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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schaefer, Andreas, Dickow, Jannis, Schoen, Gerhard, Westhofen, Sumi, Kloss, Lisa, Al-Saydali, Tarik, Reichenspurner, Hermann, Philipp, Sebastian A., Detter, Christian
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