Literature DB >> 22895641

Differences in performance of five types of aortic valve prostheses: haemodynamic assessment by dobutamine stress echocardiography.

Jeffrey P Khoo1, Joan E Davies, Keng Leong Ang, Manuel Galiñanes, Derek T Chin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In patients being considered for aortic valve replacement, there remains controversy over which design or tissue offers the best performance. We aimed to evaluate in a single study the haemodynamic performances of five different widely used aortic valve prostheses: stentless porcine xenograft (Elan), stentless bovine pericardium (Pericarbon Freedom), stented porcine xenograft (Aspire), stented bovine pericardium (More) and mechanical (Ultracor). We also compared them with normal aortic valves and stenosed valves of variable severity. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Preoperative echocardiography and dobutamine stress echocardiography at 1 year postoperatively were undertaken in 106 patients (n=18-24 from each group). Stentless bioprostheses, whether porcine or bovine, displayed superior haemodynamics across nearly all echocardiographic parameters: lower gradients, larger effective orifice area, higher dimensionless severity index (DSI) and lower resistance, when compared with stented or mechanical prostheses. Comparing both stented designs, bovine tissue performed the worst at rest, but with stress, there was no difference. The stress performances of the stentless bioprostheses were similar to the mildly stenosed native aortic valve, whereas the performances of the stented and mechanical prostheses resembled that of native valves with mild-to-moderate stenoses. Haemodynamic differences, however, did not translate into differences in left ventricular mass reduction at 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS: Stentless bioprostheses displayed haemodynamics superior to stented or mechanical prostheses and had the closest performance to a normal, native aortic valve. Stress DSI data, least reliant on variable annulus/valve sizes and flow rates, provided the best haemodynamic discrimination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22895641     DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302256

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  2 in total

Review 1.  Current status and future perspectives of prosthetic valve selection for aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Hiroshi Furukawa; Kazuo Tanemoto
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-05-31

2.  Mechanical versus Tissue Aortic Prosthesis in Sexagenarians: Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Jongbae Son; Yang Hyun Cho; Dong Seop Jeong; Kiick Sung; Wook Sung Kim; Young Tak Lee; Pyo Won Park
Journal:  Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-04-05
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.