Cargando…
Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to compare the early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results of the aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a St Jude Medical Regent 19-mm prosthesis (SJMR-19) versus Carpentied-Edwars bovine pericardial 19-mm valve (CE-19). METHODS: Between January 2002...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4635601/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26541289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-015-0361-3 |
_version_ | 1782399529927049216 |
---|---|
author | Prifti, Edvin Bonacchi, Massimo Ademaj, Fadil Giunti, Gabriele Esposito, Giampiero Baboci, Arben Bajraktari, Gani Veshti, Altin Demiraj, Aurel Vanini, Vittorio |
author_facet | Prifti, Edvin Bonacchi, Massimo Ademaj, Fadil Giunti, Gabriele Esposito, Giampiero Baboci, Arben Bajraktari, Gani Veshti, Altin Demiraj, Aurel Vanini, Vittorio |
author_sort | Prifti, Edvin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to compare the early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results of the aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a St Jude Medical Regent 19-mm prosthesis (SJMR-19) versus Carpentied-Edwars bovine pericardial 19-mm valve (CE-19). METHODS: Between January 2002 and January 2012, 265 patients (Group I) and 58 patients (Group II) with underwent AVR with a SJMR-19 and CE-19 respectively. There were no significant differences between groups regarding the demographic and preoperative echocardiographic data. Thirty-six patients in Group I and 4 in Group II required annulus enlargement in association or not with septal myectomy. The mean follow-up was 34 ± 18.5 months (range 5–60 months). RESULTS: There were 14 (5.3 %) hospital deaths in Group I versus 4 (6.8 %) in Group II (p = 0.86). The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the LVEF ≤ 35 % (p = 0.001), combined operation (p = 0.0005), CPB (p = 0.033), age (p = 0.011), annulus enlargement (p = 0.0009), reoperation (p = 0.039) and chronic renal failure (p = 0.011) as strong predictors for early postoperative death. Within 1 year after surgery peak pulmonary artery pressure, interventricular septal and left ventricular posterior wall thickness decreased significantly in both groups. The M-TPG was 15.7 ± 6.5 mmHg in Group I versus 17 ± 7 mmHg in Group II (p = 0.19). The multivariate regression analysis revealed the annulus enlargement (p = 0.018), small EOA(i) (p = 0.00004), postoperative LVM(i) (p = 0.0001) and BSA (p = 0.019) as strong predictors for higher M-TPG. The postoperative LVM(i) was 119 ± 22.5 gm/m(2) in Group I and 122 ± 22 gm/m(2) in Group II (p = 0.37), significantly lower than the respective preoperative values 162.5 ± 34 gm/m(2) (Group I) and 168 ± 30 gm/m(2) (Group II). The actuarial survival and cumulative free-reoperation actuarial survival at 5 years follow-up were 96.7 and 94.5 % respectively in Group I and 97 and 91 % in Group II.. There were non significant differences between groups regarding the actuarial survival and cumulative free-reoperation survival. The Cox model identified the older age (p = 0.022), LVEF ≤ 35 % (p = 0.009), reoperation (p = 0.018), combined surgery (p = 0.00075) and annulus enlargement (p = 0.033) as strong predictors for poor actuarial free-reoperation survival. CONCLUSIONS: Both the SJMR-19 and CE-19 offers excellent postoperative clinical and hemodynamic outcome in patients with small aortic annulus. The LV hypertrophy and transvalvular gradients are reduced significantly indenpendently of the employed SJMR-19 or CE-19 prosthesis. Our data support recent suggestions that small valve size does not influence intermediate free-reoperation survival. The CE-19 is an excellent alternative to SJMR-19 in old patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4635601 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46356012015-11-07 Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis Prifti, Edvin Bonacchi, Massimo Ademaj, Fadil Giunti, Gabriele Esposito, Giampiero Baboci, Arben Bajraktari, Gani Veshti, Altin Demiraj, Aurel Vanini, Vittorio J Cardiothorac Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to compare the early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results of the aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a St Jude Medical Regent 19-mm prosthesis (SJMR-19) versus Carpentied-Edwars bovine pericardial 19-mm valve (CE-19). METHODS: Between January 2002 and January 2012, 265 patients (Group I) and 58 patients (Group II) with underwent AVR with a SJMR-19 and CE-19 respectively. There were no significant differences between groups regarding the demographic and preoperative echocardiographic data. Thirty-six patients in Group I and 4 in Group II required annulus enlargement in association or not with septal myectomy. The mean follow-up was 34 ± 18.5 months (range 5–60 months). RESULTS: There were 14 (5.3 %) hospital deaths in Group I versus 4 (6.8 %) in Group II (p = 0.86). The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the LVEF ≤ 35 % (p = 0.001), combined operation (p = 0.0005), CPB (p = 0.033), age (p = 0.011), annulus enlargement (p = 0.0009), reoperation (p = 0.039) and chronic renal failure (p = 0.011) as strong predictors for early postoperative death. Within 1 year after surgery peak pulmonary artery pressure, interventricular septal and left ventricular posterior wall thickness decreased significantly in both groups. The M-TPG was 15.7 ± 6.5 mmHg in Group I versus 17 ± 7 mmHg in Group II (p = 0.19). The multivariate regression analysis revealed the annulus enlargement (p = 0.018), small EOA(i) (p = 0.00004), postoperative LVM(i) (p = 0.0001) and BSA (p = 0.019) as strong predictors for higher M-TPG. The postoperative LVM(i) was 119 ± 22.5 gm/m(2) in Group I and 122 ± 22 gm/m(2) in Group II (p = 0.37), significantly lower than the respective preoperative values 162.5 ± 34 gm/m(2) (Group I) and 168 ± 30 gm/m(2) (Group II). The actuarial survival and cumulative free-reoperation actuarial survival at 5 years follow-up were 96.7 and 94.5 % respectively in Group I and 97 and 91 % in Group II.. There were non significant differences between groups regarding the actuarial survival and cumulative free-reoperation survival. The Cox model identified the older age (p = 0.022), LVEF ≤ 35 % (p = 0.009), reoperation (p = 0.018), combined surgery (p = 0.00075) and annulus enlargement (p = 0.033) as strong predictors for poor actuarial free-reoperation survival. CONCLUSIONS: Both the SJMR-19 and CE-19 offers excellent postoperative clinical and hemodynamic outcome in patients with small aortic annulus. The LV hypertrophy and transvalvular gradients are reduced significantly indenpendently of the employed SJMR-19 or CE-19 prosthesis. Our data support recent suggestions that small valve size does not influence intermediate free-reoperation survival. The CE-19 is an excellent alternative to SJMR-19 in old patients. BioMed Central 2015-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4635601/ /pubmed/26541289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-015-0361-3 Text en © Prifti et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Prifti, Edvin Bonacchi, Massimo Ademaj, Fadil Giunti, Gabriele Esposito, Giampiero Baboci, Arben Bajraktari, Gani Veshti, Altin Demiraj, Aurel Vanini, Vittorio Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis |
title | Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis |
title_full | Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis |
title_fullStr | Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis |
title_full_unstemmed | Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis |
title_short | Early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. Jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis |
title_sort | early and mid-term outcome in terms of functional and hemodynamic performance of the st. jude regent 19-mm aortic mechanical prosthesis versus 19-mm carpentier edwards aortic biological prosthesis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4635601/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26541289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-015-0361-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT priftiedvin earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT bonacchimassimo earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT ademajfadil earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT giuntigabriele earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT espositogiampiero earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT babociarben earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT bajraktarigani earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT veshtialtin earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT demirajaurel earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis AT vaninivittorio earlyandmidtermoutcomeintermsoffunctionalandhemodynamicperformanceofthestjuderegent19mmaorticmechanicalprosthesisversus19mmcarpentieredwardsaorticbiologicalprosthesis |