Advertisement

Medtronic stentless Freestyle® porcine aortic valve replacement

  • Jürgen Ennker
  • A. Albert
  • I. Florath

Abstract

Biological heart valve prostheses offer the opportunity of avoiding the risk of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications due to anticoagulation therapy. Current indications recommend a bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients of any age, who will not take warfarin or who have major medical contraindications to anticoagulation therapy (Class I), in patients older than 65 years without risk factors for thromboembolism (Class IIa) and in patients under 65 years for lifestyle considerations after detailed discussion of the risks of anticoagulation versus the likelihood of a second valve replacement [1].

Keywords

Aortic Valve Aortic Valve Replacement Coronary Ostium Effective Orifice Area Left Coronary Ostium 
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.
    American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease), Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD et al (2006) ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Circulation 114(5):e84–e231Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert A, Florath I, Rosendahl U, Hassanein W, Hodenberg EV, Bauer S et al (2007) Effect of surgeon on transprosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement with Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis and its consequences: A follow-up study in 587 patients. J Cardiothorac Surg 2:40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ali A, Halstead JC, Cafferty F, Sharples L, Rose F, Goulden R et al (2006) Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Circulation 114(1 Suppl):I535–I540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach DS, Lemire MS, Eberhart D, Armstrong WF, Deeb GM (2000) Impact of high transvalvular velocities early after implantation of Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 9:536–543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bach DS, Cartier PA, Kon N, Johnson KG, Dumesnil JG, Doty DB (2001) Impact of high transvalvular to subvalvular velocity ratio early after aortic valve replacement with Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Sem Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 13(4):75–81Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bach DS, Cartier PC, Kon ND, Johnson KG, Deeb GM, Doty DB et al (2002) Impact of implant technique following Freestyle stentless aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 74:1107–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bach DS, Kon ND, Dumesnil JG, Sintek CF, Doty DB (2005) Ten-year outcome after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 80:480–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barratt-Boyes BG, Christie GW, Raudkivi PJ (1992) The stentless bioprosthesis: surgical challenges and implications for long-term durability. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 6 [Suppl 1]:S39–S43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Böhm JO, Botha CA, Hemmer W, Schmidtke C, Bechtel JFM, Stierle U et al (2004) Hemodynamic performance following the ross operation: comparison of two different techniques. J Heart Valve Dis 13:174–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caradang R, Seshadri S, Beiser A, Kelly-Hayes M, Kase CS, Kannel WB et al (2006) Trends in incidence, lifetime risk severity, and 30-day mortality of stroke over the past 50 years. JAMA 296:2939–2946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chambers JB, Rimington HM, Hodson F, Rajani R and Blauth CI (2006) The subcoronary Toronto stentless versus supra-anmular Perimount stented replacement aortic valve: early clinical and hemodynamic results of a randomized comparison in 160 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131(4):878–872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen G, Christakis GT, Joyner CD, Morgan CD, Tamariz M, Hanayama N et al (2002) Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 73(3):767–775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desai ND, Merin O, Cohen GD, Herman J, Mobilos S, Sever JY et al (2004) Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with the St. Jude Toronto Stentless Porcine Valve. Ann Thorac Surg 78:2076–2083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doty JR, Flores JH, Millar RC, Doty DB (1998) Aortic valve replacement with medtronic freestyle bioprosthesis: operative technique and results. J Card Surg 13(3):208–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El Oakley R, Kleine P and Bach DS (2008) Choice of prosthetic heart valve in today’s practice. Circulation 117:253–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ennker J, Bauer S, Rosendahl U, Lehmann A, Mortasawi A, Schröder T et al (1999) Simultaneous myocardial revascularization and aortic valve replacemenent: Stentless versus stented Bioprostheses. Sem Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 11:83–87Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ennker J, Dalladaku F, Rosendahl U, Ennker IC, Mauser M, Florath I (2006) The stentless Freestyle Bioprosthesis: Impact of age over 80 years on quality of life, preoperative and mid-term outcome. J Card Surg 21:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ennker J, Albert A, Rosendahl U, Ennker IC, Dalladaku F, Florath I (2008) Ten-year experience with stentless aortic valves: Full-root versusu subcoronary implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 85:445–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ennker J, Ennker I, Albert A, Rosendahl U, Bauer S, Florath I (2009) The Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis in more than 1000 patients: a single-center experience over 10 years. J Card Surg 24:41–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Florath I, Albert