ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Michael A. Borger
Christopher M. Feindel
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Borger, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Feindel, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Borger, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Feindel, C. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Lung - transplantation
Right arrow Valve disease
Right arrowRelated Article

Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:2054-2058
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Original Articles: Cardiovascular

Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Valve Versus Medtronic Hancock II: A Matched Hemodynamic Comparison

Michael A. Borger, MD, PhD*, A. Franka Nette, MD, Manjula Maganti, MS, Christopher M. Feindel, MD

Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, and Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Accepted for publication February 21, 2007.

* Address correspondence to Dr Borger, Leipzig Heart Center, Struempellstrasse 39, Leipzig, 04289, Germany (Email: michael.borger{at}med.uni-leipzig.de).

Background: The Perimount Magna valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) was designed to minimize the amount of obstruction to blood flow across the valve. We compared hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna valve with the Hancock II valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), a second-generation porcine bioprosthesis with proven long-term results.

Methods: The 57 patients who received a Magna valve at our institution from 2003 to 2005 were matched 1:1 with 57 patients who received a Hancock II valve on variables known to affect hemodynamic measurements: size of implanted valve, age, sex, and body surface area. Early postoperative transthoracic echocardiography was performed in 100% of patients.

Results: In addition to the matched variables, patients in both groups were similar for all measured preoperative characteristics and perioperative clinical outcomes. One week postoperatively, Magna patients had significantly lower peak (22.1 ± 7.4 mm Hg versus 32.3 ± 15.1 mm Hg) and mean transvalvular gradients (10.4 ± 4.0 mm Hg versus 18.5 ± 15.5 mm Hg, both p < 0.001). The Magna group also had a trend towards a larger effective orifice area (1.40 ± 0.24 cm2 versus 1.29 ± 0.34 cm2, p = 0.07), despite a similar left ventricular outflow tract diameter (2.0 ± 0.2 cm versus 2.0 ± 0.1 cm, p = 0.7). Patient–prosthesis mismatch, as defined by measured effective orifice area of less than 0.65 cm2/m2, was significantly less common in the Magna group (30% versus 52%, p = 0.02).

Conclusions: The Magna valve has more favorable early postoperative hemodynamics than the Hancock II valve. Further studies should be performed comparing the Magna valve to newer-generation, low-profile porcine valves.


Related Article

Invited commentary
John R. Pepper
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007 83: 2058-2059. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
J. R. Pepper
Invited commentary
Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2058 - 2059.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 2007 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.