Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stented Bioprosthetic Valves

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Management of Aortic Pathology

  • 1629 Accesses

Abstract

Ideally, patients with aortic valve disease should be operated upon before irreversible myocardial damage occurs, and the operation itself should cause no more than minimal further impairment. Postoperatively, valve performance should be durable and physiological, halting or even reversing the pathophysiological processes in the ventricle due to previous pre-existing valve disease. These criteria have yet to be fully realised in current practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Haemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1131–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Connolly HM, Oh JK, Schaff HV. Severe aortic stenosis with low transvalvular gradient and severe left ventricular dysfunction: result of aortic valve replacement in 52 patients. Circulation. 2000;101:1940–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Medalion B, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW, White J, Arnold JH, Cosgrove DM. Aortic valve replacement: is valve size important? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:963–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. He GW, Grunkemeier GL, Gately HL, Furnary AP, Starr A. up to thirty-year survival after aortic valve replacement in the small aortic root. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;59:1056–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Natsuaki M, Itoh T, Tomita S, Naitoh K. Hemodynamics after aortic valve replacement by St. Jude Medical valve for patients with small aortic annulus and severe left ventricular hypertrophy. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:86–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hachida M, Koyangi H, Nonoyama M, Bonkohara Y, Saitu S, Nakamura K. Serial haemodynamic study of aortic valve replacement in patients with narrow aortic roots. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:81–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Lemieux M, Cartier P, Metras J, Durand L-G. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on haemodynamic and symptomatic status, morbidity and mortality after aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic heart valve. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:211–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khuri SF, Folland ED, Sethi GK. Six month postoperative haemodynamics of the Hancock heterograft and the Bjork-Shiley prosthesis: results of the Veterans Administration Cooperative Prospective Randomised trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:8–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:893–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Hancock ll bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability? Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:775–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1490–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;138:688–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RWM, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:753–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Smedira NG, Blackstone EH, Roselli EE, Daffey CC, Cosgrove DM. Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in non-elderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:558–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Aupart MR, Mirza A, Meurisse YA, Sirinelli AL, Neville PH, Marchand MA. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1,333 patients. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15:768–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McClure RS, Naryanasamy N, Wiegnerinck E. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17 year follow-up in 1000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1410–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Myken PS. Seventeen-year experience with the St. Jude Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005;14:486–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Myken PSU, Bech-Hansen O. A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jamieson WRE, David TE, Feindel CMS, Miyagishima RT, Germann E. Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards SAV and Hancock ll porcine bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2002;11:424–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Valfre C, Ius P, Minniti G, Salvador L. The fate of Hancock ll porcine valve recipients 25 years after implant. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38:141–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rizzoli G, Mirone S, Ius P. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock ll valve: a multicenter experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:602–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reiss FC, Cramer E, Hansen L, Schiffeters S, Wahl G, Wallrath J. Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;37:145–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jamieson WRE, Riess F-C, Raudkivi PJ, Metras J, Busse EFG, Goldstein J, Fradet GJ. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: assessment of 12-year performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:302–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cosgrove DM, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:596–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, Bichel DP, Rosborough DM, Sears SP, Aranki SF. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg. 1997;226:421–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F, Jeanmart H, De Geest R, Degrieck I, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1599–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tabata M, Umakanthan CLH, Bolman RM, Shekar PS, Chen FY, Couper GS, Aranki SF. Early and late outcomes of 1000 minimally invasive aortic valve operations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;33:537–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Magovern GJ, Cromie HW. Sutureless prosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1963;46:726–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Schmidt J, Concistre G, Fischlein T. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: first-year single-centre experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94:504–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Aymard T, Kadner A, Walpoth N, Gober V, Englberger L, Stalder M, Eckstein F, Zobrist C, Carrel T. Clinical experience with the second-generation 3f Enable sutureless aortic valve prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:313–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Folliguet TA, Laborde F, Zannis K, Ghorayeb G, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Sutureless Perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centres. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1483–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sepehripour AH, Harling L, Athanasiou T. What are the current results of sutureless valves in high-risk aortic valve disease patients? Interact Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;10:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Smith C, Leon M, Mack M, Miller C, Moses J, Svensson L. PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in high risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;364:2187–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiac Surgery Royal Brompton Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK

    John R. Pepper

Authors
  1. John R. Pepper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Pepper .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fmr Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

    Olaf H. Stanger

  2. Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

    John R. Pepper

  3. Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Lars G. Svensson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pepper, J.R. (2019). Stented Bioprosthetic Valves. In: Stanger, O., Pepper, J., Svensson, L. (eds) Surgical Management of Aortic Pathology. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4874-7_46

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4874-7_46

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-4872-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-4874-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation