|
|
||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62:683-690
© 1996 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Departments of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Cardiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom
Background. Residual left ventricular hypertrophy adversely affects long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement. A stentless biological valve in the aortic position has been shown to offer a better hemodynamic profile than a stented one. However, it remains to be defined whether this difference is translated into intermediate-term effects on left ventricular structure and function.
Methods. One hundred thirty-seven patients receiving single aortic valve replacement (52 with concomitant coronary artery bypass graft) were enrolled in this study. Ninety-eight were men, and the mean age was 68 years (range, 55 to 90 years). Of the 137 patients, 39 had an aortic homograft, 72 a Toronto stentless porcine valve, and 26 had a stented porcine or bileaflet mechanical valve, with mean valve size of 25 ± 2.5 mm (mean ± standard deviation). Left ventricular muscle mass and function were assessed by M-mode echocardiography performed before and 0.5, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after operation, and recorded on paper for off-line digitizing. Peak valve prosthesis pressure gradients were quantified by continuous wave Doppler.
Results. A total of 330 echocardiograms obtained during this study were adequate for computer digitizing. Clinical data, preoperative left ventricular function, and hypertrophy were similar between the three groups. Significant improvement in left ventricular function and major regression of left ventricular hypertrophy had occurred in the entire population by 6 months after operation. Multivariate analysis of variance showed that patients with previous aortic regurgitation had a larger left ventricular cavity size (p < 0.001) and greater mass index (p = 0.001) postoperatively than those with previous aortic stenosis. In addition, peak valvular gradient was lower (p < 0.001), mass index less (p < 0.001), and left ventricular function more normal both systolic, by a greater peak velocity of dimension shortening (p = 0.05) and wall thickening (p = 0.002), and diastolic, by a greater peak velocity of dimension lengthening (p = 0.046), with an aortic homograft or stentless porcine valve compared with a mechanical or stented biological valve. There was no significant difference in peak valve gradient, left ventricular mass index, or function between the aortic homograft and the stentless porcine valve. Age, sex, and concomitant coronary artery bypass graft, as well as aortic cross-clamp time, cardioplegia method, and valve size all proved to be insignificant determinants of postoperative left ventricular hypertrophy or function.
Conclusions. In the first 2 years after implantation, the superior hemodynamic performance of aortic homograft and stentless porcine valve appears to result in more extensive regression of ventricular hypertrophy and greater improvement of left ventricular function than occurs with a mechanical or stented biological valve. These findings encourage the use of a stentless biological valve in older patients requiring aortic valve replacement, and a larger scale long-term randomized study of stentless versus stented biological valve or mechanical valve seems warranted.
Related Article
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1996 62: 690.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
G. Casali, G. Luzi, M. Vicchio, P. Lilla della Monica, G. Minardi, and F. Musumeci Echocardiographic Follow-Up after Implanting 17-mm Regent Mechanical Prostheses Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, June 1, 2008; 16(3): 208 - 211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Stelzer Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement: Porcine and Pericardial Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 915 - 934. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
M. Glauber, M. Solinas, and J. Karimov Technique for implant of the stentless aortic valve Freedom Solo MMCTS, October 18, 2007; 2007(1018): 2618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Kunadian, K. Vijayalakshmi, A. R. Thornley, M. A. de Belder, S. Hunter, S. Kendall, R. Graham, M. Stewart, J. Thambyrajah, and J. Dunning Meta-Analysis of Valve Hemodynamics and Left Ventricular Mass Regression for Stentless Versus Stented Aortic Valves Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2007; 84(1): 73 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. H. Kincaid, A. R. Cordell, J. W. Hammon, S. M. Adair, and N. D. Kon Coronary Insufficiency After Stentless Aortic Root Replacement: Risk Factors and Solutions Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2007; 83(3): 964 - 968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Pavoni, L. P. Badano, S. F. Musumeci, R. Frassani, P. Gianfagna, E. Mazzaro, and U. Livi Results of Aortic Valve Replacement With a New Supra-Annular Pericardial Stented Bioprosthesis Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 82(6): 2133 - 2138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Bove, Y. Van Belleghem, K. Francois, F. Caes, H. Van Overbeke, and G. Van Nooten Stentless and stented aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: factors affecting midterm clinical and hemodynamical outcome Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2006; 30(5): 706 - 713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Kunihara, K. Schmidt, P. Glombitza, V. Dzindzibadze, H. Lausberg, and H.