BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The use of stented bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients with a small aortic annulus may result in unsatisfactory hemodynamic performance of the prosthesis. To overcome this limitation, new bioprostheses have been designed for complete supra-annular implantation, but the actual hemodynamic advantage of the supra-annular implant over the intra-annular has not been fully investigated. Accordingly, the hemodynamic performance of the same stented bioprosthesis (except for sewing ring design) implanted in the supra-annular and conventional intra-annular seating was compared. METHODS: Twenty-two patients received an intra-annular implant, and 38 a supra-annular implant. Age (74 +/- 5 versus 76 +/- 5 years, p = 0.54), gender (55% versus 50% males, p = 0.79) and body surface area (1.74 +/- 0.2 versus 1.81 +/- 0.2 m2, p = 0.13) were similar in both subgroups, who underwent echocardiography at 8 +/- 2 and 6 +/- 2 months after surgery, respectively (p = 0.09). RESULTS: The two patient subgroups had similar preoperative left ventricular outflow tract diameters (2.06 +/- 0.2 and 2.1 +/- 0.2 cm; p = 0.62), average size of implanted prosthesis (21.0 and 21.3 mm; p = 0.44) and mean transprosthetic flow rate (246 +/- 70 and 218 +/- 58 ml/s; p = 0.12). Mean (8 +/- 3 and 19 +/- 8 mmHg, p < 0.0001), and peak (17 +/- 6 and 40 +/- 13 mmHg; p < 0.0001) transprosthetic gradients were lower, and mean effective orifice area (EOA) (1.78 +/- 0.4 and 1.45 +/- 0.5 cm2, p = 0.006) was higher in patients with supra-annular implants than in those with intraannular. The incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (EOA index < 0.85 cm2/m2) decreased from 50% to 34% (p < 0.0001), with no case of severe mismatch using the supra-annular implant. During follow up, a left ventricular mass reduction occurred in patients with supra-annular implants (from 225 +/- 110 to 173 +/- 59 g/m2; p < 0.03), but not in patients with intra-annular implants (173 +/- 62 and 186 +/- 64 g/m2; p = 0.87) CONCLUSION: The study results showed that, compared to intra-annular implantation, supra-annular implantation of bioprosthetic stented valves in the aortic position was associated with a significantly better hemodynamic performance of the prosthesis and significant regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The use of stented bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients with a small aortic annulus may result in unsatisfactory hemodynamic performance of the prosthesis. To overcome this limitation, new bioprostheses have been designed for complete supra-annular implantation, but the actual hemodynamic advantage of the supra-annular implant over the intra-annular has not been fully investigated. Accordingly, the hemodynamic performance of the same stented bioprosthesis (except for sewing ring design) implanted in the supra-annular and conventional intra-annular seating was compared. METHODS: Twenty-two patients received an intra-annular implant, and 38 a supra-annular implant. Age (74 +/- 5 versus 76 +/- 5 years, p = 0.54), gender (55% versus 50% males, p = 0.79) and body surface area (1.74 +/- 0.2 versus 1.81 +/- 0.2 m2, p = 0.13) were similar in both subgroups, who underwent echocardiography at 8 +/- 2 and 6 +/- 2 months after surgery, respectively (p = 0.09). RESULTS: The two patient subgroups had similar preoperative left ventricular outflow tract diameters (2.06 +/- 0.2 and 2.1 +/- 0.2 cm; p = 0.62), average size of implanted prosthesis (21.0 and 21.3 mm; p = 0.44) and mean transprosthetic flow rate (246 +/- 70 and 218 +/- 58 ml/s; p = 0.12). Mean (8 +/- 3 and 19 +/- 8 mmHg, p < 0.0001), and peak (17 +/- 6 and 40 +/- 13 mmHg; p < 0.0001) transprosthetic gradients were lower, and mean effective orifice area (EOA) (1.78 +/- 0.4 and 1.45 +/- 0.5 cm2, p = 0.006) was higher in patients with supra-annular implants than in those with intraannular. The incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (EOA index < 0.85 cm2/m2) decreased from 50% to 34% (p < 0.0001), with no case of severe mismatch using the supra-annular implant. During follow up, a left ventricular mass reduction occurred in patients with supra-annular implants (from 225 +/- 110 to 173 +/- 59 g/m2; p < 0.03), but not in patients with intra-annular implants (173 +/- 62 and 186 +/- 64 g/m2; p = 0.87) CONCLUSION: The study results showed that, compared to intra-annular implantation, supra-annular implantation of bioprosthetic stented valves in the aortic position was associated with a significantly better hemodynamic performance of the prosthesis and significant regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.