Advertisement

Stented and stentless aortic bioprostheses: competitive or complimentary?

  • W. R. Eric Jamieson

Abstract

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the established treatment for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Left ventricular hypertrophy, a known manifestation of aortic stenosis, is associated with increased risk of sudden death, congestive heart failure, and stroke. The superior outcome after AVR is achieved with regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, known as left ventricular mass and indexed to body surface area.

Keywords

Aortic Valve Aortic Valve Replacement Left Ventricular Mass Index Aortic Valve Disease Effective Orifice Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Santini F, Bertolini P, Montlbano G, Vecchi B, Pessotto R, Prioli A, Mazzucco A (1998) Hancock versus stentless bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients older than 75 year. Ann Thorac Surg 66:S99–S103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams RJ, Muir DF, Pathi V, MacArthur K, Berg GA (1999) Randomized controlled trial of stented and stentless aortic bioprostheses: hemodynamic performance at 3 years. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 4(Suppl 1):93–97Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen G, Christakis GT, Joyner CD, Morgan CD, Tamariz M, Hanayama N, Mallidi H, Szalai JP, Katic M, Rao V, Fremes SE, Goldman BS (2002) Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 73:767–778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doss M, Martens S, Wood JP, Aybek T, Kleine P, Wimmer Greinecker G, Moritz A (2003) Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the elderly patients: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 23:299–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sensky PR, Loubani M, Keal RP, Samani NJ, Sosnowski AW, Galinanes M (2003) Does the type of prosthesis influence early left ventricular mass regression afgter aortic valve replacement? Assessment with magnetic resonance imaging. Am Heart J 146:746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Totaro P, Degno N, Zaidi A, Youhana P, Argano V (2005) Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna bioprosthesis: A stented valve with stentless performance? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130:1668–1674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ali A, Halstead JC, Cafferty F, Sharples L, Rose F, Coulden R, Lee E, Dunning J, Argano V, Tsui S (2006) Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Circulation 114[suppl I]:I-535–I-540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perez de Arenaza D, Lees B, Flather M, Nugara F, Husebye T, Jasinski M, Cisowski M, Khan M, Henein M, Gaer J, Guvendik L, Bochenek A, Wos S, Lie M, Van Nooten G, Pennell D, Pepper J, on behalf of the ASSERT (Aortic Stentless versus Stented valve Assessed by Echocardiography Randomized Trial) (2005) Circulation 112:2696–2702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chambers JB, Rimington HM, Hodson F, Rajani R, Blauth CI (2006) The subcoronary Toronto stentless versus supra-annular Perimount stented replacement aortic valve: early clinical and hemodynamic results of a randomized comparison in 160 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:878–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunning J, Graham RJ, Thambyrajah J, Stewart JM, Kendall SW, Hunter S (2007) Stentless vs stented aortic valve bioprostheses: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J 28:2369–2374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehman S, Walther T, Kempfert J, Leontjev S, Rastan A, Falk V, Mohr FW (2007) Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: midterm results of a prospectively randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 84:467–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kunadian B, Vijayalakshmi K, Thornley AR, de Belder MA, Hunter S, Kendall S, Graham R, Stewart M, Thambyrajah J, Dunning J (2007) Meta-analysis of valve hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression for stentless versus stented aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 84:73–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maselli D, Pizio R, Bruno LP, Di Bella I, De Gasperis C (1999) Left ventricular mass reduction after aortic valve replacement: Homografts, stentless and stented valves. Ann Thorac Surg 67:966–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szafranek A, Jasinski M, Kolowca M, Gemel M, Wos S (2006) Plasma ANP and rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system as new parameters describing the hemodynamics of the circulatory system after implantation of stented or stentelss aortic valves. J Heart Valve Dis 15:702–709PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miraldi F, Spagnesi L, Tallarico D, Di Matteo G, Brancaccio G (2007) Sorin stentless pericardial valve versus Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis: is it worthwhile to struggle? Int J Cardiol 118(2):253–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng D, Pepper J, Martin J, Stanbridge RDL, Ferdinand FD, Jamieson WRE, Berg G, Sani G (2009) Stentless versus stented bioprosthetic aortic valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Innovations 4:61–73Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pepper J, Cheng D, Stanbridge RDL, Ferdinand FD, Jamieson WRE, Stelzer P, Berg G, Sani G, Martin J (2009) Stentless versus stented bioprosthetic aortic valves: a consensus statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS). Innovations 4:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. R. Eric Jamieson
    • 1
  1. 1.3500 Jim Pattison PavilionVancouver General HospitalVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations