Literature DB >> 17532416

Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after stented and stentless aortic valve replacement: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Ayyaz Ali1, James C Halstead, Fay Cafferty, Linda Sharples, Fiona Rose, Evelyn Lee, Rosemary Rusk, John Dunning, Vincenzo Argano, Steven Tsui.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stentless aortic bioprostheses were shown to be hemodynamically superior to earlier generations of stented bioprostheses. Modern stented valve designs have improved hemodynamics. A prospective randomized controlled trial was undertaken to compare stentless versus modern stented valves. Our aim was to determine any differences in early postoperative clinical and hemodynamic outcomes.
METHODS: Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (n = 161) undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized intraoperatively to receive either the C-E Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) pericardial stented bioprosthesis (n = 81) or the Prima Plus (Edwards Lifesciences) (porcine stentless bioprosthesis (n = 80). Transthoracic echocardiograms were performed at one week and eight weeks postoperatively to assess left ventricular mass (LVM) and transvalvular gradients (TVG).
RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. Cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times were longer in the stentless group. Despite similar native aortic annular diameters, the mean size of the prosthesis used in the stentless group was 2.1 mm (SD = 2.8) larger (p < 0.001). Early (30-day) mortality (stentless 3.7% vs stented 2.5%; p = 0.68) and morbidity was similar between groups. Eight weeks postoperatively, LVM (stentless 199 +/- 70 vs stented 204 +/- 66 grams; p = 0.32) and TVG decreased in both groups (mean systolic gradient; stentless 10 +/- 3 vs stented 10 +/- 4 mm Hg; p = 0.54) but there was no significant difference between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer ischemic times in the stentless group, early postoperative outcomes were similar. Both stented and stentless aortic valve replacement offers excellent hemodynamics and can be achieved with low perioperative mortality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17532416     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.01.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  6 in total

Review 1.  A look at recent improvements in the durability of tissue valves.

Authors:  Takahiro Nishida; Ryuji Tominaga
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-01-24

Review 2.  Biological aortic valve replacement: advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented valve substitutes. A review.

Authors:  Reza Tavakoli; Pichoy Danial; Ahmed Hamid Oudjana; Peiman Jamshidi; Max Gassmann; Pascal Leprince; Guillaume Lebreton
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-01-10

3.  Aortic valve reconstruction with use of pericardial leaflets in adults with bicuspid aortic valve disease: early and midterm outcomes.

Authors:  Meong Gun Song; Hyun Suk Yang; Jong Bum Choi; Je Kyoun Shin; Hyun Keun Chee; Jun Seok Kim
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2014-12-01

4.  Stented bioprostheses in aortic position.

Authors:  J Cremer; J Schöttler; R Petzina; G Hoffmann
Journal:  HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth       Date:  2012

Review 5.  Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update.

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

6.  A propensity matched analysis of outcomes and long term survival in stented versus stentless valves.

Authors:  Blake N Shultz; Tomasz Timek; Alan T Davis; John Heiser; Edward Murphy; Charles Willekes; Robert Hooker
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 1.637

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.