Cargando…
Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis
BACKGROUND: Current retrospective evidence suggests similar clinical and superior hemodynamic outcomes of the Sorin Freedom Solo stentless aortic valve (SFS) (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) compared to the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented aortic valve (CEP) (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, Califor...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770057/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29338037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191171 |
_version_ | 1783293015379410944 |
---|---|
author | Schaefer, Andreas Dickow, Jannis Schoen, Gerhard Westhofen, Sumi Kloss, Lisa Al-Saydali, Tarik Reichenspurner, Hermann Philipp, Sebastian A. Detter, Christian |
author_facet | Schaefer, Andreas Dickow, Jannis Schoen, Gerhard Westhofen, Sumi Kloss, Lisa Al-Saydali, Tarik Reichenspurner, Hermann Philipp, Sebastian A. Detter, Christian |
author_sort | Schaefer, Andreas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Current retrospective evidence suggests similar clinical and superior hemodynamic outcomes of the Sorin Freedom Solo stentless aortic valve (SFS) (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) compared to the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented aortic valve (CEP) (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, California, USA). To date, no reports exist describing case-matched long-term outcomes and analysis for treatment of native valve endocarditis (NVE). METHODS: From 2004 through 2014, 77 consecutive patients (study group, 59.7% male, 68.9 ± 12.5 years, logEuroSCORE II 7.6 ± 12.3%) received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the SFS. A control group of patients after SAVR with the CEP was retrieved from our database and matched to the study group regarding 15 parameters including preoperative endocarditis. Acute perioperative outcomes and follow-up data (mean follow-up time 48.7±29.8 months, 95% complete) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: No differences in early mortality occurred during 30-day follow up (3/77; 3.9% vs. 4/77; 5.2%; p = 0.699). Echocardiographic findings revealed lower postprocedural transvalvular pressure gradients (max. 17.0 ± 8.2 vs. 24.5 ± 9.2 mmHg, p< 0.001/ mean pressure of 8.4 ± 4.1 vs. 13.1 ± 5.9 mmHg, p< 0.001) in the SFS group. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) (5.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.04) and valve explantation due to SVD or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) (9.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.04) was more frequent in the SFS group. All-cause mortality during follow-up was 20.8% vs. 14.3% (p = 0.397). When patients were divided into subgroups of NVE and respective utilized bioprosthesis, the SFS presented impaired outcomes regarding mortality in NVE cases (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The hemodynamic superiority of the SFS was confirmed in this comparison. However, clinical outcomes in terms of SVD and PVE rates, as well as survival after NVE, were inferior in this study. Therefore, we are reluctant to recommend utilization of the SFS for treatment of NVE. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5770057 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57700572018-01-23 Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis Schaefer, Andreas Dickow, Jannis Schoen, Gerhard Westhofen, Sumi Kloss, Lisa Al-Saydali, Tarik Reichenspurner, Hermann Philipp, Sebastian A. Detter, Christian PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Current retrospective evidence suggests similar clinical and superior hemodynamic outcomes of the Sorin Freedom Solo stentless aortic valve (SFS) (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) compared to the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented aortic valve (CEP) (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, California, USA). To date, no reports exist describing case-matched long-term outcomes and analysis for treatment of native valve endocarditis (NVE). METHODS: From 2004 through 2014, 77 consecutive patients (study group, 59.7% male, 68.9 ± 12.5 years, logEuroSCORE II 7.6 ± 12.3%) received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the SFS. A control group of patients after SAVR with the CEP was retrieved from our database and matched to the study group regarding 15 parameters including preoperative endocarditis. Acute perioperative outcomes and follow-up data (mean follow-up time 48.7±29.8 months, 95% complete) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: No differences in early mortality occurred during 30-day follow up (3/77; 3.9% vs. 4/77; 5.2%; p = 0.699). Echocardiographic findings revealed lower postprocedural transvalvular pressure gradients (max. 17.0 ± 8.2 vs. 24.5 ± 9.2 mmHg, p< 0.001/ mean pressure of 8.4 ± 4.1 vs. 13.1 ± 5.9 mmHg, p< 0.001) in the SFS group. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) (5.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.04) and valve explantation due to SVD or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) (9.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.04) was more frequent in the SFS group. All-cause mortality during follow-up was 20.8% vs. 14.3% (p = 0.397). When patients were divided into subgroups of NVE and respective utilized bioprosthesis, the SFS presented impaired outcomes regarding mortality in NVE cases (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The hemodynamic superiority of the SFS was confirmed in this comparison. However, clinical outcomes in terms of SVD and PVE rates, as well as survival after NVE, were inferior in this study. Therefore, we are reluctant to recommend utilization of the SFS for treatment of NVE. Public Library of Science 2018-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5770057/ /pubmed/29338037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191171 Text en © 2018 Schaefer et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Schaefer, Andreas Dickow, Jannis Schoen, Gerhard Westhofen, Sumi Kloss, Lisa Al-Saydali, Tarik Reichenspurner, Hermann Philipp, Sebastian A. Detter, Christian Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis |
title | Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis |
title_full | Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis |
title_fullStr | Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis |
title_full_unstemmed | Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis |
title_short | Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis |
title_sort | stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: a case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770057/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29338037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191171 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schaeferandreas stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT dickowjannis stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT schoengerhard stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT westhofensumi stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT klosslisa stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT alsaydalitarik stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT reichenspurnerhermann stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT philippsebastiana stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis AT detterchristian stentlessvsstentedbioprosthesisforaorticvalvereplacementacasematchedcomparisonoflongtermfollowupandsubgroupanalysisofpatientswithnativevalveendocarditis |