HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): John B. Chambers Christopher I. Blauth Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chambers, J. B. Articles by Blauth, C. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chambers, J. B. Articles by Blauth, C. I. Related Collections Valve disease

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:878-882
© 2006 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

The subcoronary Toronto stentless versus supra-annular Perimount stented replacement aortic valve: Early clinical and hemodynamic results of a randomized comparison in 160 patients

Valve Study Group, St Thomas Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Received for publication August 1, 2005; revisions received November 14, 2005; accepted for publication November 18, 2005.

^_* Address for reprints: John Chambers, MD, FACC, Cardiothoracic Centre, St Thomas Hospital, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom (Email: jboydchambers{at}aol.com).

BACKGROUND: A stentless valve is expected to be hemodynamically superior to a stented valve. The aim of this study was to compare early postoperative hemodynamic function and clinical events in a randomized, prospective series of 160 stentless and stented biological replacement aortic valves.

METHODS: We randomized 160 consecutive patients on 1 surgeon's list to receive either a Toronto stentless porcine valve (St Jude Medical, Inc, St Paul, Minn) or a Perimount stented bovine pericardial valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif). Echocardiography was performed at discharge, between 3 and 6 months, and at 1 year after surgery. Statistical analysis was performed by both intention to treat and actual valves implanted.

RESULTS: The mean labeled size of both designs of valve was 24.7. There were no statistically significant differences in results at any time interval or whether analysis was performed by actual valves implanted or intention to treat. At 3 to 6 months for the Toronto versus the Perimount valve, the effective orifice area was 1.58 versus 1.66 cm², the mean pressure difference was 7.54 versus 7.42 mm Hg, and the peak velocity was 2.07 versus 2.0.1 m/s. There was no difference in mortality, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, or complications other than paraprosthetic regurgitation at 12 months or on follow-up for a proportion of the sample to 8 years. The incidence of regurgitation through the valves was similar for Toronto (10%) and Perimount (13.8%) at 1 year, but mild paraprosthetic regurgitation was found in 5 patients with the Perimount valve and none with Toronto valves.

CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in hemodynamic function or clinical events between the stented and stentless biological valves chosen for comparison in the early postoperative period or in preliminary follow-up to 5 years.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. S. Risteski, S. Martens, A. Rouhollahpour, G. Wimmer-Greinecker, A. Moritz, and M. Doss Prospective randomized evaluation of stentless vs. stented aortic biologic prosthetic valves in the elderly at five years Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2009; 8(4): 449 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Padera Jr. and F. J. Schoen Pathology of Cardiac Surgery Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 111 - 178. [Full Text]

				A. Kallikourdis and S. Jacob Is a stentless aortic valve superior to conventional bioprosthetic valves for aortic valve replacement? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, October 1, 2007; 6(5): 665 - 672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D'Onofrio, S. Auriemma, P. Magagna, A. Favaro, A. Cannarella, C. Piccin, M. Bilotta, N. Abbiate, N. Lamascese, and A. Fabbri Aortic valve replacement with the Sorin Pericarbon Freedom stentless prosthesis: 7 years' experience in 130 patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2007; 134(2): 491 - 495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Chambers, H. M. Rimington, R. Rajani, F. Hodson, and F. Shabbo A randomized comparison of the Cryolife O'Brien and Toronto stentless replacement aortic valves J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2007; 133(4): 1045 - 1050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Rahimtoola The Year in Valvular Heart Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 23, 2007; 49(3): 361 - 374. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bove, Y. Van Belleghem, K. Francois, F. Caes, H. Van Overbeke, and G. Van Nooten Stentless and stented aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: factors affecting midterm clinical and hemodynamical outcome Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2006; 30(5): 706 - 713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Antunes Editorial comment: Aortic stenosis in the elderly: rethinking strategies Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2006; 30(5): 713 - 715. [Full Text] [PDF]