HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Monica L. McDonald Richard C. Daly Hartzell V. Schaff Charles J. Mullany Fletcher A. Miller James J. Morris Thomas A. Orszulak Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McDonald, M. L. Articles by Orszulak, T. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McDonald, M. L. Articles by Orszulak, T. A.

Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:362-366
© 1997 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original Article: Cardiovascular

Hemodynamic Performance of Small Aortic Valve Bioprostheses: Is There a Difference?

Section of Cardiovascular Surgery and Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota

Background. There is the potential for left ventricular outflow obstruction when small aortic valve bioprostheses are employed in normal-sized or large adults. It has been hoped that bovine pericardial valves would improve hemodynamic performance in the smaller tissue valve sizes.

Methods. To determine in vivo hemodynamic performance of heterograft aortic valve prostheses, we analyzed echocardiographic data from patients receiving 21- or 23-mm Carpentier-Edwards pericardial, Medtronic Intact, and Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprostheses. In addition, data from 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves were included for comparison of hemodynamic performance between valve sizes. Doppler echocardiography was performed in 151 patients within 2 weeks of operation. Left ventricular outflow gradient was derived from continuous Doppler measurements of flow velocity, and effective orifice area was calculated by the continuity equation.

Results. There were statistically significant differences in hemodynamic performance of different sized prostheses for each valve type (effective orifice area, p < 0.01; valvular gradient, p < 0.03). There were, however, no significant differences in effective orifice area or mean gradient for different valve types within each size category.

Conclusions. The in vivo hemodynamic performance of these three different aortic valve heterograft bioprostheses is similar. Patient–prosthesis mismatch with heterograft prostheses, as demonstrated by the indexed effective orifice area can be avoided by appropriate sizing and use of annular enlarging techniques when necessary.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F.-C. Riess, R. Bader, E. Cramer, L. Hansen, B. Kleijnen, G. Wahl, J. Wallrath, S. Winkel, and N. Bleese Hemodynamic Performance of the Medtronic Mosaic Porcine Bioprosthesis Up to Ten Years Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2007; 83(4): 1310 - 1318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Moon, M. K. Pasque, N. A. Munfakh, S. J. Melby, J. S. Lawton, N. Moazami, J. E. Codd, T. D. Crabtree, H. B. Barner, and R. J. Damiano Jr Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Age and Body Size on Late Survival Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2006; 81(2): 481 - 489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R.-U. Kuehnel, R. Puchner, A. Pohl, M. O. Wendt, M. Hartrumpf, M. Pohl, and J. M. Albes Characteristic resistance curves of aortic valve substitutes facilitate individualized decision for a particular type Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2005; 27(3): 450 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Tasca, F. Brunelli, M. Cirillo, A. Amaducci, Z. Mhagna, G. Troise, and E. Quaini Mass regression in aortic stenosis after valve replacement with small size pericardial bioprosthesis Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2003; 76(4): 1107 - 1113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Chambers, L. Oo, A. Narracott, P. M. Lawford, and C. I. Blauth Nominal size in six bileaflet mechanical aortic valves: A comparison of orifice size and biologic equivalence J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2003; 125(6): 1388 - 1393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Vitale, S. C. Clark, A. Ramsden, A. Hasan, C. J. Hilton, and M. P. Holden Clinical and hemodynamic evaluation of small perimount aortic valves in patients aged 75 years or older Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2003; 75(1): 35 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Gelsomino, G. Morocutti, R. Frassani, P. Da Col, R. Carella, and U. Livi Usefulness of the cryolife o'brien stentless suprannular aortic valve to prevent prosthesis-patient mismatch in the small aortic root J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 5, 2002; 39(11): 1845 - 1851. [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]

				H. Takakura, T. Sasaki, K. Hashimoto, T. Hachiya, K. Onoguchi, M. Oshiumi, and S. Takeuchi Hemodynamic evaluation of 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in aortic position Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2001; 71(2): 609 - 613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D. Maslow, J. M. Haering, S. Heindel, J. Mashikian, R. Levine, and P. Douglas An Evaluation of Prosthetic Aortic Valves Using Transesophageal Echocardiography: The Double-Envelope Technique Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2000; 91(3): 509 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Hvass, G. M. Palatianos, R. Frassani, C. Puricelli, and M. O'Brien MULTICENTER STUDY OF STENTLESS VALVE REPLACEMENT IN THE SMALL AORTIC ROOT J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 1999; 117(2): 267 - 272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]