Cor Vasa 2007, 49(7-8):245-249 | DOI: 10.33678/cor.2007.094

Our experience with aortic bioprostheses

Petr Šantavý, Marián Benčat, Martin Troubil, Pavel Marcián, Vilém Bruk, Petr Němec
Šantavý P, Benčat M, Troubil M, Marcián P, Bruk V, Němec P (Kardiochirurgická klinika, Fakultní nemocnice Olomouc a Lékařská fakulta Univerzity Palackého, Olomouc, Česká republika).

Objective:
Valve replacement surgery in the case of degenerative aortic stenosis is a most frequent procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic parameters of different types of bioprostheses.

Methods:
Between March 2002 and September 2006, a total of 277 aortic bioprostheses were implanted at our institution (70% of all aortic prostheses). The bioprostheses used were as follows: Edwards Lifesciences (models 2650, 2900, 3000), Medtronic-Hall (Mosaic), SJM (Epic, Epic supra), and Sorin (More, Soprano). One hundred and fifty four men and 123 women, mean age 74 ± 6 years, were included into the study. We measured the inner and outer diameters of the bioprostheses before implantation. Complete echocardiographic examination at rest was performed, and gradients and effective orifice area were calculated.

Results:
The sizes of the bioprostheses supplied by manufacturers were found to be different from what we measured: there appeared to be little correspondence to either the inner or outer valve diameter. Sorin (Soprano) showed the closest approximation. Effective orifice areas of bioprostheses measured by Doppler and continuity equation were smaller than the values published by the manufacturers, which are obtained in vitro. According to our measurements, Edwards, SJM and Sorin (Soprano) bioprostheses showed better results than Medtronic-Hall (Mosaic) and Sorin (More). An effective orifice area of the prosthesis indexed on a body surface area larger than 0.85 cm2/m2 is difficult to attain.

Conclusions:
When implanting a bioprosthesis, it is important to know its postoperative hemodynamic parameters. Based on the differences found in our study, the spectrum of bioprostheses implanted at our institution has partly changed since.

Keywords: Aortic bioprosthesis; Effective orifice area; Peak and mean gradient

Published: July 1, 2007  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Šantavý P, Benčat M, Troubil M, Marcián P, Bruk V, Němec P. Our experience with aortic bioprostheses. Cor Vasa. 2007;49(7-8):245-249. doi: 10.33678/cor.2007.094.
Download citation

References

  1. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;6:893-904. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Němec P, Čermák M, Štětka F, a spol. Časné výsledky náhrady aortální chlopně u nemocných ve věku nad 70 roků. Cor Vasa 2000;42 Suppl 4:130-3.
  3. Šetina M, Čoček D, Pospíšilová H, Mokráček A, Vambera M, Toušek F. Je bioprotéza s rigidním stentem dobrou volbou pro náhradu aortální chlopně u starších pacientů? Rozhl Chir 2002;81:401-4. Go to PubMed...
  4. Puvimanasinghe JPA, Takkenberg JJM, Edwards MB, et al. Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation. Heart 2004;90:1172-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Doporučené postupy pro diagnostiku a léčbu nemocných s chlopenní vadou v dospělosti (ČKS). Cor Vasa 2000;42:K82-K86.
  6. Mayumi H, Toshima Y, Kawachi Y, et al. Simplified Manouguian's aortic annular enlargement for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:701. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Manouguian S, Seybold-Epting W. Patch enlargement of the aortic valve ring by extending the aortic incision into the anterior mitral leaflet: new operative technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1979;78:402. Go to original source...
  8. Dominik J. Patient-prosthesis mismatch. Interv Akut Kardiol 2005;4:229-32.
  9. Pibarot P, Dumesnil J. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:1131-412. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Rahimtoola SH. The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 1978;58: 20-4. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Howell NJ, Keogh BE, Barnet V, et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch does not affect survival following aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006; 30:10-4. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Walther T, Rastan A, Falk V, et al. Patient prosthesis mismatch affect short- and long- term outcomes after aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006; 30:15-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Izzat MB, Kadir I, Reeves B, et al. Patient-prosthesis mismatch is negligible with modern small-size aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:1657-60. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Medalion B, Lytle BW, McCarthy PM, et al. Aortic valve replacement for octogenarians: Are small valves bad? Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:699-706. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...




Cor et Vasa

You are accessing a site intended for medical professionals, not the lay public. The site may also contain information that is intended only for persons authorized to prescribe and dispense medicinal products for human use.

I therefore confirm that I am a healthcare professional under Act 40/1995 Coll. as amended by later regulations and that I have read the definition of a healthcare professional.