Literature DB >> 28890465

Hemodynamics of Pericardial Aortic Valves: Contemporary Stented versus Stentless Valves in a Matched Comparison.

Torsten Christ, Sebastian Holinski, Konstantin Zhigalov1, Christina Barbara Zielinski1, Herko Grubitzsch1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Hemodynamic performance of aortic valve bioprostheses is essential for reliable function and durability. So far, the supra-annularly implanted stentless Sorin Freedom Solo (SFS) demonstrated unsurpassed hemodynamic properties. As contemporary stented and externally mounted pericardial bioprostheses, like the Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP), also improve hemodynamic performance, these types of valves were compared in this study.
METHODS: A total of 218 patients, who underwent aortic valve replacement with the LDP or the SFS, were matched retrospectively 1:1 on variables affecting hemodynamic measurements: implanted valve size, age, sex, and body surface area (BSA). With matching tolerance for valve size and gender of 0%, for age and BSA of 5%, 57 patient-pairs were yielded. Operative data, clinical, and hemodynamic outcome were analyzed.
RESULTS: Except for slightly higher left ventricular function and lower procedural times in the SFS group, preoperative, operative, and postoperative characteristics of patient-pairs did not differ significantly. Mean pressure gradients, effective orifice areas (EOAs), and indexed EOAs were comparable. Corresponding to valve sizes of 21, 23, 25, and 27 mm, the indexed EOAs of the LDP and SFS prostheses were 1.08 ± 0.33, 0.92 ± 0.19, 0.93 ± 0.24, 0.99 ± 0.13 cm2/m2 and 0.81 ± 0.13, 0.92 ± 0.28, 0.95 ± 0.20, 1.04 ± 0.27 cm2/m2, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Contemporary stented and stentless pericardial bioprostheses showed excellent hemodynamic properties without significant differences in EOAs and indexed EOAs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biological prosthesis; echocardiography; hemodynamics; valve replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28890465      PMCID: PMC5738451          DOI: 10.5761/atcs.oa.17-00061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 1341-1098            Impact factor:   1.520


  17 in total

1.  Prospectively randomized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biological aortic valves: impact on early regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.

Authors:  T Walther; V Falk; G Langebartels; M Krüger; U Bernhardt; A Diegeler; J Gummert; R Autschbach; F W Mohr
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1999-11-09       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention.

Authors:  P Pibarot; J G Dumesnil
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Operative technique and early hemodynamic results with the Freedom Solo valve.

Authors:  Sven Beholz; Benjamin Claus; Simon Dushe; Wolfgang Konertz
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2006-05

4.  ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Authors:  Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; Kanu Chatterjee; Antonio C de Leon; David P Faxon; Michael D Freed; William H Gaasch; Bruce Whitney Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Patrick T O'Gara; Robert A O'Rourke; Catherine M Otto; Pravin M Shah; Jack S Shanewise; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Elliott M Antman; Valentin Fuster; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Bruce W Lytle; Rick Nishimura; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Meta-analysis of valve hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression for stentless versus stented aortic valves.

Authors:  Babu Kunadian; Kunadian Vijayalakshmi; Andrew R Thornley; Mark A de Belder; Steven Hunter; Simon Kendall; Richard Graham; Michael Stewart; Jeetendra Thambyrajah; Joel Dunning
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Ayyaz Ali; James C Halstead; Fay Cafferty; Linda Sharples; Fiona Rose; Richard Coulden; Evelyn Lee; John Dunning; Vincenzo Argano; Steven Tsui
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  The St Jude Medical Trifecta aortic pericardial valve: results from a global, multicenter, prospective clinical study.

Authors:  Joseph E Bavaria; Nimesh D Desai; Anson Cheung; Michael R Petracek; Mark A Groh; Michael A Borger; Hartzell V Schaff
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 5.209

8.  The Freedom SOLO valve for aortic valve replacement: clinical and hemodynamic results from a prospective multicenter trial.

Authors:  Sven Beholz; Alberto Repossini; Ugolino Livi; Marc Schepens; Mohamed El Gabry; Klaus Matschke; Uday Trivedi; Lothar Eckel; Otto Dapunt; José Luis Zamorano
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2010-01

9.  Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valve versus Medtronic Hancock II: a matched hemodynamic comparison.

Authors:  Michael A Borger; A Franka Nette; Manjula Maganti; Christopher M Feindel
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: midterm results of a prospectively randomized trial.

Authors:  Sven Lehmann; Thomas Walther; Jörg Kempfert; Sergey Leontjev; Ardawan Rastan; Volkmar Falk; Friedrich W Mohr
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.330

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.