-J. Schafers Root replacement using stentless valves in the small aortic root: a propensity score analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2006; 82(4): 1379 - 1384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Chatel, C. Mica, D. Blanchard, F. Baud, D. Bruere, A. Maudiere, and P. Peycher Short-term hemodynamic advantages of stentless CryoLife-O'Brien valve over stented bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, October 1, 2006; 5(5): 578 - 580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Ali, J. C. Halstead, F. Cafferty, L. Sharples, F. Rose, R. Coulden, E. Lee, J. Dunning, V. Argano, and S. Tsui Are Stentless Valves Superior to Modern Stented Valves?: A Prospective Randomized Trial Circulation, July 4, 2006; 114(1_suppl): I-535 - I-540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. B. Chambers, H. M. Rimington, F. Hodson, R. Rajani, and C. I. Blauth The subcoronary Toronto stentless versus supra-annular Perimount stented replacement aortic valve: Early clinical and hemodynamic results of a randomized comparison in 160 patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2006; 131(4): 878 - 882. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, J. J.M. Takkenberg, M. J.C. Eijkemans, L. A. van Herwerden, W.R. E. Jamieson, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. D. F. Habbema, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Comparison of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2006; 29(3): 374 - 379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. A. Borger, S. M. Carson, J. Ivanov, V. Rao, H. E. Scully, C. M. Feindel, and T. E. David Stentless Aortic Valves are Hemodynamically Superior to Stented Valves During Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Large Retrospective Study Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2005; 80(6): 2180 - 2185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Doss, J. P. Wood, S. Martens, G. Wimmer-Greinecker, and A. Moritz Do Pulmonary Autografts Provide Better Outcomes Than Mechanical Valves? A Prospective Randomized Trial Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2005; 80(6): 2194 - 2198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Perez de Arenaza, B. Lees, M. Flather, F. Nugara, T. Husebye, M. Jasinski, M. Cisowski, M. Khan, M. Henein, J. Gaer, et al. Randomized Comparison of Stentless Versus Stented Valves for Aortic Stenosis: Effects on Left Ventricular Mass Circulation, October 25, 2005; 112(17): 2696 - 2702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, J. J.M. Takkenberg, M. J.C. Eijkemans, E. W. Steyerberg, L. A. van Herwerden, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. D. F. Habbema, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Prognosis After Aortic Valve Replacement With the Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial Valve: Use of Microsimulation Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2005; 80(3): 825 - 831. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Talwar, R. Mohapatra, A. Saxena, R. Singh, and A. S. Kumar Aortic Homograft: A Suitable Substitute for Aortic Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2005; 80(3): 832 - 838. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Chambers, J. Roxburgh, C. Blauth, J. O'Riordan, F. Hodson, and H. Rimington A randomized comparison of the MCRI On-X and CarboMedics Top Hat bileaflet mechanical replacement aortic valves: Early postoperative hemodynamic function and clinical events J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2005; 130(3): 759 - 764. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Martinovic, M. Everlien, I. Farah, T. Wittlinger, I. Knez, H. Greve, and P. Vogt Midterm Results After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Stentless Bioprosthesis Aortic Valve Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2005; 80(1): 198 - 203. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Botzenhardt, W. B. Eichinger, S. Bleiziffer, R. Guenzinger, I. M. Wagner, R. Bauernschmitt, and R. Lange Hemodynamic Comparison of Bioprostheses for Complete Supra-Annular Position in Patients With Small Aortic Annulus J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 21, 2005; 45(12): 2054 - 2060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. G. Koch, F. Khandwala, F. G. Estafanous, F. D. Loop, and E. H. Blackstone Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Size on Functional Recovery After Aortic Valve Replacement Circulation, June 21, 2005; 111(24): 3221 - 3229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. F. O'Brien, M. A.H. Gardner, B. Garlick, H. Jalali, J. A. Gordon, S. L. Whitehouse, W. E. Strugnell, and R. Slaughter CryoLife-O'Brien Stentless Valve: 10-Year Results of 402 Implants Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2005; 79(3): 757 - 766. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Kattach, X. Jin, S. Mussa, and R. Pillai Regurgitation through a stentless prosthesis treated with aortic root banding J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2005; 129(3): 672 - 673. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Gaudino, F. Alessandrini, F. Glieca, N. Luciani, C. Cellini, C. Pragliola, M. Morelli, C. Canosa, G. Nasso, and G. Possati Survival after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: does left ventricular mass regression have a clinical correlate? Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2005; 26(1): 51 - 57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Seitelberger, J. Bialy, R. Gottardi, G. Seebacher, R. Moidl, M. Mittelbock, P. Simon, and E. Wolner Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2004; 25(3): 358 - 363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. O. Soylu, A. D. Demir, O. Ozdemir, Y. Uzun, A. Kunt, S. Korkmaz, and O. Tasdemir Comparison of Changes in Diastolic Functions After Aortic Valve Replacement with Freestyle Stentless Porcine Xenografts in Patients with Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Physiology Angiology, November 1, 2003; 54(6): 655 - 659. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Albes, M. Hartrumpf, V. Rudolph, T. Krempl, E. Huttemann, R. Vollandt, and T. Wahlers Are mechanical valves with enhanced inner diameter advantageous in the small sized aortic annulus? Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2003; 76(5): 1564 - 1570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. H. Blackstone, D. M. Cosgrove, W.R. E. Jamieson, N. J. Birkmeyer, J. H. Lemmer Jr, D. C. Miller, E. G. Butchart, G. Rizzoli, M. Yacoub, and A. Chai Prosthesis size and long-term survival after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2003; 126(3): 783 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. Lund, K. Emmertsen, I. Dorup, F. T. Jensen, and C. Flo Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy during 10 years after valve replacement for aortic stenosis is related to the preoperative risk profile Eur. Heart J., August 1, 2003; 24(15): 1437 - 1446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S A Olenchock Jr, J F Reed III, A Brown, and F M Garzia Improved postoperative outcomes with stentless aortic valve: a community hospital experience Heart, May 1, 2003; 89(5): 551 - 552. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Doss, S. Martens, J.P. Wood, T. Aybek, P. Kleine, G. Wimmer Greinecker, and A. Moritz Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the elderly patient: a prospective randomized trial Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2003; 23(3): 299 - 304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. B. Doty and J. R. Doty Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement: Bioprostheses Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 889 - 898. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
G. Dellgren, M.J. Eriksson, L.A. Brodin, and K. Radegran Eleven years' experience with the Biocor stentless aortic bioprosthesis: clinical and hemodynamic follow-up with long-term relative survival rate Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., December 1, 2002; 22(6): 912 - 921. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Bevilacqua, J. Gianetti, A. Ripoli, U. Paradossi, A. Giuseppe Cerillo, M. Glauber, M. L. Sacha Matteucci, M. Senni, A. Gamba, E. Quaini, et al. Aortic valve disease with severe ventricular dysfunction: stentless valve for better recovery Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2002; 74(6): 2016 - 2021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Y. Jin and J. R. Pepper Do stentless valves make a difference? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., July 1, 2002; 22(1): 95 - 100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Dellgren, C. M. Feindel, J. Bos, J. Ivanov, and T. E. David Aortic valve replacement with the Toronto SPV: long-term clinical and hemodynamic results Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., April 1, 2002; 21(4): 698 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Silberman, J. Shaheen, O. Merin, D. Fink, N. Shapira, N. Liviatan-Strauss, and D. Bitran Exercise hemodynamics of aortic prostheses: comparison between stentless bioprostheses and mechanical valves Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2001; 72(4): 1217 - 1221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Knez, R. Rienmuller, R. Maier, P. Rehak, B. Schrottner, H. Machler, M. Anelli-Monti, and B. Rigler Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2001; 19(6): 797 - 805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. J. Thomson, W.R. E. Jamieson, J. G. Dumesnil, J. J. Burgess, C. M. Peniston, J. Metras, J. A. Sullivan, J. C.W. Parrott, A. Maitland, and I. J. Cybulsky Medtronic mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: midterm investigational trial results Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2001; 71 (2007): S269 - S272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W.R. E. Jamieson, M. T. Janusz, J. MacNab, and C. Henderson Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2001; 71 (2007): S282 - S284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Y. Jin and S. Westaby Pericardial and porcine stentless aortic valves: are they hemodynamically different? Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2001; 71 (2007): S311 - S314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Ismeno, A. Renzulli, M. De Feo, A. Della Corte, F. E. Covino, and M. Cotrufo Standard versus hemodynamic plus 19-mm St Jude Medical aortic valves J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2001; 121(4): 723 - 728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R.M Grocott-Mason, O Lund, H Elwidaa, R Mazhar, V Chandrasakeran, A.G Mitchell, C Ilsley, A Khaghani, A Rees, and M Yacoub Long-term results after aortic valve replacement in patients with congestive heart failure. Homografts vs prosthetic valves Eur. Heart J., October 2, 2000; 21(20): 1698 - 1707. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2000; 36(4): 1131 - 1141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Westaby, M. Horton, X. Y. Jin, T. Katsumata, O. Ahmed, S. Saito, H.-H. Li, and G. L. Grunkemeier Survival advantage of stentless aortic bioprostheses Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2000; 70(3): 785 - 791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. D. Riley, J. W. Hammon Jr, S. M. Adair, A. R. Cordell, and N. D. Kon Stentless aortic valve replacement with freestyle or Toronto SPV: an early comparison Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2000; 70(1): 48 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Kalangos, P. Trigo-Trindade, D. Vala, A. Panos, and B. Faidutti AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT WITH THE FREESTYLE STENTLESS BIOPROSTHESIS WITH RESPECT TO SPACIAL ORIENTATION OF PATIENT CORONARY OSTIA J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2000; 119(6): 1185 - 1192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Fries, O. Wendler, H. Schieffer, and H.-J. Schafers Comparative rest and exercise hemodynamics of 23-mm stentless versus 23-mm stented aortic bioprostheses Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2000; 69(3): 817 - 822. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. S. Khan, R. J. Siegel, M. A. DeRobertis, C. E. Blanche, R. M. Kass, W. Cheng, G. P. Fontana, and A. Trento Regression of hypertrophy after Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2000; 69(2): 531 - 535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Walther, V. Falk, G. Langebartels, M. Kruger, U. Bernhardt, A. Diegeler, J. Gummert, R. Autschbach, and F. W. Mohr Prospectively Randomized Evaluation of Stentless Versus Conventional Biological Aortic Valves : Impact on Early Regression of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Circulation, November 9, 1999; 100(90002): II-6 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Pibarot, J. G. Dumesnil, J. Jobin, P. Cartier, G. Honos, and L.-G. Durand Hemodynamic and physical performance during maximal exercise in patients with an aortic bioprosthetic valve: Comparison of stentless versus stented bioprostheses J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 1, 1999; 34(5): 1609 - 1617. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Niwaya, R. C. Elkins, C. J. Knott-Craig, K. Santangelo, M. B. Cannon, and M. M. Lane Normalization of left ventricular dimensions after ross operation with aortic annular reduction Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 1999; 68(3): 812 - 818. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Gross, W. Harringer, H. Beran, R. Mair, K. Sihorsch, R. Hofmann, and P. Brucke Aortic valve replacement: is the stentless xenograft an alternative to the homograft? midterm results Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 1999; 68(3): 919 - 924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J R Gonzalez-Juanatey, M V Fernandez, F G Sampedro, J M Garcia-Acuna, J B Garcia-Bengoechea, A A Cendon, and M G de la Pena Haemodynamic performance of aortic pericardial bioprostheses and bileaflet prostheses at rest and during exercise: implications for the surgical management of patients with small aortic roots Heart, August 1, 1999; 82(2): 149 - 155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. L. Thomson, M. F. O'Brien, A. A. Almeida, P. J. Tesar, M. B. Davison, and D. J. Burstow Haemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression: a comparison of the stentless, stented and mechanical aortic valve replacement Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., May 1, 1999; 13(5): 572 - 575. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Maselli, R. Pizio, L. P. Bruno, I. Di Bella, and C. De Gasperis Left ventricular mass reduction after aortic valve replacement: homografts, stentless and stented valves Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 1999; 67(4): 966 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
|