models were used to identify parameters that predicted the 3-year LVMI. Baseline LVMI (P<.0001), prior myocardial infarction (P = .0009), male gender (P = .0036), and carotid stenosis (P = .022) were independent predictors of LV mass regression. Valve type, valve size, preoperative New York Heart Association class symptoms, coronary disease, prior bypass surgery, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or underlying valve pathology had no effect on LV mass regression. Data indicate that baseline LVMI and patient-prosthetic mismatch have major effects on the extent of LV mass regression post-AVR. Long-term hemodynamic benefits of AVR can be optimized by proper selection of the prosthesis so as to avoid mismatch. Furthermore, because the baseline LVMI affects the extent of regression post-AVR, early intervention may result in more complete resolution of LV mass postoperatively, which may have important prognostic implications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10660178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 1043-0679


  15 in total

Review 1.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention.

Authors:  P Pibarot; J G Dumesnil
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-10-26       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Longitudinal strain predicts left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular function.

Authors:  Sandro Gelsomino; Fabiana Lucà; Orlando Parise; Roberto Lorusso; Carmelo Massimiliano Rao; Enrico Vizzardi; Gian Franco Gensini; Jos G Maessen
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  [Risk of perioperative mortality and complications following biological aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: stented vs unstented bioprotheses].

Authors:  J Ennker; I Florath; U Rosendahl; S Bauer; E von Hodenberg; I C Ennker
Journal:  Z Kardiol       Date:  2001-12

4.  Left ventricular mass regression in patients without patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Kohei Hachiro; Takeshi Kinoshita; Tohru Asai; Tomoaki Suzuki
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-08-14

5.  Incidence and impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch following transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Hatim Seoudy; Nathalie Güßefeld; Johanne Frank; Sandra Freitag-Wolf; Georg Lutter; Matthias Eden; Ashraf Yusuf Rangrez; Christian Kuhn; Norbert Frey; Derk Frank
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in the elderly: influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on late survival and left ventricular mass regression.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Kato; Yasushi Tsutsumi; Takahiro Kawai; Tomoyuki Goto; Yosuke Takahashi; Hirokazu Ohashi
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2008-08-13

7.  The Sorin Freedom SOLO stentless tissue valve: early outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Garip Altintas; Adem Ilkay Diken; Onur Hanedan; Okan Yurdakok; Sertan Ozyalcin; Seref Alp Kucuker; Mehmet Ali Ozatik
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2013

8.  Speckle tracking echocardiography derived 2-dimensional myocardial strain predicts left ventricular function and mass regression in aortic stenosis patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Adam Staron; Manish Bansal; Piyush Kalakoti; Ayumi Nakabo; Zbigniew Gasior; Piotr Pysz; Krystian Wita; Marek Jasinski; Partho P Sengupta
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 9.  Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update.

Authors:  Junjiro Kobayashi
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2011-06-02

Review 10.  Clinical and Technical Challenges of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Authors:  Pier Pasquale Leone; Fabio Fazzari; Francesco Cannata; Jorge Sanz-Sanchez; Antonio Mangieri; Lorenzo Monti; Ottavia Cozzi; Giulio Giuseppe Stefanini; Renato Bragato; Antonio Colombo; Bernhard Reimers; Damiano Regazzoli
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-06-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.