2007
DOI: 10.1510/icvts.2006.144196
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

One year hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna pericardial xenograft and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: a prospective randomized study

Abstract: We compared the hemodynamic performance of the Edwards Perimount Magna (EPM) and the Medtronic Mosaic (MM) bioprostheses according to the patient aortic annulus diameter (AAD). Eighty-six patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were prospectively assigned to receive either an EPM-valve (n=43) or an MM-bioprosthesis (n=43). Randomization was performed after measuring the AAD and patients were grouped according to their AAD: <22 mm (n=12), 22-23 mm (n=31) and >23 mm (n=43). Echocardiographic assessment was … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
25
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
3
25
2
Order By: Relevance
“…We observed an echocardiographically determined mean gradient of 10 mm Hg across the native valve after AVB surgery, which is highly favorable and comparable to values reported for postoperative gradients after mechanical and bioprosthetic conventional AVR. [22][23][24][25][26] Compared with conventional (orthotopic) AVR in which the effective orifice area of the left ventricular outflow tract after surgery is determined solely by the type and size of prosthesis chosen, the effective orifice area after AVB surgery is the sum of the native stenotic valve and the effective orifice area of the AVB conduit. Although patient prosthesis mismatch is a concern in conventional AVR surgery, particularly in patients with small aortic roots, the fact that a generous-diameter conduit (and bioprosthesis) can be placed in all patients undergoing AVB surgery obviates these concerns.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We observed an echocardiographically determined mean gradient of 10 mm Hg across the native valve after AVB surgery, which is highly favorable and comparable to values reported for postoperative gradients after mechanical and bioprosthetic conventional AVR. [22][23][24][25][26] Compared with conventional (orthotopic) AVR in which the effective orifice area of the left ventricular outflow tract after surgery is determined solely by the type and size of prosthesis chosen, the effective orifice area after AVB surgery is the sum of the native stenotic valve and the effective orifice area of the AVB conduit. Although patient prosthesis mismatch is a concern in conventional AVR surgery, particularly in patients with small aortic roots, the fact that a generous-diameter conduit (and bioprosthesis) can be placed in all patients undergoing AVB surgery obviates these concerns.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pressure gradients of the Magna, the Mosaic, and the Soprano are in accord with findings of other groups. 1,[3][4][5][6]8,13,14,20,22,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] There are preliminary in vivo hemodynamic data available regarding the Mosaic Ultra 10 and only 1 in vivo evaluation of the Epic, which was published previously by our group. 4 The in vitro data concerning hemodynamic gradients of the Epic and the Ultra correspond well with our results.…”
Section: Mean Pressure Gradientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1,3,6,8,[25][26][27] The annulus diameter is used in 5 of the 7 in vivo studies as a comparing parameter (online supplemental Table 4). The hemodynamic gradients are low for all annulus sizes; the lowest gradients were described by Botzenhardt in patients with an annulus diameter of 22 to 23 mm (7.3 mm Hg) 27 and the highest in patients with an annulus diameter of 18 to 22 mm (13.2 mm Hg).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…11 Valvuloarterial impedance, systemic arterial compliance, and systemic vascular resistance were calculated as previously described. 12 Prosthesis-patient mismatch was calculated according to previous recommendations 13 with the use of patient's body surface area and the normal reference values of the effective orifice areas as reported by the manufacturer for Mitroflow (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ cdrh_docs/pdf6/p060038c.pdf), Edwards-Carpentiers Magna Ease, 14 Medtronic ATS AP360 (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/ pdf/P990046c.pdf), and Carbomedics Top Hat valves. 15 An indexed effective orifice area <0.85 cm/m 2 was considered patient-prosthesis mismatch.…”
Section: Echocardiographymentioning
confidence: 99%