Literature DB >> 26920726

Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch?

Erik Beckmann1, Andreas Martens1, Firas Alhadi1, Klaus Hoeffler1, Julia Umminger1, Tim Kaufeld1, Samir Sarikouch1, Nurbol Koigeldiev1, Serghei Cebotari1, Jan Dieter Schmitto1, Axel Haverich1, Malakh Shrestha2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic annulus may result in patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can reduce PPM, but leads to extended cardiac ischaemia times. Sutureless valves have the potential to prevent PPM while reducing cardiac ischaemia times.
METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2011, a total of 128 patients with a small aortic annulus underwent surgery for aortic valve stenosis at our centre. Thirty-six (17% male, n = 6) patients received conventional valve replacement with ARE and 92 (16% male, n = 18) subjects received sutureless valve implantation (Sorin Perceval). We conducted a comparative, retrospective study with follow-up.
RESULTS: The sutureless group showed a significantly higher age (79 years) than the ARE patients (62 years, P < 0.001) and received significantly more concomitant cardiac procedures (33%, n = 30 vs 6%, n = 2, P = 0.001). The mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were significantly lower in sutureless patients (147 ± 42, 67 ± 26 and 35 ± 13 min, respectively) than in ARE patients (181 ± 41, 105 ± 29 and 70 ± 19 min, respectively, P < 0.001). The mean postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to the body surface area was 0.91 ± 0.2 cm(2)/m(2) in ARE patients and 0.83 ± 0.14 cm(2)/m(2) in sutureless patients (P = 0.040). The rate of patients with severe PPM was 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients and 11% (n = 8%) in sutureless patients (not significant, n.s.). The 30-day mortality rates were 2% (n = 2) in sutureless patients and 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients (n.s.). The 1- and 5-year survival rates of the sutureless group were 92 and 54% years, respectively, whereas the 1- and 5-year survival rates of the ARE group were 76% (n.s.).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the sutureless valve patients received significantly more concomitant procedures, all operation-associated times were significantly shorter. Despite sutureless valve patients being older, the 30-day mortality and survival rates were comparable in the two groups. Since the indexed EOA was only slightly lower and the incidence of severe PPM was not significantly higher in the sutureless valve patients, we conclude that sutureless valve implantation is an alternative to conventional ARE to treat a small aortic annulus and avoid PPM, especially in geriatric patients who benefit from the quick implantation process.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic root enlargement; Aortic valve replacement; Patient–prosthesis mismatch; Sorin Perceval; Sutureless valves

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26920726      PMCID: PMC4986785          DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivw041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  13 in total

1.  Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions.

Authors:  Cary W Akins; D Craig Miller; Marko I Turina; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; Eugene H Blackstone; Gary L Grunkemeier; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Tirone E David; Eric G Butchart; David H Adams; David M Shahian; Siegfried Hagl; John E Mayer; Bruce W Lytle
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 4.191

2.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with self-anchoring Perceval valve.

Authors:  Malakh Shrestha; Rebecca Timm; Klaus Höffler; Nurbol Koigeldiyev; Nawid Khaladj; Christian Hagl; Axel Haverich; Samir Sarikouch
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2013-03

3.  Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on hemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic heart valve.

Authors:  P Pibarot; J G Dumesnil; M Lemieux; P Cartier; J Métras; L G Durand
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  1998-03

4.  Sutureless Perceval S aortic valve replacement: a multicenter, prospective pilot trial.

Authors:  Malakh Shrestha; Thierry Folliguet; Bart Meuris; Alain Dibie; Christoph Bara; Marie-Christine Herregods; Nawid Khaladj; Christian Hagl; Willem Flameng; Francois Laborde; Axel Haverich
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2009-11

Review 5.  Aortic root enlargement does not increase the surgical risk and short-term patient outcome?

Authors:  Gonçalo F Coutinho; Pedro M Correia; Gonçalo Paupério; Ferrão de Oliveira; Manuel J Antunes
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 4.191

6.  Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future?

Authors:  Malakh Shrestha; Ilona Maeding; Klaus Höffler; Nurbol Koigeldiyev; Georg Marsch; Thierry Siemeni; Felix Fleissner; Axel Haverich
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-07-12

7.  Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement predominantly affects patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction: effect on survival, freedom from heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression.

Authors:  Marc Ruel; Hussam Al-Faleh; Alexander Kulik; Kwan L Chan; Thierry G Mesana; Ian G Burwash
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 5.209

8.  Heart disease and stroke statistics--2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

Authors:  Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert Adams; Mercedes Carnethon; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Katherine Flegal; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Yuling Hong
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 9.  The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Authors:  S H Rahimtoola
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  The effective orifice area/patient aortic annulus area ratio: a better way to compare different bioprostheses? A prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount bioprostheses in the aortic position.

Authors:  Walter B Eichinger; Florian Botzenhardt; Ralf Guenzinger; Sabine Bleiziffer; Alexandra Keithahn; Robert Bauernschmitt; Ruediger Lange
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2004-05
View more
  10 in total

1.  eComment: Aortic-root enlargement procedures: an invaluable surgical technique.

Authors:  Christos Tourmousoglou; Antonis Pitsis; Nikolaos Nikoloudakis; Dimitrios Dougenis
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-06

2.  Optimising the Haemodynamics of Aortic Valve-in-valve Procedures.

Authors:  Ren Jie Yao; Matheus Simonato; Danny Dvir
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2017-05

Review 3.  Aortic valve replacement and prosthesis-patient mismatch in the era of trans-catheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Shigeki Morita
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2016-05-27

Review 4.  Recent advances in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

Authors:  Ahmed Al-Adhami; Nawwar Al-Attar
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-10-20

Review 5.  Recent advances in aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Cristiano Spadaccio; Khalid Alkhamees; Nawwar Al-Attar
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-07-22

6.  Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on 1-Year Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Meta-analysis of 71,106 Patients.

Authors:  Michel Pompeu Barros Oliveira Sá; Luiz Rafael Pereira Cavalcanti; Felipe Augusto Santos Sarargiotto; Álvaro Monteiro Perazzo; Sérgio da Costa Rayol; Roberto Gouveia Silva Diniz; Frederico Browne Correia Araújo Sá; Alexandre Motta Menezes; Ricardo Carvalho Lima
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-06-01

Review 7.  Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Mohammad Yousuf Salmasi; Sruthi Ramaraju; Iqraa Haq; Ryan A B Mohamed; Taimoor Khan; Faruk Oezalp; George Asimakopoulos; Shahzad G Raja
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 1.778

8.  Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis.

Authors:  Horea Feier; Andrei Grigorescu; Lucian Falnita; Oana Rachita; Marian Gaspar; Constantin T Luca
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with a mini upper sternotomy.

Authors:  Siobhan Chien; Callum Clark; Saumya Maheshwari; Charilaos-Panagiotis Koutsogiannidis; Vipin Zamvar; Vincenzo Giordano; Kelvin Lim; Renzo Pessotto
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 1.637

10.  Early evaluation of the aortic root after Nicks' procedure.

Authors:  Ujjwal Kumar Chowdhury; Sukhjeet Singh; Niwin George; Suruchi Hasija; Lakshmikumari Sankhyan; Niraj Nirmal Pandey; Sanjoy Sengupta; Mani Kalaivani
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2020-08-13
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.