Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna bioprosthesis: A stented valve with stentless performance?

Continuous or interrupted pledgeted suture technique in stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a comparison of in-hospital outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is ambiguity in the literature regarding the continuous suture technique (CST) for aortic valve replacement (AVR). At our center, there has been a gradual shift towards CST over the interrupted pledgeted technique (IPT). This study aims at comparing outcomes for both techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center study of patients undergoing AVR between January 2011 and July 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: Continuous suture technique and interrupted pledget-reinforced sutures. The pre-operative and In-hospital clinical characteristics and echocardiographic hemodynamics (i.e. transvalvular gradients and paravalvular leakage) were compared between CST and IPT.

RESULTS

We compared 791 patients with CST to 568 patients with IPT (median age: 73 and 74 years, respectively, p = 0.02). In CST there were 35% concomitant procedure vs. 31% in IPT (p = 0.16). Early mortality was 3.2% in CST versus 4.8% in IPT (p = 0.15), and a second cross-clamp due to a paravalvular-leak in 0.5% vs. 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.22). The CST was not associated with new-onset conduction-blocks mandating pacemaker implants(OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.14; P = 0.85). The postoperative gradients on echocardiography were lower in CST compared to IPT, especially in smaller annuli (peak gradients: 15.7mmHg vs. 20.5mmHg, in valve size < 23 mm, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The continuous suture technique was associated with lower postoperative gradients and shorter cross-clamp time compared to interrupted pledgeted technique. Differences in paravalvular leaks were non-significant, although slightly less in the continuous suture technique. There were no further differences in valve-related complications. Hence, continues suture technique is safe, with better hemodynamics compared to the interrupted pledgeted technique. This may be of clinical importance, especially in smaller size annular size.

Prosthetic cardiac valves: history and review of cardiac prostheses clinically available in Japan

Recently developed prosthetic valves are reliable and essential for the treatment of valvular heart disease. The mechanical valve evolved remarkably following the introduction of pyrolite carbon material, which enabled the creation of a bileaflet form incorporated with a pivot mechanism. The improved durability of the biological valve is attributed mainly to the development of a tissue fixation process and anti-calcification treatments. However, optimal antithrombogenicity and durability have not yet been achieved for either prosthetic valve type. To select the most suitable prosthetic valve for each individual patient from among the many clinically available prosthetic valves, it is necessary to have a thorough understanding of the characteristics of each valve.

Midterm Outcomes of Stented Versus Stentless Bioprosthetic Valves After Aortic Root Replacement

To determine the impact of aortic root replacement (ARR) with a stentless bioprosthetic valve on midterm outcomes compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve-graft conduit. This was an observational study of aortic root operations from 2010 to 2018. All patients with a complete ARR for nonendocarditis reasons were included, while patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacements or primary aortic valve replacement or repair were excluded. Of the patients with a complete ARR, bioprosthetic valve implants were included, while mechanical valve implants were excluded. Patients were dichotomized into the stented ARR group and the stentless ARR group. A total of 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity matching was employed to assess the association of stentless valves with short-term and midterm outcomes. A total of 455 patients underwent a complete ARR with a bioprosthetic valve implant for nonendocarditis reasons, of which 212 (46.6%) received a stented valve, while 243 (53.4%) received a stentless valve. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar across each group (P > 0.05), including operative mortality and adverse neurologic events. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 4.41 years (95% CI: 4.01, 4.95). At 1 year follow-up, aortic regurgitation ≥ 2+ and ejection fraction were similar across each group (P > 0.05); however, the stentless valve group had lower aortic valve velocity and transvalvular pressure gradient. Finally, reoperations and survival were similar for each group over the study's follow-up (P > 0.05). Stentless valves may provide hemodynamic benefits after ARR; however, the clinical impact of those benefits for survival and reoperation may not yet be evident in the midterm.

The Fluid Dynamical Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease Prosthesis

The aim of the present in vitro study was the evaluation of the fluid dynamical performance of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease depending on the prosthetic size (21, 23, and 25 mm) and the cardiac output (3.6–6.4 L/min). A self-constructed flow channel in combination with particle image velocimetry (PIV) enabled precise results with high reproducibility, focus on maximal and local peek velocities, strain, and velocity gradients. These flow parameters allow insights into the generation of forces that act on blood cells and the aortic wall. The results showed that the 21 and 23 mm valves have a quite similar performance. Maximal velocities were 3.03 ± 0.1 and 2.87 ± 0.13 m/s; maximal strain E_xx, 913.81 ± 173.25 and 896.15 ± 88.16 1/s; maximal velocity gradient E_yx, 1203.14 ± 221.84 1/s and 1200.81 ± 61.83 1/s. The 25 mm size revealed significantly lower values: maximal velocity, 2.47 ± 0.15 m/s; maximal strain E_xx, 592.98 ± 155.80 1/s; maximal velocity gradient E_yx, 823.71 ± 38.64 1/s. In summary, the 25 mm Magna Ease was able to create a wider, more homogenous flow with lower peak velocities especially for higher flow rates. Despite the wider flow, the velocity values close to the aortic walls did not exceed the level of the smaller valves.

Significant intra-valvular pressure loss across EPIC SUPRA and perimount magna supra-annular designed aortic bioprostheses in patients with normal aortic size

Doppler-derived trans-prosthetic gradients are higher and the estimated effective valve area is smaller than the catheter-derived and directly measured hemodynamic values, mostly due to pressure recovery phenomenon. Pressure recovery to a varying extent is common to all prosthetic heart valves including bioprostheses. Pressure recovery-related differences are usually small except in patients with bileaflet metallic prosthesis, wherein high-pressure local jets across central orifice have been documented since long back and also in patients with narrow aortic root. We describe two patients with normally functioning stented aortic bioprostheses with supra-annular design (EPIC SUPRA and PERIMOUNT MAGNA), wherein very high trans-prosthetic gradients and critically reduced estimated effective valve orifice areas in presence of normal aortic size were consistently recorded over long periods of follow-up. The valve leaflets, however had normal excursion, were thin, opened with a triangular or oblong shape and had expected geometric valve area (1.7 and 1.6 cm² respectively) measured by 3D trans-oesophageal echocardiographic planimetry. Pressure recovery upstream the valves accounted for 20% and 12% of total pressure gradients respectively. Dominant site for pressure drop was intra-valvular (75–85%). Such a phenomenon has not been reported in vivo for these two valve designs.

Aortic Valve Replacement With Carpentier-Edwards: Hemodynamic Outcomes for the 19-mm Valve

BACKGROUND

To compare hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis versus larger valves.

METHODS

Between January 1998 and December 2013, 447 consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (n = 61) or Magna bioprostheses (n = 386). Based on the implanted valve size, the patients were classified into three groups: a 19-mm group (n = 54), a 21-mm group (n = 154), and a 23-mm to 27-mm group (n = 239). The in vivo effective orifice area index was measured by transthoracic echocardiography 12 months after operation (n = 331). The mean follow-up time was 4.9 ± 3.5 (maximum 15.4) years.

RESULTS

There were three early deaths (0.7%). At 10 years, overall survival (84.1%) was unaffected by patient-prosthesis mismatch (18.7%, 62 patients), and freedom from structural valve deterioration and endocarditis was 100% and 97.1%, respectively. Although the 19-mm group was significantly older and had a higher incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (n = 14, 30.4%), there were no significant differences in early outcomes, overall survival, cardiac-related mortality, or serial reduction of left ventricular mass index in comparison with patients with a larger bioprostheses. Independent risk factors for all-cause mortality were age, male gender, combined coronary artery bypass graft, and low hemoglobin level.

CONCLUSION

The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis appears to be associated with acceptable clinical outcomes and hemodynamic profile.

Early hemodynamic performance of the third generation St Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The Trifecta aortic prosthesis is a latest-generation trileaflet stented pericardial valve designed for supra-annular placement in the aortic position. Robust clinical evidence and long-term follow-up data for this new prosthesis are lacking; a systematic review was conducted to assess current evidence.

METHODS

A comprehensive search from 6 electronic databases was performed, with time period parameters dating from database inception to January 2014. Results utilizing Trifecta prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies with 2549 patients undergoing AVR with this prosthesis were included in this review. The mean proportion of patients with aortic stenosis was 82.4%, with a mean gradient of 47.4 mm Hg, and a pooled effective orifice area (EOA) of 0.74 cm(2). Valve sizes of 21 mm and 23 mm were implanted in 71.3% of patients. The pooled rates of 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular accidents, and acute kidney injuries were 2.7%, 1.9%, and 2.6%, respectively. After implantation, the pooled mean gradient decreased to 9.2 mm Hg, whereas discharge EOA increased to 1.8 cm(2), compared with preoperative parameters. Among included studies with significant heterogeneity detected, most patients had satisfactory patient-prosthesis mismatch, with 2.7% having severe mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review demonstrated that short-term AVR with this prosthesis provided excellent early safety and hemodynamic outcomes with acceptable mean gradients and EOA. Long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm the early results.

Comparison between three types of stented pericardial aortic valves (Trivalve trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Aortic valve stenosis is one of the most common heart diseases in older patients. Nowadays, surgical aortic valve replacement is the ‘gold standard’ treatment for this pathology and the most implanted prostheses are biological ones. The three most implanted bovine bioprostheses are the Trifecta valve (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA), the Mitroflow valve (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy), and the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). We propose a randomized trial to objectively assess the hemodynamic performances of these bioprostheses.

Methods and design

First, we will measure the aortic annulus diameter using CT-scan, echocardiography and by direct sizing in the operating room after native aortic valve resection. The accuracy of information, in terms of size and spatial dimensions of each bioprosthesis provided by manufacturers, will be checked. Their hemodynamic performances will be assessed postoperatively at the seventh day and the sixth month after surgery.

Discussion

This prospective controlled randomized trial aims to verify and compare the hemodynamic performances and the sizing of these three bioprostheses. The data obtained may help surgeons to choose the best suitable bioprosthesis according to each patient’s morphological characteristics.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01522352

Aortic valve and ascending aorta guidelines for management and quality measures: executive summary

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines are intended to assist physicians and other health care providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches for the diagnosis, management, or prevention of specific diseases or conditions. These guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed at obtaining the same results. Moreover, these guidelines are subject to change over time, without notice. The ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the physician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient.

Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after implantation of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis: an initial single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

The Trifecta valve (St. Jude Medical) was introduced into clinical practice as a tri-leaflet stented pericardial valve designed for supra-annular placement in the aortic position. The present study aims to evaluate the preliminary results with this new bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Seventy patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Trifecta valve between August 2010 and December 2011. Thirty-three patients were male and 37 were female (52.9%). Mean age was 74.65 ± 7.63 (range 47-90 years). Prevalent cause of AVR was aortic stenosis in 64 (91.43%) patients. The mean preoperative pressure gradient was 50 ± 17 (range 20-84 mmHg), and the mean aortic valve area was 0.77 ± 0.33. Five (7.14%) patients were operated on due to aortic valve endocarditis. One patient was operated on due to isolated, severe aortic insufficiency. All patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Twenty-eight (40%) patients underwent concomitant procedures.

RESULTS

Concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 25), mitral valve replacement (n = 1), ablation of atrial fibrillation (n = 1) and septal myomectomy (n = 1). There were no intraoperative deaths. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was 2.85% (2 of 70). One late death occurred during the in-hospital stay due to a multiorgan failure on postoperative day 60. There were 2 (2.85%) perioperative strokes. Mean pressure gradient decreased significantly from a preoperative value of 50 ± 17 mmHg to an intraoperative gradient of 9 ± 4 mmHg (Table 3). The mean gradients were 14, 11, 11, 8 and 6 mmHg for the 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 mm valve size, respectively. No prosthesis dislocation, endocarditis, valve thrombosis or relevant aortic regurgitation was observed at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial experience with the Trifecta valve bioprosthesis shows excellent outcomes with favourable early haemodynamics. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm those preliminary results.

New design bioprosthesis: early outcome of Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna in the small annular aortic position

The Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT (CEP) Magna (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) is a newly developed bioprosthesis with an improved cuff design that allows its implantation into the smaller aortic annulus. We evaluated the hemodynamic performance of the CEP Magna for smaller aortic annulus cases. Patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis receiving a Magna 19 mm (n = 13), were compared with a standard CEP (n = 19). In the 19-mm series, the real annular size was significantly smaller in the Magna than the standard (21.1 ± 0.8 vs. 19.8 ± 0.8 mm, p = 0.007). The Magna was significantly superior with respect to effective orifice area index (EOAI) at postoperative 3 months; however, no significant difference was seen in other factors (peak pressure gradient, left ventricular mass index, ejection fraction). At postoperative 3 months, despite the lack of statistical significance, the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was lower with the Magna. Using the same label size, the Magna can be implanted in a smaller aortic annulus with performance comparable with or better than hemodynamic performance with the standard CEP. The Magna is a useful prosthesis for the small aortic annular patient.

Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update

Although porcine aortic valves or pericardial tissue mounted on a stent have made implantation techniques easier, these valves sacrifice orifice area and increase stress at the attachment of the stent, which causes primary tissue failure. Optimizing hemodynamics to prevent patient–prosthetic mismatch and improve durability, stentless bioprostheses use was revived in the early 1990s. The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview of stentless valves in the aortic position. Retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies showed similar operative mortality and morbidity in stented and stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR), though stentless AVR required longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Several cohort studies showed improved survival after stentless AVR, probably due to better hemodynamic performance and earlier left ventricular (LV) mass regression compared with stented AVR. However, there was a bias of operation age and nonrandomization. A randomized trial supported an improved 8-year survival of patients with the Freestyle or Toronto valves compared with Carpentier–Edwards porcine valves. On the contrary, another randomized study did not show improved clinical outcomes up to 12 years. Freedom from reoperation at 12 years in Toronto stentless porcine valves ranged from 69% to 75%, which is much lower than for Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valves. Cusp tear with consequent aortic regurgitation was the most common cause of structural valve deterioration. Cryolife O’Brien valves also have shorter durability compared with stent valves. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 44% at 10 years. Early prosthetic valve failure was also reported in patients who underwent root replacement with Shelhigh stentless composite grafts. There was no level I or IIa evidence of more effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, LV mass regression, surgical risk, durability, and late outcomes in stentless bioprostheses. There is no general recommendation to prefer stentless bioprostheses in all patients. For new-generation pericardial stentless valves, follow-up over 15 years is necessary to compare the excellent results of stented valves such as the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount and Hancock II valves.

Aortic valve replacement with 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent prosthetic valves for a small calcified aortic annulus in elderly patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of aortic valve replacement (AVR) performed with a 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent prosthetic valve (17SJMR) for an aortic annulus ≤19 mm in elderly patients aged ≥65 years.

METHODS

Six female patients (age 73.0 ± 5.1 years, body surface area 1.43 ± 0.07 m²) underwent AVR between October 2005 and February 2008.

RESULTS

Peak transaortic pressure gradient, which was 80.8 ± 31.0 mmHg preoperatively, decreased to 31.0 ± 4.2 mmHg postoperatively (P < 0.01) and to 21.7 ± 1.5 mmHg long term (P < 0.01). The left ventricular mass index, which was 112.1 ± 10.6 g/m² preoperatively, also significantly decreased to 101.4 ± 15.0 g/m² postoperatively and to 88.3 ± 14.8 g/m² long term (P < 0.01). Subjective symptoms diminished in all patients, and neither mortality nor hemorrhagic complications occurred. The postoperative mean effective orifice area index was 0.91 ± 0.04 cm²/m².

CONCLUSION

A favorable outcome was obtained by aortic valve replacement with the 17SJMR. Patients showed improved postoperative hemodynamic performance without valve-related complications.

Does stentless aortic valve implantation increase perioperative risk? A critical appraisal of the literature and risk of bias analysis

Stentless aortic valve replacement has potential benefits in terms of valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes, although these may be offset by greater technical complexity of implantation with longer cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times compared with stented valves. Meta-analyses of the small number of published randomized trials have been limited by their lack of critical synthesis of the literature, including evaluation of the Risk of Bias. Our objective was to determine whether stentless aortic valves increase perioperative risk of mortality. We also examined secondary clinical outcomes of neurological, renal and respiratory complications as well as hemodynamic changes reported by studies following implantation of the two types of aortic prosthesis. The methodology used to answer this question was a rigorous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, using bias-assessment techniques designed to address limitations of conventional meta-analysis. Our findings show that many of the existing randomized trials have a high or uncertain risk of bias. Analysis of studies with low risk of bias reveals that stentless valves do not increase perioperative risk in terms of 30-day mortality and morbidity though neither do they exhibit benefits in hemodynamics or clinical outcomes compared with stented valves. Larger, more stringent randomized studies would be required to identify any robust clinical difference.

Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults an update

In the last 7 years, more data have reconfirmed that patients' comorbid conditions are very important factors determining patient outcomes. Prosthetic heart valves (PHVs) that require aortic root replacement in the absence of aortic root disease are associated with poorer outcomes. For the vast majority of patients, the choice of PHV is between a mechanical valve and a stented bioprosthesis. The choice is largely dependent upon the age of the patient at the time of PHV implantation and on which complication the patient wants to avoid: specifically, anticoagulation therapy and its complications with the mechanical valve, and structural valve deterioration with a bioprosthesis. Data on the pros and cons of the choices and exceptions to the rules are discussed, and a new algorithm is developed.

Absence of prosthesis-patient mismatch with the new generation of Edwards stented aortic bioprosthesis

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) remains a controversial issue with the most recent stented biological valves. We analyzed the incidence of PPM after implantation of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease aortic valve (PMEAV) bioprosthesis and assessed the early clinical outcome. Two hundred and seventy consecutive patients who received a PMEAV bioprosthesis between January 2007 and July 2008 were analyzed. Pre-, peri- and postoperative data were assessed and echocardiographic as well as clinical follow-up was performed. Mean age was 72+/-9 years, 168 (62.2%) were males. Fifty-seven patients (21.1%) were below 65 years of age. Absence of PPM, corresponding to an indexed effective orifice area >0.85 cm(2)/m(2), was 99.5%. Observed in-hospital mortality was 2.2% (six patients), with a predicted mortality according to the additive EuroSCORE of 7.6+/-3.1%. At echocardiographic assessment after a mean follow-up period of 150+/-91 days, mean transvalvular gradient was 11.8+/-4.8 mmHg (all valve sizes). No paravalvular leakage was seen. Nine patients died during follow-up. The Carpentier-Edwards PMEAV bioprosthesis shows excellent hemodynamic performance. This valve can be implanted in all sizes with an incidence of severe PPM below 0.5%.

Stentless versus Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Objective

This meta-analysis sought to determine whether stentless bioprosthetic valves improve clinical and resource outcomes compared with stented valves in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A comprehensive search was undertaken to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing stentless to stented bioprosthetic valves in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement available up to March 2008. The primary outcomes were clinical and resource outcomes in randomized controlled trial (RCT). Secondary outcomes clinical and resource outcomes in nonrandomized controlled trial (non-RCT). Odds ratios (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed as appropriate.

Results

Seventeen RCTs published in 23 articles involving 1317 patients, and 14 non-RCTs published in 18 articles involving 2485 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For the primary analysis of randomized trials, mortality for stentless versus stented valve groups did not differ at 30 days (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68–2.72), 1 year (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55–1.85), or 2 to 10 years follow-up (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50–1.33). Aggregate event rates for all-cause mortality at 30 days were 3.7% versus 2.9%, at 1 year were 5.5% versus 5.9% and at 2 to 10 years were 17% versus 19% for stentless versus stented valve groups, respectively. Stroke or neurologic complications did not differ between stentless (3.6%) and stented (4.0%) valve groups. Risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch was numerically lower in the stentless group (11.0% vs. 31.3%, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05–1.66), but this parameter was reported in few trials and did not reach statistical significance. Effective orifice area index was significantly greater for stentless aortic valve compared with stented valves at 30 days (WMD 0.12 cm2/m2), at 2 to 6 months (WMD 0.15 cm2/m2), and at 1 year (WMD 0.26 cm2/m2). Mean gradient at 1 month was significantly lower in the stentless valve group (WMD −6 mm Hg), at 2 to 6 month follow-up (WMD −4 mm Hg,), at 1 year follow-up (WMD −3 mm Hg) and up to 3 year follow-up (WMD −3 mm Hg) compared with the stented valve group. Although the left ventricular mass index was generally lower in the stentless group versus the stented valve group, the aggregate estimates of mean difference did not reach significance during any time period of follow-up (1 month, 2–6 months, 1 year, and 8 years).

Conclusions

Evidence from randomized trials shows that subcoronary stentless aortic valves improve hemodynamic parameters of effective orifice area index, mean gradient, and peak gradient over the short and long term. These improvements have not led to proven impact on patient morbidity, mortality, and resource-related outcomes; however, few trials reported on clinical outcomes beyond 1 year and definitive conclusions are not possible until sufficient evidence addresses longer-term effects.

Meta-Analysis of Valve Hemodynamics and Left Ventricular Mass Regression for Stentless Versus Stented Aortic Valves

BACKGROUND

Stentless aortic bioprostheses have been advocated as being superior to conventional bioprosthetic valves, with benefits including superior left ventricular mass regression and larger effective orifice area. Several high-quality randomized studies now exist on this topic, and we sought to summarize them by meta-analysis.

METHODS

The literature was searched from 1995 to 2006, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CRISP, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane database. Experts were also contacted and reference lists searched. Studies were combined using the inverse variance fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed and a sensitivity analysis performed. Publication bias was also investigated.

RESULTS

Ten studies were identified that included 919 patients in which the Freedom (Sorin Biomedica Cardio, Via Crescentino, Italy), Freestyle (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), Prima Plus (Edwards Life Sciences, Irvine, CA) and the Toronto and Biocor (St Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN) valves were used. The mean aortic valve gradient was lower in the stentless groups, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -3.57 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.36 to -2.78; p < 0.01). The left ventricular mass index was significantly lower in the stentless groups at 6 months (WMD, -6.42; 95% CI, -11.63 to -1.21; p = 0.02), but this improvement disappeared after 12 months (WMD, 1.19; 95% CI, -4.15 to 6.53; p = 0.66). The weighted mean increase in cross-clamp time was 23 minutes, and the increase in bypass time was 29 minutes with a stentless valve.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that stentless aortic valves provide an improved level of left ventricular mass regression at 6 months, reduced aortic gradients, and an improved effective orifice area index, at the expense of a 23-minute longer cross-clamp time and a 29-minute longer bypass time.

Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Valve Versus Medtronic Hancock II: A Matched Hemodynamic Comparison

BACKGROUND

The Perimount Magna valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) was designed to minimize the amount of obstruction to blood flow across the valve. We compared hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna valve with the Hancock II valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), a second-generation porcine bioprosthesis with proven long-term results.

METHODS

The 57 patients who received a Magna valve at our institution from 2003 to 2005 were matched 1:1 with 57 patients who received a Hancock II valve on variables known to affect hemodynamic measurements: size of implanted valve, age, sex, and body surface area. Early postoperative transthoracic echocardiography was performed in 100% of patients.

RESULTS

In addition to the matched variables, patients in both groups were similar for all measured preoperative characteristics and perioperative clinical outcomes. One week postoperatively, Magna patients had significantly lower peak (22.1 +/- 7.4 mm Hg versus 32.3 +/- 15.1 mm Hg) and mean transvalvular gradients (10.4 +/- 4.0 mm Hg versus 18.5 +/- 15.5 mm Hg, both p < 0.001). The Magna group also had a trend towards a larger effective orifice area (1.40 +/- 0.24 cm2 versus 1.29 +/- 0.34 cm2, p = 0.07), despite a similar left ventricular outflow tract diameter (2.0 +/- 0.2 cm versus 2.0 +/- 0.1 cm, p = 0.7). Patient-prosthesis mismatch, as defined by measured effective orifice area of less than 0.65 cm2/m2, was significantly less common in the Magna group (30% versus 52%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The Magna valve has more favorable early postoperative hemodynamics than the Hancock II valve. Further studies should be performed comparing the Magna valve to newer-generation, low-profile porcine valves.

Heart valve replacement: which valve for which patient?

The ideal heart valve substitute would show no deterioration or thrombogenicity, offer no resistance to blood flow, and be easy to implant. However, such a valve does not exist and we must accept compromises in some of these qualities based on our patients' needs. In selection of cardiac valve prosthesis, valve-related factors such as durability, thrombogenicity, and fluid dynamics should be carefully matched to patient-related factors such as age, size, life expectancy, comorbidities, plans for pregnancy, and lifestyle. In addition, surgeon- or operation-related factors should be considered. Technical aspects of implantation, ease of reoperation, and operative mortalities may tip the risk and benefit balance in a particular direction. We review currently available heart valve prostheses and the clinical factors that are involved in selection of a heart valve substitute.