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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Sumit Narang Amit Banerjee Muhammad Abid Geelani Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Narang, S. Articles by Geelani, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Narang, S. Articles by Geelani, M. A. Related Collections Valve disease

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136:943-947
© 2008 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

Stentless valves versus stented bioprostheses at the aortic position: Midterm results

Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, G. B. Pant Hospital, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India

Received for publication December 30, 2007; revisions received April 28, 2008; accepted for publication June 7, 2008.

^_* Address for reprints: Sumit Narang, MS, Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, G. B. Pant Hospital, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India 110002. (Email: sumit_narang{at}yahoo.com).

Objective: Our aim was to compare stentless and stented bioprostheses. Clinical outcomes, hemodynamic performance, and postoperative left ventricular mass regression were the principal outcomes assessed.

Methods: Sixty-two patients were recruited for the study. Our protocol was to consider all patients older than 55 years for bioprostheses, and also younger patients were implanted with a bioprosthesis if they wanted to avoid anticoagulation. Patients selected for bioprostheses were randomly assigned to receive stentless (group A) and stented (group B) bioprostheses, depending on the treating unit. Patients in groups A and B were further divided into subgroups I and II based on left ventricular ejection fractions of 50% or greater and less than 50%, respectively.

Results: At 18 ± 3 months postoperatively, the effective orifice area was greater in group A versus group B. Left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass index, functional class, and mean gradient were similar in patients of subgroup I (left ventricular ejection fraction >50%) from both groups. However, there was a significant difference between all except mean gradient in patients of subgroup II (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) from both groups. Also, in the patient subgroup implanted with valves of less than 19 mm (group A, 4 patients; group B, 3 patients), there was a significant difference in left ventricular mass index and mean gradient.

Conclusion: In patients with left ventricular impairment or a small aortic annulus, stentless bioprostheses might allow for greater improvement in left ventricular function postoperatively.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. A. Funder Current status on stentless aortic bioprosthesis: a clinical and experimental perspective Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, December 21, 2011; (2011) ezr141v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Kalavrouziotis, J. Rodes-Cabau, R. Bagur, D. Doyle, R. De Larochelliere, P. Pibarot, and E. Dumont Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 30, 2011; 58(10): 1016 - 1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Murtuza, J. R. Pepper, C. Jones, P. Nihoyannopoulos, A. Darzi, and T. Athanasiou Does stentless aortic valve implantation increase perioperative risk? A critical appraisal of the literature and risk of bias analysis Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, May 1, 2011; 39(5): 643 - 652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]