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

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) 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): Helmut Gulbins Hermann Reichenspurner Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gulbins, H. Articles by Reichenspurner, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gulbins, H. Articles by Reichenspurner, H. Related Collections Valve disease

---

Reviews

Which Patients Benefit From Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement?

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Gulbins, University Heart Center, University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, Hamburg, D-20246, Germany (Email: h.gulbins{at}uke.de).

This review article analyzes the literature to answer the question of whether stentless aortic bioprostheses possess proven advantages compared with stented bioprosthesis, and which patients might benefit from stentless valve implantation. For this purpose, the United States National Library of Medicine's PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for articles dealing with results of stentless aortic bioprostheses or studies comparing stented and stentless prostheses. Key word searches used were as follows: stentless aortic prostheses, stented aortic prosthesis, hemodynamic, hemodynamic performance, degeneration, durability, technique, and long-term follow-up. The analysis focused on stentless prostheses with a clinical experience for more than 5 years. Only a few randomized studies were found. Stentless prostheses were found to be advantageous in patients with severe impaired left ventricular function or a small aortic annulus (ie, evidence of grade II), but no specific advantages could be determined for the majority of patients. The durability results were mixed: the Toronto SPV (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN) showed an increase in degeneration after 10 years of follow-up, whereas the Freestyle porcine stentless prostheses (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) still showed excellent results after this period.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Funder Current status on stentless aortic bioprosthesis: a clinical and experimental perspective Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, December 21, 2011; (2011) ezr141v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Donndorf, B. Westphal, and G. Steinhoff Early stenotic prosthesis failure after implantation of a stentless porcine aortic valve prosthesis Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg, September 1, 2011; 13(3): 348 - 350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Piazza, S. Bleiziffer, G. Brockmann, R. Hendrick, M.-A. Deutsch, A. Opitz, D. Mazzitelli, P. Tassani-Prell, C. Schreiber, and R. Lange Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Failing Surgical Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve: From Concept to Clinical Application and Evaluation (Part 1) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., July 1, 2011; 4(7): 721 - 732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Murtuza, J. R. Pepper, C. Jones, P. Nihoyannopoulos, A. Darzi, and T. Athanasiou Does stentless aortic valve implantation increase perioperative risk? A critical appraisal of the literature and risk of bias analysis Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, May 1, 2011; 39(5): 643 - 652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. M. J. Chan, S. Rahman-Haley, T. K. Mittal, J. A. Gavino, and G. D. Dreyfus Truly stentless autologous pericardial aortic valve replacement: An alternative to standard aortic valve replacement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2011; 141(1): 276 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]