Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis

BACKGROUND: We assessed the hemodynamic performance of various prostheses and the clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement, in different age groups. METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty patients with isolated aortic valve stenosis were included in this prospective randomized randomised trial and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doss, Mirko, Wood, Jeffrey P, Kiessling, Arndt H, Moritz, Anton
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-6-136
_version_ 1782214547840434176
author Doss, Mirko
Wood, Jeffrey P
Kiessling, Arndt H
Moritz, Anton
author_facet Doss, Mirko
Wood, Jeffrey P
Kiessling, Arndt H
Moritz, Anton
author_sort Doss, Mirko
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We assessed the hemodynamic performance of various prostheses and the clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement, in different age groups. METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty patients with isolated aortic valve stenosis were included in this prospective randomized randomised trial and allocated in three age-groups to receive either pulmonary autograft (PA, n = 20) or mechanical prosthesis (MP, Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 1 (age < 55 years), either stentless bioprosthesis (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or MP (Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 2 (age 55-75 years) and either stentless (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or stented bioprosthesis (CE Perimount n = 20) in group 3 (age > 75). Clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance were evaluated at discharge, six months and one year. RESULTS: In group 1, patients with PA had significantly lower mean gradients than the MP (2.6 vs. 10.9 mmHg, p = 0.0005) with comparable left ventricular mass regression (LVMR). Morbidity included 1 stroke in the PA population and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the MP subgroup. In group 2, mean gradients did not differ significantly between both populations (7.0 vs. 8.9 mmHg, p = 0.81). The rate of LVMR and EF were comparable at 12 months; each group with one mortality. Morbidity included 1 stroke and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the stentless and 3 bleeding complications in the MP group. In group 3, mean gradients did not differ significantly (7.8 vs 6.5 mmHg, p = 0.06). Postoperative EF and LVMR were comparable. There were 3 deaths in the stented group and no mortality in the stentless group. Morbidity included 1 endocarditis and 1 stroke in the stentless compared to 1 endocarditis, 1 stroke and one pulmonary embolism in the stented group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes justify valve replacement with either valve substitute in the respective age groups. The PA hemodynamically outperformed the MPs. Stentless valves however, did not demonstrate significantly superior hemodynamics or outcomes in comparison to stented bioprosthesis or MPs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3199244
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31992442011-10-24 Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis Doss, Mirko Wood, Jeffrey P Kiessling, Arndt H Moritz, Anton J Cardiothorac Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: We assessed the hemodynamic performance of various prostheses and the clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement, in different age groups. METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty patients with isolated aortic valve stenosis were included in this prospective randomized randomised trial and allocated in three age-groups to receive either pulmonary autograft (PA, n = 20) or mechanical prosthesis (MP, Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 1 (age < 55 years), either stentless bioprosthesis (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or MP (Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 2 (age 55-75 years) and either stentless (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or stented bioprosthesis (CE Perimount n = 20) in group 3 (age > 75). Clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance were evaluated at discharge, six months and one year. RESULTS: In group 1, patients with PA had significantly lower mean gradients than the MP (2.6 vs. 10.9 mmHg, p = 0.0005) with comparable left ventricular mass regression (LVMR). Morbidity included 1 stroke in the PA population and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the MP subgroup. In group 2, mean gradients did not differ significantly between both populations (7.0 vs. 8.9 mmHg, p = 0.81). The rate of LVMR and EF were comparable at 12 months; each group with one mortality. Morbidity included 1 stroke and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the stentless and 3 bleeding complications in the MP group. In group 3, mean gradients did not differ significantly (7.8 vs 6.5 mmHg, p = 0.06). Postoperative EF and LVMR were comparable. There were 3 deaths in the stented group and no mortality in the stentless group. Morbidity included 1 endocarditis and 1 stroke in the stentless compared to 1 endocarditis, 1 stroke and one pulmonary embolism in the stented group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes justify valve replacement with either valve substitute in the respective age groups. The PA hemodynamically outperformed the MPs. Stentless valves however, did not demonstrate significantly superior hemodynamics or outcomes in comparison to stented bioprosthesis or MPs. BioMed Central 2011-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3199244/ /pubmed/21992565 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-6-136 Text en Copyright ©2011 Doss et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Doss, Mirko
Wood, Jeffrey P
Kiessling, Arndt H
Moritz, Anton
Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis
title Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis
title_full Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis
title_short Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis
title_sort comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21992565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-6-136
work_keys_str_mv AT dossmirko comparativeevaluationofleftventricularmassregressionafteraorticvalvereplacementaprospectiverandomizedanalysis
AT woodjeffreyp comparativeevaluationofleftventricularmassregressionafteraorticvalvereplacementaprospectiverandomizedanalysis
AT kiesslingarndth comparativeevaluationofleftventricularmassregressionafteraorticvalvereplacementaprospectiverandomizedanalysis
AT moritzanton comparativeevaluationofleftventricularmassregressionafteraorticvalvereplacementaprospectiverandomizedanalysis