Literature DB >> 29322433

Biological aortic valve replacement: advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented valve substitutes. A review.

Reza Tavakoli1,2, Pichoy Danial3, Ahmed Hamid Oudjana3, Peiman Jamshidi4, Max Gassmann5, Pascal Leprince3, Guillaume Lebreton3.   

Abstract

Controversy still surrounds the optimal biological valve substitute for aortic valve replacement. In light of the current literature, we review advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented aortic bio-prostheses. Recent meta-analyses, prospective randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies comparing the most frequently used stentless and stented aortic bio-prostheses were analyzed. In the present review, the types and implantation techniques of the bio-prosthesis that are seldom taken into account by most studies and reviews were integrated in the interpretation of the relevant reports. For stentless aortic root bio-prostheses, full-root vs. sub-coronary implantation offered better early transvalvular gradients, effective orifice area and left ventricular mass regression as well as late freedom from structural valve deterioration in retrospective studies. Early mortality and morbidity did not differ between the stentless and stented aortic bio-prostheses. Early transvalvular gradients, effective orifice area and regression of left ventricular hypertrophy were significantly better for stentless, especially as full-root, compared to stented bio-prostheses. The long-term valve-related survival for stentless aortic root and Toronto SPV bio-prosthesis was as good as that for stented pericardial aortic bio-prostheses. For full-root configuration this survival advantage was statistically significant. There seems to be not one but different ideal biological valve substitutes for different subgroups of patients. In patients with small aortic root or exposed to prosthesis-patient mismatch full-root implantation of stentless bio-prostheses may better meet functional needs of individual patients. Longer follow-ups on newer generation of stented bio-prostheses are needed for comparison of their hemodynamic performance with stentless counterparts especially in full-root configuration.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve; Stented; Stentless; Substitute

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29322433     DOI: 10.1007/s11748-018-0884-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 1863-6705


  38 in total

1.  Tissue valve is the preferred option for patients aged 60 and older.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Lawrence H Cohn; Sary F Aranki
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves.

Authors:  Gary L Grunkemeier; Anthony P Furnary; YingXing Wu; Lian Wang; Albert Starr
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2012-09-23       Impact factor: 5.209

3.  St Jude Medical Trifecta aortic prosthesis: Considerations for implantation.

Authors:  W R Eric Jamieson
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis.

Authors:  Siamak Mohammadi; Vincent Tchana-Sato; Dimitri Kalavrouziotis; Pierre Voisine; Daniel Doyle; Richard Baillot; Sandro Sponga; Jacques Metras; Jean Perron; François Dagenais
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Bioprosthetic valve durability after stentless aortic valve replacement: the effect of implantation technique.

Authors:  Siamak Mohammadi; Dimitri Kalavrouziotis; Pierre Voisine; Eric Dumont; Daniel Doyle; Jean Perron; François Dagenais
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the elderly patient: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  M Doss; S Martens; J P Wood; T Aybek; P Kleine; G Wimmer Greinecker; A Moritz
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.191

7.  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

8.  Long-term clinical outcomes 15 years after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis.

Authors:  David S Bach; Neal D Kon
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database.

Authors:  James M Brown; Sean M O'Brien; Changfu Wu; Jo Ann H Sikora; Bartley P Griffith; James S Gammie
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.209

10.  Effect of surgeon on transprosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement with Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis and its consequences: a follow-up study in 587 patients.

Authors:  Alexander Albert; Ines Florath; Ulrich Rosendahl; Wael Hassanein; Eberhard V Hodenberg; Stefan Bauer; Ina Ennker; Jürgen Ennker
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2007-10-05       Impact factor: 1.637

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Next-generation tissue-engineered heart valves with repair, remodelling and regeneration capacity.

Authors:  Emanuela S Fioretta; Sarah E Motta; Valentina Lintas; Sandra Loerakker; Kevin K Parker; Frank P T Baaijens; Volkmar Falk; Simon P Hoerstrup; Maximilian Y Emmert
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 32.419

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.