BACKGROUND: The hemodynamic performance of aortic replacement prostheses is of extreme importance. There is renewed interest in hemodynamics because of the influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression and the potential influence on survival. METHODS: The hemodynamic performance of the second-generation Carpentier-Edwards supraannular porcine and pericardial (Perimount) bioprostheses and the third-generation Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis were compared for mean gradient and effective orifice area index. The effective orifice area index of at least 0.85 cm2/M2 was considered as lack of prosthesis-patient mismatch. The study group included included 53 patients with Carpentier-Edwards supraannular porcine, 48 with pericardial, and 98 with Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprostheses. RESULTS: The mean gradients were not different between the prostheses by prosthesis size. The Medtronic Mosaic was not provided in size 19. The mean gradients for the prostheses, except in the very large sizes, were all double-digit values. The effective orifice area index was not different between the prostheses but there was a trend toward prosthesis-patient mismatch in smaller size prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: There was no apparent hemodynamic advantage between porcine and pericardial bioprostheses in the aortic position.
BACKGROUND: The hemodynamic performance of aortic replacement prostheses is of extreme importance. There is renewed interest in hemodynamics because of the influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression and the potential influence on survival. METHODS: The hemodynamic performance of the second-generation Carpentier-Edwards supraannular porcine and pericardial (Perimount) bioprostheses and the third-generation Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis were compared for mean gradient and effective orifice area index. The effective orifice area index of at least 0.85 cm2/M2 was considered as lack of prosthesis-patient mismatch. The study group included included 53 patients with Carpentier-Edwards supraannular porcine, 48 with pericardial, and 98 with Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprostheses. RESULTS: The mean gradients were not different between the prostheses by prosthesis size. The Medtronic Mosaic was not provided in size 19. The mean gradients for the prostheses, except in the very large sizes, were all double-digit values. The effective orifice area index was not different between the prostheses but there was a trend toward prosthesis-patient mismatch in smaller size prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: There was no apparent hemodynamic advantage between porcine and pericardial bioprostheses in the aortic position.
Authors: Jesse Habets; Ricardo P Budde; Petr Symersky; Renee B van den Brink; Bas A de Mol; Willem P Mali; Lex A van Herwerden; Steven A Chamuleau Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Martin Andreas; Stephanie Wallner; Kurt Ruetzler; Dominik Wiedemann; Marek Ehrlich; Georg Heinze; Thomas Binder; Anton Moritz; Michael J Hiesmayr; Alfred Kocher; Guenther Laufer Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 4.191