A novel comparison of stentless versus stented valves in the small aortic root

Rao, Vivek; Christakis, George T.; Sever, Jeri; Fremes, Stephen E.; Bhatnagar, Gopal; Cohen, Gideon; Borger, Michael A.; Abouzahr, Labib; Goldman, Bernard S.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5223(99)70321-1

Cited by 34 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These data also indicate that the good hemodynamic performance of both valve types avoided a prosthesis -patient mismatch in patients with an aortic annulus diameter of at least 21 mm. The satisfactory hemodynamic performance of both valves also support conclusions from studies by Milano [6] and Rao [8], indicating that biological valves of the second and third generation may even parallel the hemodynamic performance of stentless valves when the comparison of both valve types is performed between patients with the same aortic annulus diameter.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis

Seitelberger¹,

Bialy²,

Gottardi³

et al. 2004

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis

Seitelberger¹,

Bialy²,

Gottardi³

et al. 2004

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have previously demonstrated that apparent hemodynamic differences between valves of similar labeled sizes are no longer present when the comparison is adjusted to reflect true measured dimensions. 9 Therefore, any investigation of the effect of valve size must be based on a uniform measurement that is applicable across valve manufacturers. In this study, we used the preoperative EOA indexed to body surface area (BSA) as a measure of prosthesis-patient mismatch 5 and used this ratio to evaluate long-term survival after AVR.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Affects Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement

Rao

Jamieson²,

Ivanov³

et al. 2000

Circulation

225

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In studies that evaluated the impact of concomitant surgeries on outcomes of aortic valve replacement, CABG was the most common concomitant procedure [11,18,20,21] . In our study, the most common concomitant procedures were mitral valve replacement (27.5% of patients) and myocardial revascularization (12.7% of patients).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term Mortality Predictors in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with a 19- or 21-mm Bioprosthesis

Oliveira¹,

Arnoni²,

Santos³

et al. 2016

Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionReplacement of the aortic valve in patients with a small aortic annulus is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A prosthesis-patient mismatch is one of the main problems associated with failed valves in this patient population.ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term mortality predictors in patients with a small aortic annulus undergoing aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, a total of 101 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement from January 2000 to December 2010 were studied. There were 81 (80.19%) women with a mean age of 52.81±18.4 years. Severe aortic stenosis was the main indication for surgery in 54 (53.4%) patients. Posterior annulus enlargement was performed in 16 (15.8%) patients. Overall, 54 (53.41%) patients underwent concomitant surgery: 28 (27.5%) underwent mitral valve replacement, and 13 (12.7%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery.ResultsMean valve index was 0.82±0.08 cm2/m2. Overall, 17 (16.83%) patients had a valve index lower than 0.75 cm2/m2, without statistical significance for mortality (P=0.12). The overall 10-year survival rate was 83.17%. The rate for patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement was 91.3% and 73.1% (P=0.02) for patients who underwent concomitant surgery. In the univariate analysis, the main predictors of mortality were preoperative ejection fraction (P=0.02; HR 0.01) and EuroSCORE II results (P=0.00000042; HR 1.13). In the multivariate analysis, the main predictors of mortality were age (P=0.01, HR 1.04) and concomitant surgery (P=0.01, HR 5.04). Those relationships were statistically significant.ConclusionA valve index of < 0.75 cm2/m2 did not affect 10-year survival. However, concomitant surgery and age significantly affected mortality.

show abstract

A novel comparison of stentless versus stented valves in the small aortic root

Cited by 34 publications

References 17 publications

Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis

Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Affects Survival After Aortic Valve Replacement

Long-term Mortality Predictors in Patients with Small Aortic Annulus Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement with a 19- or 21-mm Bioprosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About