BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospectively randomized study was to evaluate the hemodynamic and functional outcomes after aortic valve replacement with 3 different bileaflet mechanical valves. METHODS AND RESULTS:Three hundred consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive ATS (n=100), Carbomedics (n=100), or St Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus (n=100) mechanical aortic valve replacement. There were no significant differences regarding patient age (average 61+/-8 years), body surface area (1.9+/-0.2 m(2)), left ventricular function (ejection fraction 0.59+/-0.17), and presence of aortic stenosis (90%, 89%, and 91%), respectively. All patients had postoperative as well as 6-month and 1-year follow-ups that included transthoracic echocardiography. Multivariate statistical analysis was performed. Implanted valve sizes were comparable at 24+/-2 (ATS), 23.7+/-1.6 (CM), and 23.6+/-1.9 (SJMHP) mm (NS). At 1-year follow-up, the following incidence of events was noted: death 3/1/1, all non-valve related; stroke 0/1/1; trivial transvalvular incompetence 3/3/2; paravalvular leak 2/3/2; and reoperation 0/1/1, respectively (NS). Transvalvular flow velocities were 2.5/2.6/2.4 m/s postoperatively (P:=0.03) and 2.4/2.4/2.3 m/s at 6-month follow-up, respectively (NS). There was a significant decrease in left ventricular mass for all patients but no significant differences among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinically relevant differences among the tested bileaflet aortic valves. Regardless of valve type, there was a low complication rate. On the basis of these findings, all 3 bileaflet prostheses are well suited for aortic valve replacement.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospectively randomized study was to evaluate the hemodynamic and functional outcomes after aortic valve replacement with 3 different bileaflet mechanical valves. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive ATS (n=100), Carbomedics (n=100), or St Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus (n=100) mechanical aortic valve replacement. There were no significant differences regarding patient age (average 61+/-8 years), body surface area (1.9+/-0.2 m(2)), left ventricular function (ejection fraction 0.59+/-0.17), and presence of aortic stenosis (90%, 89%, and 91%), respectively. All patients had postoperative as well as 6-month and 1-year follow-ups that included transthoracic echocardiography. Multivariate statistical analysis was performed. Implanted valve sizes were comparable at 24+/-2 (ATS), 23.7+/-1.6 (CM), and 23.6+/-1.9 (SJMHP) mm (NS). At 1-year follow-up, the following incidence of events was noted: death 3/1/1, all non-valve related; stroke 0/1/1; trivial transvalvular incompetence 3/3/2; paravalvular leak 2/3/2; and reoperation 0/1/1, respectively (NS). Transvalvular flow velocities were 2.5/2.6/2.4 m/s postoperatively (P:=0.03) and 2.4/2.4/2.3 m/s at 6-month follow-up, respectively (NS). There was a significant decrease in left ventricular mass for all patients but no significant differences among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinically relevant differences among the tested bileaflet aortic valves. Regardless of valve type, there was a low complication rate. On the basis of these findings, all 3 bileaflet prostheses are well suited for aortic valve replacement.
Authors: Sven Lehmann; Thomas Walther; Sergey Leontyev; Jörg Kempfert; Ardawan Rastan; Volkmar Falk; Friedrich W Mohr Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 5.460