A, Rosendahl U, Ennker IC, Ennker J (2008) Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch estimated by echocardiographic-determined effective orifice area on long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J 155(6):1135–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    German Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt der BRD, Abgekürzte Sterbetafel, 1996/98), WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH (2000) Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: Final report of the veterans affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1152–1158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, Germann E, MacNab JS, Stanford E et al (2005) Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: Clinical performance over 20 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130:994–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kilian E, Oberhoffer M, Gulbins H, Uhlig A, Kreuzer E, Reichardt B (2004) Ten years’ experience in aortic valve replacement with homografts in 389 cases. J Heart Valve Dis 13:554–559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kon ND, Westaby S, Amarasena N, Pillai R, Cordell AR (1995) Comparison of implant techniques using the freestyle stentless porcine aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg 59:857–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kunadian B, Vijayalakshmi K, Thornley AR, der Belder MA, Hunter S, Kendall S et al (2007) Meta-analysis of valve hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression for stentless versus stented aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 84:73–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lehmann S, Walther T, Kempfert J, Leontyev S, Holzhey D, Rastan AJ et al (2007) Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: Midterm results of a prospectively randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 84:467–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matsue H, Sawa Y, Takahashi T, Matsumiya G, Ohtake S, Hamada S et al (2001) Three-dimensional flow velocity quantification of freestyle aortic stentless bioprosthesis by magnetic resonance imaging: Surgical considerations. Sem Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 13:60–66Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohammadi S, Baillot R, Voisine P, Mathieu P, Dagenais F (2006) Structural deterioration of the Freestyle aortic valve: Mode of presentation and mechanisms. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 132:401–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Brien MF, Harrocks S, Stafford EG, Gardner MA, Pohlner PG, Tesar PJ, Stephens F (2001) The homograft aortic valve: a 29-year, 99.3% follow up of 1022 valve replacements. J Heart Valve Dis 10:334–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Brien MF, Gardner MAH, Gralick B, Jalali H, Gordon JA, Whitehouse SL et al (2005) CryoLife-O’Brien stentless valve: 10-year results of 402 implants. Ann Thorac Surg 79:757–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pavoni D, Badano LP, Ius F, Mazzero E, Frassini R, Gelsomino S et al (2007) Limited long-term durability of the Cryolife O’Brien stentless procine xenograft valve. Circulation 116:I–307–I–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perez de Arenaza D, Lees B, Flather M, Nuagara F, Husebye T, Jasinsky M et al (2005) Randomized comparison of stentless versus stented valves for aortic stenosis: effects on left ventricular mass. Circulation 112(17):2696–2702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG (2000) Hemodynamic and Clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1131–1141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rahimtoola SH (1978) The problem of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch. Circulation 58:20–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rahimtoola SH (2003) Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. JACC 41:893–904PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Riess F-C, Bader R, Cramer E, Hansen L, Kleijnen B, Wahl G et al (2007) Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to ten years. Ann Thorac Surg 83:1310–1318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rizzoli G, Mirone S, Ius P, Polesel E, Bottio T, Salvador L et al (2006) Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: A multicenter experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 132:602–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sintek CF, Pfeffer TA, Kochamba GS, Yun KL, Fletcher AD, Khonsari S (1998) Freestyle valve experience: technical considerations and mid-term results. J Card Surg 13(5):360–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stelzer P (2008) Stentless aortic valve replacement: porcine and pericardial. In: Cohn LH (ed) Cardiac surgery in the adult. 3 ed. CTSNet, pp 915–934Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Walther T, Falk V, Langebartels G, Krüger M, Bernhardt U, Diegeler A et al (1999) Prospectively randomized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biological aortic valves: impact on early regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Circulation 100(19 Suppl):II6–II10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Willems TP, van Herwerden LA, Steyerberg EW, Taams MA, Kleyburg VE, Hokken RB et al (1995) Subcoronary implantation or aortic root replacement for human tissue valves: sufficient data to prefer either technique? Ann Thorac Surg 60:S83–S86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M, Stein J, Detschades C, Siniawski H, Hetzer R (2008) Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136(3):688–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Ennker
    • 1
  • A. Albert
  • I. Florath
  1. 1.Klinik für Herz-, Thorax- und GefäßchirurgieMediclin Herzzentrum Lahr/BadenLahrGermany

Personalised recommendations