Retrospective clinical analysis of stented vs. stentless porcine aortic bioprostheses.

Autor:	Vrandecic M; Biocor Institute, Avenida Alameda da Serra, 217, Bairro Vila da Serra, Belo Horizonte, 34000-000, Minas Gerais, Brazil. biocor@biocor.com.br, Fantini FA, Filho BG, de Oliveira OC, da Costa Júnior IM, Vrandecic E
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery [Eur J Cardiothorac Surg] 2000 Jul; Vol. 18 (1), pp. 46-53.
DOI:	10.1016/s1010-7940(00)00416-4
Abstrakt:	Objective: The study was designed to compare hemodynamic performance, structural failure and survival of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a composite aortic stented or stentless porcine bioprosthesis. Methods: From January 1990 to June 1999, the clinical data of 725 patients undergoing AVR with stented porcine aortic bioprosthesis were reviewed. We defined two groups of patients with similar clinical characteristics: 202 patients receiving aortic stented and 205 patients stentless valves. The two patients groups were similar in age, sex, valve lesion, valve size, preoperative New York Heart Association (NYHA) class status and follow-up. Results: The number of patients available for follow-up, excluding hospital and late mortality, reoperations and patients lost to follow-up, was 157 for the stented and 175 for the stentless group. There was a higher incidence of rheumatic heart disease in the stented (59%) vs. stentless group (44%), (P=0.003). Fewer patients had prior aortic bioprosthetic dysfunction in the stented (7.6%) compared to the stentless group (25%) (P<0.001). The mean intensive care unit stay, hospital mortality and late mortality were similar (P, NS). The total complication rate was higher in the stented (12%) than the stentless (3.4%)(P=0.005). Valve related death was higher in the stented (2.5%) than the stentless (0%) (P=0. 049). Postoperatively, the aortic effective orifice area (AEOA) was larger (P<0.001) and the transvalvular peak and mean gradients were lower in the stentless group (P<0.001). The leaflet tissue degeneration analysis was 8.0% in patients at risk for stented and 0. 6% for stentless (P=0.001). Actuarial analysis disclosed no statistical difference in patient survival between groups (P=0.18). Reoperations were less frequent in the stentless group (P=0.010). Conclusions: Hemodynamic benefits in the stentless group were evident and expressed by larger AEOA, lower gradients, better left ventricular remodeling with significant decrease of the left ventricular mass. Lower complication rates, lower reoperation rates, less leaflet tissue degeneration, and lower valve related mortality rates were seen in the stentless group. A controlled clinical comparison trial with longer follow-up will be required to confirm these clinical and hemodynamic benefits.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu