Normal echocardiographic characteristics of the sorin bicarbon bileaflet prosthetic heart valve in the mitral and aortic positions

The Edwards MIRAtm Heart Valve Prosthesis:. A 2-Year Study

“…In 21 mm aortic Edwards MIRA™ valves we report a mean gradient of 14.8 ± 4.1 mmHg at 6 months and 13.1 ± 6.8 mmHg at 2 years. Echocardiographic characteristics of the Sorin Bicarbon described by Badano et al 23 at a mean of 6 weeks and 10 months on 236 patients in aortic 19 mm to 29 mm and mitral 25 mm to 31 mm sizes are also similar to our Edwards MIRA™ results. Aortic mean gradients in 19 mm valves were 13 mmHg, in 21 mm valves were 13 mmHg, in 23 mm valves were 10 mmHg, in 25 mm valves were 11 mmHg, 27 mm valves were 7 mmHg, and in 29 mm valves were 5 mmHg.…”

Experience of the Small Size (25 mm) Sorin Bicarbon Bileaflet Prosthetic Valve in Patients with Small Mitral Annuli

“…Nevertheless, we measured pressure half‐time in order to compare our result with others'. Badano et al 18 showed relatively higher pressure half‐time when compared to our study (70 ms vs. 85 ms). This result may be attributable to very low numbers of 25‐mm valve in their study (n = 3 vs. n = 38) and lower prosthetic flow in our study (129 mL/s vs. 93 mL/s).…”

“…According to the previous literature, 18 , 22 there is no statistically significant difference between mean gradients of large‐size and small‐size Sorin bileaflet mechanical heart valves [mean gradient: 4 mmHg for 25 mm Sorin and 4 mmHg for 31 mm Sorin, 18 mean gradient 5 ± 2 mmHg for 27 mm Sorin, 5 ± 1 mmHg for 31 mm Sorin 22…”

Early results of Bentall-type operations during the last 10 years: comparison of mechanical valves and stentless bioprostheses

“…Effective orifice area (EOA, cm 2 ) and EOA index (EOAI = EOA/body surface area, cm 2 /m 2 ) were estimated using data in the literature instead of measuring each patient (Table 1). [6][7][8][11][12][13][14] To investigate mid-term survival, we tried to contact all the patients, with success for 60 patients or their families (94%). Considering the case numbers for each type of prosthesis, two groups were statistically compared: the mechanical valve group (M-group) and the Freestyle group (F-group).…”