Literature DB >> 19442889

Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of percutaneous and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.

Marie-Annick Clavel1, John G Webb, Philippe Pibarot, Lukas Altwegg, Eric Dumont, Chris Thompson, Robert De Larochellière, Daniel Doyle, Jean-Bernard Masson, Sebastien Bergeron, Olivier F Bertrand, Josep Rodés-Cabau.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to compare the hemodynamic performance of a percutaneous bioprosthesis to that of surgically implanted (stented and stentless) bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.
METHODS: Fifty patients who underwent percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) with the Cribier-Edwards or Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthetic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California) were matched 1:1 for sex, aortic annulus diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, body surface area, and body mass index, with 2 groups of 50 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a stented valve (Edwards Perimount Magna [SAVR-ST group]), or a stentless valve (Medtronic Freestyle, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota [SAVR-SL group]). Doppler echocardiographic data were prospectively obtained before the intervention, at discharge, and at 6- to 12-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Mean transprosthetic gradient at discharge was lower (p < 0.001) in the PAVI group (10 +/- 4 mm Hg) compared with the SAVR-ST (13 +/- 5 mm Hg) and SAVR-SL (14 +/- 6 mm Hg) groups. Aortic regurgitation (AR) occurred more frequently in the PAVI group (mild: 42%, moderate: 8%) compared with the SAVR-ST (mild: 10%, moderate: 0%) and SAVR-SL (mild: 12%, moderate: 0%) groups (p < 0.0001). At follow-up, the mean gradient in the PAVI group remained lower (p < 0.001) than that of the SAVR-ST group, but was similar to that of the SAVR-SL group. The incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower (p = 0.007) in the PAVI group (6%) compared with the SAVR-ST (28%) and SAVR-SL (20%) groups. However, the incidence of AR remained higher (p < 0.0001) in the PAVI group compared with the 2 other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: PAVI provided superior hemodynamic performance compared with the surgical bioprostheses in terms of transprosthetic gradient and prevention of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, but was associated with a higher incidence of AR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19442889     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  44 in total

1.  Transcatheter resection of the native aortic valve prior to endovalve implantation - A rational approach to reduce TAVI-induced complications.

Authors:  Parla Astarci; Pierre-Yves Etienne; Benoit Raucent; Xavier Bollen; Kahn Tranduy; David Glineur; Laurent Dekerchove; Philippe Noirhomme; Gébrine Elkhoury
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2012-07

2.  Patient-prosthesis mismatch after transapical aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Marian Kukucka; Miralem Pasic; Stephan Dreysse; Semih Buz; Thorsten Drews; Alexander Mladenow; Helmut Habazettl; Hermann Kuppe; Axel Unbehaun; Roland Hetzer
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2012-07

3.  Valvular disease: transcatheter aortic valve implantation-time for wider use?

Authors:  Thomas Walther; Michael A Borger
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 4.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch: an update.

Authors:  Jean G Dumesnil; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 5.  TAVI 2012: state of the art.

Authors:  Jochen Reinöhl; Constantin von Zur Mühlen; Martin Moser; Stefan Sorg; Christoph Bode; Manfred Zehender
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.300

6.  Patterns of left ventricular remodeling in aortic stenosis: therapeutic implications.

Authors:  Sammy Elmariah
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2015-07

Review 7.  Aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: mechanisms and implications.

Authors:  Barbara E Stähli; Willibald Maier; Roberto Corti; Thomas F Lüscher; Rolf Jenni; Felix C Tanner
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2013-03

Review 8.  Workup and Management of Patients With Paradoxical Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Mohamed-Salah Annabi; Marine Clisson; Marie-Annick Clavel; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-05-02

Review 9.  Low-gradient aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Marie-Annick Clavel; Julien Magne; Philippe Pibarot
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 10.  Paradoxical low flow and/or low gradient severe aortic stenosis despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implications for diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Jean G Dumesnil; Philippe Pibarot; Blase Carabello
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2009-09-08       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.