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


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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):
Paul C. Cartier
Neal D. Kon
G. Michael Deeb
Donald B. Doty
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 Bach, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Doty, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bach, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Doty, D. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease

Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:1107-1113
© 2002 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons


Original article: cardiovascular

Impact of implant technique following freestyle stentless aortic valve replacement

David S. Bach, MD*a, Paul C. Cartier, MD*,a , Neal D. Kon, MDa, Katherine G. Johnson, MSa, G. Michael Deeb, MDa, Donald B. Doty, MDa and the Freestyle Valve Study Group

a Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Accepted for publication May 29, 2002.

* Address reprint requests to Dr Bach, L3119 Women’s -0273, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
e-mail: dbach{at}umich.edu


    Abstract
 Top
 Footnotes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Background. Stentless aortic bioprostheses have excellent hemodynamics and clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether implant technique of the Freestyle aortic root bioprosthesis impacts clinical outcomes or hemodynamic performance.

Methods. The long-term multicenter study of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis includes 500 consecutive patients implanted using the subcoronary and 162 using the full root technique. Clinical outcomes and echocardiographic hemodynamics were compared through 5 years.

Results. There were no differences between groups in time to death, valve-related death, or reoperation. The incidence of operative death was higher in the full root than in the subcoronary group (odds ratio 3.97, p = 0.001). Patients in the subcoronary group were more likely to have New York Heart Association functional class III or IV symptoms at 1 year (1.7% versus 0%, p = 0.04) and 5 years postoperatively (4.4% versus 0%, p = 0.02). Mean gradient was lower (p = 0.0004) and effective orifice area larger (p = 0.04) in the full root group. Left ventricular mass index decreased in both groups. The preponderance of patients in both groups had no or trivial aortic regurgitation through 5 years.

Conclusions. Full root implantation of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis was associated with higher operative mortality, but somewhat better hemodynamics, functional class, and freedom from aortic regurgitation. Higher operative mortality argues against the empiric replacement of the ascending aorta in the absence of aortic root pathology. In appropriately selected patients, both implant techniques are viable alternatives for valve implantation.


    Introduction
 Top
 Footnotes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Stentless aortic bioprostheses have excellent associated hemodynamics [16] and clinical outcomes [2, 4, 6, 7]. Similar to the use of subcoronary and cylinder implant techniques with allograft aortic valve replacement, the Freestyle aortic root bioprosthesis can be implanted using one of several surgical techniques [4]: full root, root inclusion, and complete or modified subcoronary. Both surgeon preference and patient-specific factors such as concomitant aortic root pathology influence implant technique.

Hemodynamic performance and freedom from aortic regurgitation (AR) are influenced by the method of implantation of allograft valves [8]. Whether the implant technique of stentless xenografts similarly affects hemodynamic performance, and whether the implant technique of either allograft or stentless xenograft aortic valves impact clinical outcomes, require further investigation. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether implant technique of the Freestyle aortic root bioprosthesis impacts clinical outcomes, hemodynamic performance, and freedom from AR.


    Patients and methods
 Top
 Footnotes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Study population
The multicenter evaluation of the Freestyle (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN) stentless aortic root bioprosthesis began at 21 centers in August 1992. In November 1997, a long-term study of the valve began at 8 of these centers, selected for patient volume and protocol adherence. Study sites and clinical investigators are listed in the Appendix. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by each participating hospital’s ethics review board; all subjects provided written informed consent. The long-term study group includes 700 consecutive patients. Implant technique was subcoronary in 500 (71.4%) patients, full root in 162 (23.1%), and root inclusion in 38 (5.4%). Because of small numbers, patients with root inclusion were excluded from analysis. Therefore, the population for the present study comprised 662 consecutive patients who underwent either subcoronary or full root procedures. Demographic data and patient characteristics for the two implant groups are shown in Table 1. The distribution of valve sizes is shown in Figure 1. Concomitant surgical procedures and aortic cross-clamp times are shown in Table 2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Patient Characteristics at the Time of Aortic Valve Operation

 


View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 1. Distribution of valve sizes implanted by implant technique.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Concomitant Procedures and Aortic Cross-Clamp Times

 
Clinical data
Preoperative clinical information and surgical data were obtained for each patient. Follow-up clinical data were obtained within 30 days of discharge, 3 to 6 months postoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, and yearly thereafter. Operative mortality, including early mortality, was defined as death occurring within 30 days of implant if the patient was discharged from the hospital, or at any time after implant if the patient died before discharge. Patients were monitored throughout the postoperative follow-up period for adverse events, following guidelines of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American Association of Thoracic Surgeons [9].

