Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial
- PMID: 11899180
- DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(01)03338-0
Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial
Abstract
Background: Although stentless aortic bioprostheses are believed to offer improved outcomes, hemodynamic benefits remain unsubstantiated.
Methods: Fifty-three patients were randomized to receive the stented C-E pericardial valve (CE) and 46 patients the Toronto Stentless Porcine valve (SPV). Annuli were sized for the optimal insertion of both valve types, such that surgeons were required to commit to specific valve sizes before randomization. Echocardiographic measurements and functional status (Duke Activity Status Index) were assessed at 3 and 12 months postoperatively.
Results: Although cardiopulmonary bypass times (CE: 118.6+/-36.3 minutes; SPV: 148.5+/-30.9 minutes; p = 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp times (CE: 95.4+/-28.6 minutes; SPV: 123.6+/-24.1 minutes; p = 0.0001) were significantly prolonged in the SPV group, perioperative morbidity and mortality was similar between groups. Neither valve offered a superior internal diameter for any given annular diameter (mean decrease in left ventricular outflow tract diameter after valvular implantation: SPV: 3.4+/-1.11 mm versus CE: 3.7+/-1.33 mm; p = 0.25). Although labeled mean valve size was significantly larger in the SPV group, the actual mean valve size based on internal valvular diameter was no different between groups (CE: 21.9+/-2.0 mm; SPV: 22.3+/-2.0 mm; p = 0.286). Although effective orifice areas increased, and mean and peak transvalvular gradients decreased in both groups over time, no differences were demonstrated between groups at 12 months. Similarly, although significant regression of left ventricular mass was accomplished in both groups over time, no differences were demonstrated between groups. Finally, Duke Activity Status Index scores of functional status improved in both groups over time; however, no differences were noted between groups at 12 months postoperatively.
Conclusions: Although offering excellent outcomes, stentless valves did not demonstrate superior hemodynamic indices in comparison to stented valves up to 12 months after implantation.
Comment in
-
Is the hemodynamic performance of the carpentier-edwards perimount valve really equivalent to that of stentless valves?Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 Aug;76(2):656-7; author reply 657-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(03)00269-8. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003. PMID: 12902139 No abstract available.
-
Randomized trial of stentless versus stented bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement.Ann Thorac Surg. 2003 Oct;76(4):1338-9. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(03)00746-x. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003. PMID: 14530055 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve with the Toronto Stentless Porcine Valve.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Apr;139(4):848-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.04.067. Epub 2010 Jan 18. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010. PMID: 20080264 Clinical Trial.
-
The Toronto root stentless valve in the subcoronary position is hemodynamically superior to the mosaic stented completely supra-annular bioprosthesis.J Heart Valve Dis. 2005 Nov;14(6):814-21; discussion 821. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005. PMID: 16359064
-
Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after stented and stentless aortic valve replacement: results from a randomized controlled trial.Ann Thorac Surg. 2007 Jun;83(6):2162-8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.01.021. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007. PMID: 17532416 Clinical Trial.
-
Biological aortic valve replacement: advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented valve substitutes. A review.Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 May;66(5):247-256. doi: 10.1007/s11748-018-0884-3. Epub 2018 Jan 10. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018. PMID: 29322433 Review.
-
Stented Versus Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Aortic Root: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Innovations (Phila). 2018 Nov/Dec;13(6):404-416. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000569. Innovations (Phila). 2018. PMID: 30543577
Cited by
-
Current status of the mechanical valve and bioprosthesis in Japan.J Artif Organs. 2008;11(2):53-9. doi: 10.1007/s10047-008-0409-4. Epub 2008 Jul 6. J Artif Organs. 2008. PMID: 18604609 Review.
-
Surgical outcomes and post-operative changes in patients with significant aortic stenosis and severe left ventricle dysfunction.J Korean Med Sci. 2009 Oct;24(5):812-7. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2009.24.5.812. Epub 2009 Sep 23. J Korean Med Sci. 2009. PMID: 19794976 Free PMC article.
-
Complementary Role of the Computed Biomodelling through Finite Element Analysis and Computed Tomography for Diagnosis of Transcatheter Heart Valve Thrombosis.Biomed Res Int. 2018 Oct 22;2018:1346308. doi: 10.1155/2018/1346308. eCollection 2018. Biomed Res Int. 2018. PMID: 30426001 Free PMC article.
-
Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update.Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2011;7:345-51. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S11253. Epub 2011 Jun 2. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2011. PMID: 21731886 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Surgical treatment of aortic valve disease.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013 Jul;10(7):375-86. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2013.72. Epub 2013 May 14. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013. PMID: 23670613 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources