D'Onofrio A, Cibin G, Lorenzoni G, Tessari C, Bifulco O, Lombardi V, Bergonzoni E, Evangelista G, Pesce R, Taffarello P, Longinotti L, Ponzoni M, Gregori D, Gerosa G. Propensity-Weighted Comparison of Conventional Stented and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Bioprostheses.
Curr Probl Cardiol 2022;
48:101426. [PMID:
36181783 DOI:
10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101426]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
Aim of this study was to compare early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of Intuity and ME bioprostheses.
METHODS
A propensity score weighting approach was performed. Preoperative variables were defined according to EuroSCORE criteria and postoperative complications according to VARC-2 definitions.
RESULTS
We evaluated 375 patients who underwent SAVR with the two study devices. Intuity and ME were implanted in 252 (67.2%) and in 123 (32.8%) patients, respectively. There were no differences in terms of postoperative complications, including mortality (1% in each group; OR 0.46[0.05;4.21]). The incidence of pace-maker implantation was 6% and 5% in Intuity and ME groups, respectively (OR 0.53[0.27;1.07]). Intuity showed significantly lower gradients (Median mean gradients: 9mmHg vs. 14mmHg, p<0.001), larger effective orifice area index (1.13cm2/m2 vs. 1cm2/m2, p=0.007) and lower incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (7.1% vs. 22.8%, p=0.006).
CONCLUSIONS
The RD Intuity provides similar early clinical outcomes but shows significantly better hemodynamic performance compared to the ME valve.
Collapse