Echocardiography
Echocardiograms were obtained at the respective investigational centers, at time points coinciding with those used for clinical data. Analyses were performed using standard clinical criteria. Mean transvalvular gradient was calculated using the modified Bernoulli equation, correcting for proximal velocity [10]. Effective orifice area (EOA) was calculated using the continuity equation [10]. The left ventricular (LV) mass index was calculated as the ratio of LV mass-to-body surface area; LV mass was calculated using the modified American Society of Echocardiography cube method [11]: , where (IVS), (LVIDD), and (PW) are standard measures (in centimeters) of interventricular septum (IS), LV internal diameter in diastole (LVIDD), and posterior wall (PW), respectively. The AR was graded as absent, trivial, mild, moderate, or severe based on standard clinical criteria, and included assessment of jet width, circumference, and eccentricity [12].

Statistical methods
The {chi}2 test was used to determine differences in demographic and preoperative factors between implant groups. Factors considered in the analysis were patient sex (male, female); age at implant (<=70, >70 years); history of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, tobacco use, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, coronary disease, transient ischemic event or stroke, and congestive heart failure (yes, no); New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (I/II, III/IV); left atrial enlargement (yes, no); LV enlargement (yes, no); LV hypertrophy (yes, no); LV ejection fraction (<=50%, >50%); valve size (19/21 mm, 23 mm, 25 mm, 27 mm); history of previous valve replacement (yes, no) or previous cardiac operation (yes, no); presence of aortic aneurysm (yes, no), ascending aorta calcified (yes, no), or any abnormality of the ascending aorta (yes, no); any concomitant procedure (yes, no); concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (yes, no); cross-clamp time; site of operation (hospitals A through H); and one of first 20 implants for implanting surgeon (yes, no).

Clinical outcomes investigated were death, cardiac death, operative death, valve-related or unexplained death, reoperation, length of hospital stay after implant, and NYHA class at 1 and 5 years postoperatively. Cox proportional hazard models were used to test for differences between groups in death, cardiac death, valve-related or unexplained death, and reoperation. Demographic and preoperative factors found significantly different between implant groups were evaluated to determine association with each outcome using a log-rank test, and significant factors were included as covariates in the final Cox proportional hazards model for each outcome. A logistic regression model was developed to test for differences in early death. Demographic and preoperative factors found significantly different between groups were evaluated to determine association with early death using a {chi}2 test, and significant factors were included as covariates in the logistic regression model. The {chi}2 tests were used to determine whether demographic and preoperative factors found significantly different between groups were associated with NYHA class at 1 year and at 5 years. An analysis of covariance was used to test for differences between groups in hospital length of stay. Student’s t tests were used to determine whether there were differences in length of stay associated with demographic and preoperative factors found significantly different between implant groups. Factors associated with differences in length of stay were included as covariates in the analysis of covariance.

Hemodynamic data investigated included mean transvalvular gradient, EOA, AR, and regression of indexed LV mass. Repeated measures of analysis were performed to test for differences in mean gradient, EOA, and LV mass index across time, among valve sizes, and between implant techniques. Echocardiograms at discharge, 3 to 6 months, 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year evaluations were included in the analysis of mean gradient and EOA; echocardiograms at the discharge, 3 to 6 months, 1-, 2-, and 3-year evaluations were included in the analysis of LV mass index. To evaluate the change in severity of AR, a comparison was made between the severity at discharge and the severity at 1 year. The numbers of patients were tabulated with a decrease in severity, with no change, or with an increase in severity, and the distribution of patients among these three groups was compared between implant techniques using a {chi}2 test. The same procedure was used to test for differences in severity at the discharge and 5-year evaluations.

Statistical analysis was performed using the SAS (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC) statistical software. Differences were considered significant at a value of p less than 0.05.


    Results
 Top
 Footnotes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Clinical outcomes
Death
Clinical factors that were significantly different between groups are shown in Table 3. Site of operation (hospitals A through H) is included as a variable that is affected by regional differences in patient population and clinical practices, as well as potential differences in surgical practice. There was a significant difference in time to death for age more than 70 years (risk ratio 2.48, p < 0.0001), history of hyperlipidemia (risk ratio 0.53, p = 0.011), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 1.89, p = 0.006), valve size 19 or 21 mm (risk ratio 1.66, p = 0.013), and hospital F (risk ratio 1.82, p = 0.041). Adjusting for these factors, there was no difference (p = 0.58) in time to death by implant technique. Survival at 1 year and 5 years postoperatively was 91.7% and 76.6%, respectively, for patients implanted using the subcoronary technique, and 87.0% and 73.5% for patients implanted using the full root technique.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Clinical Factors That Were Significantly Different Between Implant Groups

 
Operative death
There was a significant difference in operative death rate associated with age more than 70 years (risk ratio 3.01, p = 0.015), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 3.17, p = 0.006), valve size 19 or 21 mm (risk ratio 4.01, p = 0.0001), hospital H (risk ratio 3.01, p = 0.012), and cross-clamp time (risk ratio 1.01 [1% per minute], p = 0.012). Factors with a trend toward association with increased operative mortality were concomitant surgical procedure (p = 0.15), abnormal ascending aorta (p = 0.24), and hospital F (p = 0.06). Adjusting for the significant factors, the incidence of operative death was higher among patients implanted using the full root (15 of 162 [9.3%], odds ratio 3.97, p = 0.001) than among those implanted using the subcoronary technique (25 of 500 [5.0%]).

All patients implanted at hospital H underwent subcoronary implantation, and were older (75.9% versus 58.6% >70 years) and more likely to undergo concomitant procedures (66.2% versus 48.4%) than patients implanted at other sites. Removing site as a possible confounding variable, concomitant procedures was associated with a higher rate of operative death (risk ratio 3.41, p = 0.002). Operative death remained significantly higher among patients implanted using the full root than among those implanted using the subcoronary technique (odds ratio 2.31, p = 0.02).

Cardiac death
There was a significant difference in time to cardiac death for preoperative factors including age more than 70 years (risk ratio 3.41, p = 0.004), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 3.75, p < 0.0001), valve size 19 or 21 mm (risk ratio 4.45, p < 0.0001), concomitant surgical procedure (risk ratio 3.33, p = 0.002), and hospital D (risk ratio 0.10, p = 0.002). Adjusting for these factors, there was a significant difference (p < 0.0001) in time to cardiac death by implant technique. Freedom from cardiac death at 1 year and 5 years postoperatively was 96.1% and 92.3%, respectively, for patients implanted using the subcoronary technique, and 93.8% and 88.8% for patients implanted using the full root technique.

Valve-related death
There was a significant difference in time to valve-related or unexplained death for implantation at hospital F (risk ratio 3.44, p = 0.028). There was no difference (p = 0.65) in time to valve-related death by implant technique. Freedom from valve-related death or unexplained death at 1 year and 5 years was 98.3% and 96.5%, respectively, for patients implanted using the subcoronary technique, and 98.6% and 94.6% for patients implanted using the full root technique.

Reoperation
There was a significant difference in time to reoperation for abnormal ascending aorta (risk ratio 9.38, p = 0.035) and hospital A (risk ratio 3.69, p = 0.046). There was no difference (p = 0.78) in time to reoperation by implant technique. Freedom from reoperation at 1 year and 5 years was 98.9% and 96.9%, respectively, for patients implanted using the subcoronary technique, and 100% and 97.7% for patients implanted using the full root technique.

NYHA class
Data on NYHA class were available for 559 patients at 1 year, and for 122 patients at 5 years postoperatively. There were no clinical factors associated with NYHA class at 1 year or 5 years postoperatively (p > 0.05). However, the prevalence of NYHA class III or IV status 1 year postoperatively was higher among patients implanted using the subcoronary technique (7 of 422 [1.7%]) than among those implanted using the full root technique (0 of 137 [0%], p = 0.04). At 5 years, NYHA class III or IV status was more prevalent among patients in the subcoronary (4 of 92 [4.4%]) than in the full root group (0 of 30 [0%], p = 0.02).

