Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch?

被引:36
|
作者
Beckmann, Erik [1 ]
Martens, Andreas [1 ]
Alhadi, Firas [1 ]
Hoeffler, Klaus [1 ]
Umminger, Julia [1 ]
Kaufeld, Tim [1 ]
Sarikouch, Samir [1 ]
Koigeldiev, Nurbol [1 ]
Cebotari, Serghei [1 ]
Schmitto, Jan Dieter [1 ]
Haverich, Axel [1 ]
Shrestha, Malakh [1 ]
机构
[1] Hannover Med Sch, Dept Cardiothorac Transplantat & Vasc Surg, Carl Neuberg Str 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
关键词
Aortic valve replacement; Patient-prosthesis mismatch; Aortic root enlargement; Sutureless valves; Sorin Perceval; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; ANNULUS;
D O I
10.1093/icvts/ivw041
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic annulus may result in patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can reduce PPM, but leads to extended cardiac ischaemia times. Sutureless valves have the potential to prevent PPM while reducing cardiac ischaemia times. METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2011, a total of 128 patients with a small aortic annulus underwent surgery for aortic valve stenosis at our centre. Thirty-six (17% male, n = 6) patients received conventional valve replacement with ARE and 92 (16% male, n = 18) subjects received sutureless valve implantation (Sorin Perceval). We conducted a comparative, retrospective study with follow-up. RESULTS: The sutureless group showed a significantly higher age (79 years) than the ARE patients (62 years, P < 0.001) and received significantly more concomitant cardiac procedures (33%, n = 30 vs 6%, n = 2, P = 0.001). The mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were significantly lower in sutureless patients (147 +/- 42, 67 +/- 26 and 35 +/- 13 min, respectively) than in ARE patients (181 +/- 41, 105 +/- 29 and 70 +/- 19 min, respectively, P < 0.001). The mean postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to the body surface area was 0.91 +/- 0.2 cm(2)/m(2) in ARE patients and 0.83 +/- 0.14 cm(2)/m(2) in sutureless patients (P = 0.040). The rate of patients with severe PPM was 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients and 11% (n = 8%) in sutureless patients (not significant, n.s.). The 30-day mortality rates were 2% (n = 2) in sutureless patients and 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients (n.s.). The 1- and 5-year survival rates of the sutureless group were 92 and 54% years, respectively, whereas the 1- and 5-year survival rates of the ARE group were 76% (n. s.). CONCLUSIONS: Although the sutureless valve patients received significantly more concomitant procedures, all operation-associated times were significantly shorter. Despite sutureless valve patients being older, the 30-day mortality and survival rates were comparable in the two groups. Since the indexed EOA was only slightly lower and the incidence of severe PPM was not significantly higher in the sutureless valve patients, we conclude that sutureless valve implantation is an alternative to conventional ARE to treat a small aortic annulus and avoid PPM, especially in geriatric patients who benefit from the quick implantation process.
引用
收藏
页码:744 / 749
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Aortic root enlargement: Is it still the best surgical tool to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement?
    Stefanelli, Guglielmo
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, 2022, 37 (10) : 3026 - 3027
  • [2] Patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients with aortic valve replacement
    Kaminishi Y.
    Misawa Y.
    Kobayashi J.
    Konishi H.
    Miyata H.
    Motomura N.
    Takamoto S.-I.
    General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2013, 61 (5) : 274 - 279
  • [3] Patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement in the elderly
    Ryomoto M.
    Mitsuno M.
    Yamamura M.
    Tanaka H.
    Kobayashi Y.
    Fukui S.
    Tsujiya N.
    Kajiyama T.
    Miyamoto Y.
    General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2008, 56 (7) : 330 - 334
  • [4] Predicting patient-prosthesis mismatch by aortic root evaluation before aortic valve replacement
    Maeda, Koichi
    Kuratani, Toru
    Yoshioka, Daisuke
    Pak, Kyongsun
    Shimamura, Kazuo
    Toda, Koichi
    Sawa, Yoshiki
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2019, 158 (01) : 61 - +
  • [5] Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement:: really tolerable?
    Fuster, RG
    Argudo, JAM
    Albarova, OG
    Sos, FH
    López, SC
    Codoñer, MB
    Miñano, JAB
    Albarran, IR
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2005, 27 (03) : 441 - 449
  • [6] Patient-prosthesis mismatch after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement
    Filip, Grzegorz
    Litwinowicz, Radoslaw
    Kapelak, Boguslaw
    Bryndza, Magdalena
    Bartus, Magdalena
    Konstanty-Kalandyk, Janusz
    Ceranowicz, Piotr
    Brzezinski, Maciej
    Gafoor, Sameer
    Bartus, Krzysztof
    KARDIOLOGIA POLSKA, 2018, 76 (05) : 908 - 910
  • [7] Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes
    Alnajar, Ahmed
    Hamad, Naser
    Azhar, Muhammad Z.
    Mousa, Yaseen
    Arora, Yingyot
    Lamelas, Joseph
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, 2022, 37 (12) : 5388 - 5394
  • [8] Can Perceval sutureless valve reduce the rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch?
    Belluschi, Igor
    Moriggia, Stefano
    Giacomini, Andrea
    Del Forno, Benedetto
    Di Sanzo, Stefania
    Blasio, Andrea
    Scafuri, Antonio
    Alfieri, Ottavio
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2017, 51 (06) : 1093 - 1099
  • [9] Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch and Strategies to Prevent It During Aortic Valve Replacement
    Apostolakis, Efstratios
    Baikoussis, Nikolaos G.
    Papakonstantinou, Nikolaos A.
    Goudevenos, John
    HELLENIC JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2011, 52 (01) : 41 - 51
  • [10] Aortic root enlargement to mitigate patient-prosthesis mismatch: do early adverse events justify reluctance?
    Haunschild, Josephina
    Scharnowski, Sven
    Mende, Meinhard
    von Aspern, Konstantin
    Misfeld, Martin
    Mohr, Friedrich-Wilhelm
    Borger, MichaelA.
    Etz, Christian D.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2019, 56 (02) : 335 - 342