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
  • [21] Con: Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Now Is Not an Important Consideration in the Majority of Patients After Aortic Valve Replacement
    Vernick, William J.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2014, 28 (01) : 184 - 188
  • [22] Does patient-prosthesis mismatch influence the results of combined aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting?
    Mrowczynski, Wojciech
    Lutter, Georg
    Attmann, Tim
    Hoffmann, Grischa
    Quaden, Rene
    Cremer, Jochen
    Boening, Andreas
    KARDIOLOGIA POLSKA, 2009, 67 (08) : 865 - 874
  • [23] Aortic Valve Replacement With 17-mm Mechanical Prostheses: Is Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch a Relevant Phenomenon?
    Garatti, Andrea
    Mori, Francesca
    Innocente, Francesco
    Canziani, Alberto
    Gagliardotto, Piervincenzo
    Mossuto, Eugenio
    Santoro, Tiberio
    Montericcio, Vincenzo
    Frigiola, Alessandro
    Menicanti, Lorenzo
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2011, 91 (01) : 71 - 78
  • [24] Prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter aortic valve replacement
    Grubb, Kendra J.
    Kalra, Kanika
    Tom, Stephanie K.
    CARDIOVASCULAR REVASCULARIZATION MEDICINE, 2025, 72 : 31 - 33
  • [25] The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on late outcomes after mitral valve replacement
    Lam, Buu-Khanh
    Chan, Vincent
    Hendry, Paul
    Ruel, Marc
    Masters, Roy
    Bedard, Pierre
    Goldstein, Bill
    Rubens, Fraser
    Mesana, Thierry
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2007, 133 (06) : 1464 - 1472
  • [26] Influence of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in the Octogenarian Undergoing Surgery for Aortic Valve Replacement Due to Severe Stenosis
    Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel
    Calvo, David
    Garcia, Jose M.
    Lozano, Inigo
    Morales, Carlos
    Luis Naya, Jose
    Moris, Cesar
    Llosa, Juan C.
    REVISTA ESPANOLA DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2011, 64 (09): : 774 - 779
  • [27] Patient-prosthesis mismatch: surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high risk patients with aortic stenosis
    Ghanta, Ravi K.
    Kron, Irving L.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2016, 8 (10) : E1441 - E1443
  • [28] Factors Determining Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement - A Prospective Cohort Study
    Bonderman, Diana
    Graf, Alexandra
    Kammerlander, Andreas A.
    Kocher, Alfred
    Laufer, Guenter
    Lang, Irene M.
    Mascherbauer, Julia
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (12):
  • [29] Patient-prosthesis mismatch after mitral valve replacement: Is it a fact or myth?
    Mattr, Rehab M.
    Abdelwahab, Amr A.
    Elnasr, Mohamed A.
    Wahby, Ehab
    Taha, Abdelhady
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 41 (02) : 676 - 683
  • [30] Left ventricular mass regression in patients without patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis
    Hachiro, Kohei
    Kinoshita, Takeshi
    Asai, Tohru
    Suzuki, Tomoaki
    GENERAL THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2020, 68 (03) : 227 - 232