Length of stay
There was a significant difference in length of stay for preoperative NYHA class III or IV (11.6 ± 11.1 days) versus class I or II (9.5 ± 11.8 days, p = 0.03) status. There was no difference in length of stay for patients implanted using the subcoronary (11.1 ± 10.6 days, median 8.0 days) compared with the full root (11.0 ± 13.4 days, median 7.0 days, p = 0.89) implant technique.

Hemodynamics
Mean gradient
As anticipated, gradients were lower for larger than for smaller valve sizes (p = 0.0001). In addition, gradients were lower among patients implanted using the full root technique than among those implanted using the subcoronary technique (p = 0.0004). Gradients decreased significantly over time for both groups (p = 0.0001). However, the decrease in mean gradient was larger among patients implanted using the subcoronary than the full root technique. Mean gradients for patients with a 21-mm valve decreased from 13.4 ± 5.0 mm Hg at discharge to 9.9 ± 5.9 mm Hg at 1 year postoperatively in the subcoronary group, and from 8.0 ± 3.8 to 6.6 ± 4.6 mm Hg in the full root implant group; mean gradients among patients with a 27-mm valve decreased from 8.2 ± 4.5 to 4.9 ± 3.1 mm Hg over the same period in the subcoronary group, and from 4.7 ± 2.9 to 3.6 ± 1.6 mm Hg in the full root group. Gradients by valve size and implant technique at 1 year postoperatively are shown in Table 4.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4. Hemodynamics 1 Year Postoperative

 
Effective orifice area
As anticipated, EOA was significantly higher for larger than for smaller valve sizes (p = 0.0001). The EOA was significantly larger for valves implanted using the full root than for those implanted using the subcoronary technique (p = 0.04). In the subcoronary group, EOA increased significantly (p = 0.005) from discharge to 3 to 6 months postoperatively and then remained stable, whereas no change was observed in EOA for the full root group. Data for EOA by valve size and implant technique at 1 year postoperatively are shown in Table 4.

Left ventricular mass index
The LV mass index at baseline was not statistically different between implant groups (p = 0.97), although larger valve sizes were associated with greater baseline LV mass index (p = 0.07). The LV mass index across time is shown in Figure 2. The LV mass index decreased significantly over time for both implants groups (p = 0.0001). However, the decrease was of greater magnitude in the full root than in the subcoronary group (p = 0.08).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 2. Left ventricular (LV) mass index across time for subcoronary and full root implant techniques. Left ventricular mass decreased significantly in both groups, although magnitude of regression was greater for full root technique. (Data shown for subset of 76 subcoronary and 56 full root patients with data available at all time points.)

 
Aortic regurgitation
The presence and severity of AR over time is shown in Figure 3. The preponderance of patients in both implant groups had no or trivial AR through 5 years, and no patient had severe AR throughout the follow-up period. The prevalence of more than mild AR was significantly higher among patients in the subcoronary implant group at discharge (104 of 471 [22.1%] versus 7 of 148 [4.7%], p = 0.001) through 2 years postoperatively (66 of 354 [18.6%] versus 4 of 126 [3.2%], p = 0.001). After 2 years, there remained a strong trend toward difference between groups, although the statistical significance was not met (p = 0.06 to 0.07).



View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig 3. Presence and severity of aortic regurgitation (AR) through 3 years postoperative. (FR = full root; SC = subcoronary.) *Statistical comparison of prevalence of none or trivial versus >= mild AR.

 
Patients in the subcoronary group had a greater rate of worsening of AR between discharge and both at 1 year (p = 0.001) and 5 years (p = 0.005) postoperatively. Trends for AR to decrease, increase, or remain unchanged over time are shown in Table 5. Of 408 patients in the subcoronary group who had no or trivial AR at discharge, 29 (7.1%) had more than mild AR at 1 year, compared with 1 of 135 (0.7%) patients in the full root group.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 5. Change in Aortic Regurgitation Over Time

 

    Comment
 Top
 Footnotes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Hemodynamic outcomes
The present study suggests that the same size stentless bioprosthesis has a larger EOA and lower gradients when implanted as a full root compared with a subcoronary valve. This may be due to the effect of paravalvular edema and hematoma that occurs with any inclusion implantation but not with the full root technique. Because paraprosthetic edema and hematoma decrease in the months after operation [13], gradients should decrease more with subcoronary than with full root valves. The present study supports this hypothesis; differences between techniques were largest early after operation, and gradients decreased to a greater extent with the subcoronary than with the full root technique. At 1 year postoperatively, both techniques were associated with low transvalvular gradients and large EOA, with differences between groups statistically significant but clinically unimportant. It should be noted that comparison of hemodynamics between groups does not take into consideration that different size prostheses might be implanted in the same patient using different implant techniques.

Clinical outcomes
Clinical outcomes were reasonably good in both implant groups, with high rates of survival free of adverse events through 5 years. (Operative mortality is discussed later.) There were no significant differences between implant groups with respect to death, valve-related or unexplained death, reoperation, or hospital length of stay. Freedom from cardiac death was somewhat higher among patients undergoing subcoronary than full root implantation. However, elimination of surgical site as a factor in the regression model resulted in inclusion of functional class as statistically associated with cardiac death, with no significant difference in time to cardiac death between implant groups. It is likely that surgical site and NYHA class are confounded variables (specific sites had more patients with advanced heart failure), and that clinical factors likely contributed to the differences in cardiac death observed between implant techniques.

Preoperative hyperlipidemia was paradoxically associated with a lower risk of death. This likely reflects a difference in the diagnosis rather than the presence of hyperlipidemia. Because assessment of lipids was not mandated, it is likely that patients carrying the diagnosis of hyperlipidemia were receiving appropriate therapy, whereas some patients not carrying the diagnosis had unrecognized, untreated disease.

Operative mortality
Operative mortality was high in both implant groups. Although the study population included a fairly high proportion of patients with clinical or operative factors associated with increased risk, the observed rate of operative mortality is concerning.

In the interest of reporting the longest possible clinical follow-up, the study population represents the earliest experience among the implanting institutions. An attempt was made to address whether operator inexperience contributed to high operative mortality. The logistic regression model defined operator experience as within or not within the first 20 implants per surgeon. Using this model, as well as a model using the first 20 implants per site, operative mortality did not decrease with increased operator experience. However, a report on the experience of a single surgeon at another institution demonstrated that operative mortality decreased substantially with increasing experience, despite increasing complexity of operation and higher patient risks [14]. Specifically, from 1997 to 1999, 30-day mortality among a cohort of 266 consecutive patients undergoing Freestyle aortic valve replacement decreased from 7.5% to 3.4%, whereas surgical complexity scores and the prevalence of comorbidities increased. Operative mortality in this cohort was higher in association with full root than subcoronary implant technique (4.5% versus 3.0% overall); however, operator experience was associated with a statistically significant decrease in mortality in both groups. Together with the present report, these data suggest that the interaction between operator experience and early mortality changes over more than the first 20 implants per surgeon.

The present report gives an estimate of operative mortality reflective of early experience both for individual surgeons and for the valve prosthesis. With experience, operative mortality decreases, and is likely closer to 4.0% to 4.5% for full root and 2.5% to 3% for subcoronary implantation [14]. Although assessment of future operative mortality is beyond the scope of this work, it should be noted that training for new surgeons who implant stentless bioprostheses incorporates lessons learned in the past 10 years. As such, operative mortality for new implanters may be lower and the learning curve likely "steeper" than that reported in the present work.

Study limitations
The present study was observational. As such, multiple factors influenced implant technique, including surgeon preference as well as patient-related variables. There were clear differences between study sites, with some performing only subcoronary and others performing only full root procedures. Site was used as a clinical variable in the regression model in an attempt to recognize regional differences in patients, clinical practice, and surgical practice. Differences between sites underscore the heterogeneity of the study population. However, inasmuch as it is impossible to perform a study that randomly assigns patients to the two implant techniques, the present study reports outcomes reflective of clinical practice as the valve was used at a variety of institutions.

There were insufficient data in the present study to test the root inclusion technique. The preponderance of subcoronary valves were implanted using the modified subcoronary technique; as such, data in the present study should not be extrapolated to other stentless bioprostheses implanted using a complete subcoronary technique.

Small numbers of patients may have precluded detection of small differences between implant groups. In addition, statistically significant differences between groups for some variables may be of limited clinical importance. Finally, longer term data and functional data are required to better measure late differences between implant techniques. In particular, the impact of implant technique on complications and mortality at reoperation was not addressed in the present study.

In conclusion, both the subcoronary and the full root implantation techniques of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis are associated with good hemodynamic and clinical outcomes through 5 years. Differences observed between implant techniques included higher operative mortality and subsequent cardiac mortality among patients undergoing full root implantation, but with somewhat more favorable hemodynamics, lower prevalence of AR, and better NYHA functional class on follow-up. Higher operative mortality associated with the full root technique argues against empiric replacement of the ascending aorta in the absence of aortic root pathology. In appropriately selected patients, both the full root and the subcoronary implant techniques appear to be viable alternatives for valve implantation.


    Footnotes
 Top
 Footnotes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 
Drs Bach and Kon disclose that they have a financial relationship with Medtronic, Inc.

* Dr Cartier passed away on Jan 2, 2001. Back


    Appendix
 
Study site/location: Hopital Laval Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada; Principal investigator: Paul A. Cartier, MD; Study site/location: Victoria General Hospital Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Principal investigator: David Ross, MD; Study site/location: Good Samaritan Hospital Portland, Oregon; Principal investigator: Albert Krause, MD; Study site/location: Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Principal investigator: Neal Kon, MD; Study site/location: Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center Los Angeles, California; Principal investigator: Siavosh Khonsari, MD; Study site/location: Lenox Hill Hospital New York, New York; Principal investigator: V. A. Subramanian, MD; Study site/location: Southwest Washington Medical Center Vancouver, Washington; Principal investigator: Albert Krause, MD; Study site/location: LDS Hospital Salt Lake City, Utah; Principal investigator: Donald B. Doty, MD.


    References
 Top
 Footnotes
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Comment
 References
 

  1. Bach D.S., David T., Yacoub M., et al. Hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression following implantation of the Toronto SPV valve. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:1214-1219.[Medline]
  2. David T.E., Feindel C.M., Scully H.E., Bos J., Rakowski H. Aortic valve replacement with stentless porcine aortic valves: a ten-year experience. J Heart Valve Dis 1998;7:250-254.[Medline]
  3. Eriksson M.J., Rosfors S., Rdegran K., Brodin L. Effects of exercise on Doppler-derived pressure difference, valve resistance, and effective orifice area in different aortic valve prostheses of similar size. Am J Cardiol 1999;83:619-622.[Medline]
  4. Doty D.B., Cafferty A., Cartier P., et al. Aortic valve replacement with Medtronic Freestyle bioprosthesis: five year results. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;11(suppl 1):35-41.[Medline]
  5. Pibarot P., Dumesnil J.G., Jobin J., Cartier P., Honos G., Durand L.G. Hemodynamic and physical performance during maximal exercise in patients with an aortic bioprosthetic valve: comparison of stentless versus stented bioprostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:1609-1617.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Goldman B., Christakis G., David T., et al. Will stentless valves be durable? The Toronto valve (TSPV) at 5 to 6 years. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;11(suppl 1):42-49.[Medline]
  7. David T.E., Puschmann R., Ivanov J., et al. Aortic valve replacement with stentless and stented porcine valves: a case-match study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;116:236-241.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Dearani J.A., Orszulak T.A., Daly R.C., et al. Comparison of techniques for implantation of aortic valve allografts. Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62:1069-1075.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Edmunds L.H., Clark R.E., Cohn L.H., et al. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1988;46:257-259.[Medline]
  10. Feigenbaum H. Hemodynamic information derived from echocardiography. In: Feigenbaum H., ed. Echocardiography, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1994:181-215.
  11. Devereux R.B., Alonso D.R., Lutas E.M., et al. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: comparison to necropsy findings. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:450-458.[Medline]
  12. Perry G.J., Helmcke F., Nanda N.C., et al. Evaluation of aortic insufficiency by Doppler color flow mapping. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987;9:952-959.[Abstract]
  13. Bach D.S. Echocardiographic assessment of stentless aortic bioprosthetic valves. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2000;13:941-948.[Medline]
  14. Sonnad S.S., Bach D.S., Bolling S.F., et al. The impact of new technology on a clinical practice. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;11(suppl 1):79-82.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
H. Gulbins and H. Reichenspurner
Which patients benefit from stentless aortic valve replacement?
Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2009; 88(6): 2061 - 2068.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
S. A. LeMaire, S. Y. Green, K. Sharma, C. K. Cheung, A. Sameri, P. I. Tsai, G. Adams, and J. S. Coselli
Aortic root replacement with stentless porcine xenografts: early and late outcomes in 132 patients.
Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2009; 87(2): 503 - 513.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann.Home page
A. John, B. Al-Hariri, J. Ackemann, M. El-Mehsen, S. Roethemeyer, and H. Warnecke
Subcoronary Implantation of a Stentless Valve in Patients with Aortic Aneurysms
Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, October 1, 2008; 16(5): 355 - 360.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
O. E. Dapunt, J. Easo, P. P.F. Holzl, P. Murin, M. Sudkamp, M. Horst, and E. Natour
Stentless full root bioprosthesis in surgery for complex aortic valve-ascending aortic disease: a single center experience of over 300 patients
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., April 1, 2008; 33(4): 554 - 559.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTHHome page
G. Silvay, J. G. Castillo, J. Chikwe, B. Flynn, and F. Filsoufi
Cardiac Anesthesia and Surgery in Geriatric Patients
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, March 1, 2008; 12(1): 18 - 28.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
J. A.C. Ennker, A. A. Albert, U. P. Rosendahl, I. C. Ennker, F. Dalladaku, and I. Florath
Ten-Year Experience With Stentless Aortic Valves: Full-Root Versus Subcoronary Implantation
Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2008; 85(2): 445 - 453.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Card Surg AdultHome page
P. Stelzer
Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement: Porcine and Pericardial
Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 915 - 934.
[Full Text]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
T. Takaseya, T. Kawara, S. Tokunaga, M. Kohno, Y. Oishi, and S. Morita
Aortic Valve Replacement With 17-mm St. Jude Medical Prostheses for a Small Aortic Root in Elderly Patients
Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2050 - 2053.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ICVTSHome page
R.-U. Kuehnel, U. A. Stock, M. O. Wendt, I. Degenkolbe, U. Jainski, M. Hartrumpf, M. Pohl, and J. M. Albes
Physiological function of stentless aortic valves is altered by trimming and removal of aortic wall components
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2007; 6(2): 182 - 187.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
W. Hassanein, A. Albert, I. Florath, Y. Y. Hegazy, U. Rosendahl, S. Bauer, and J. Ennker
Concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass: the effect of valve type on the blood flow in bypass grafts
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2007; 31(3): 391 - 396.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
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]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
D. Grandmougin and G. Fayad
Implantation of a modified freestyle valve with a single inflow suture line: technical patterns and advantages.
Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2006; 82(3): 1128 - 1130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
Determinants of operative mortality in valvular heart surgery.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2006; 131(3): 547 - 557.



Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
D. S. Bach, N. D. Kon, J. G. Dumesnil, C. F. Sintek, and D. B. Doty
Ten-Year Outcome After Aortic Valve Replacement with the Freestyle Stentless Bioprosthesis
Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2005; 80(2): 480 - 487.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
N. D. Desai, O. Merin, G. N. Cohen, J. Herman, S. Mobilos, J. Y. Sever, S. E. Fremes, B. S. Goldman, and G. T. Christakis
Long-Term Results of Aortic Valve Replacement With the St. Jude Toronto Stentless Porcine Valve
Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2004; 78(6): 2076 - 2083.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
W. B. Hemmer, C. A. Botha, J. O. Bohm, T. Herrmann, C. Starck, and J.-G. Rein
Replacement of the Aortic Valve and Ascending Aorta With an Extended Root Stentless Xenograft
Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2004; 78(6): 2150 - 2152.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
T. G. Gleason, T. E. David, J. S. Coselli, J. W. Hammon Jr, and J. E. Bavaria
St. Jude Medical Toronto biologic aortic root prosthesis: Early FDA phase II IDE study results
Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2004; 78(3): 786 - 793.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
D. S. Bach, N. D. Kon, J. G. Dumesnil, C. F. Sintek, and D. B. Doty
Eight-year results after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2004; 127(6): 1657 - 1663.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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):
Paul C. Cartier
Neal D. Kon
G. Michael Deeb
Donald B. Doty
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 Bach, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Doty, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bach, D. S.
Right arrow Articles by Doty, D. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Valve disease


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