Literature DB >> 27641297

Management of small aortic annulus in the era of sutureless valves: A comparative study among different biological options.

Aly Ghoneim1, Ismail Bouhout1, Philippe Demers1, Amine Mazine1, Mary Francispillai1, Ismail El-Hamamsy1, Michel Carrier1, Yoan Lamarche1, Denis Bouchard2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with a small aortic annulus is a challenging problem. The objective of this study was to compare 4 surgical approaches in terms of hemodynamics and perioperative outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective single-center study included 351 consecutive patients with a small aortic annulus (≤21 mm) who underwent aortic valve surgery between January 2007 and December 2014. Surgical techniques included standard AVR in 259 (74%) patients, aortic root enlargement in 20 (6%), implantation of a stentless bioprosthesis in 23 (6%), and sutureless AVR in 49 (13%).
RESULTS: Three hundred and eleven (89%) patients were female. The mean Logistic EuroSCORE II varied significantly among the groups and ranged from 6.5% ± 5.4% in the standard AVR group to 9.2% ± 4.7% in the stentless group. Early mortality occurred in 26 (7%) patients. Patients in the stentless group had the lowest aortic valve mean gradients on predischarge transthoracic echocardiography (10.9 ± 6.2 mm Hg; P < .001). In the stented group, the Trifecta prosthesis displayed the lowest postoperative mean transaortic gradient (10.3 ± 3.6; P < .001) with no severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Postoperative gradients of the sutureless group were comparable with stented prostheses.
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, stentless AVR and Trifecta bioprostheses had the best hemodynamic outcomes. The Perceval sutureless prosthesis provides reasonable hemodynamic performance and is a safe alternative.
Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic annulus; aortic valve replacement; prothesis-patient mismatch; stentless prostheses; sutureless prostheses

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27641297     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  4 in total

Review 1.  Surgical Treatment of Valvular Heart Disease: Overview of Mechanical and Tissue Prostheses, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Implications for Clinical Use.

Authors:  Amy G Fiedler; George Tolis
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-02-05

2.  Impact of Non-Valvular Non-Coronary Concomitant Procedures on Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate Risk Patients.

Authors:  Fanar Mourad; Ali Haddad; Janine Nowak; Mohamed Elbarraki; Yacine Elhmidi; Marinela Jasarevic; Philipp Marx; Ender Demircioglu; Daniel Wendt; Matthias Thielmann; Bastian Schmack; Arjang Ruhparwar; Sharaf-Eldin Shehada
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-11-28       Impact factor: 4.241

3.  Severe mitral valve insufficiency caused by standard surgical aortic valve implantation and its reparation using suture-less prosthesis.

Authors:  Mahmoud Al-Obeidallah; Kohut Marián; Milan Štengl
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2022-06-18       Impact factor: 1.522

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.