JTCS Concomitant Website
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Sumit Narang
Amit Banerjee
Muhammad Abid Geelani
Right arrow Permission Requests
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Narang, S.
Right arrow Articles by Geelani, M. A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Narang, S.
Right arrow Articles by Geelani, M. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow 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

Sumit Narang, MS*, Deepak Kumar Satsangi, MCh, Amit Banerjee, MCh, Muhammad Abid Geelani, MCh

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.

Abbreviations and Acronyms AR = aortic regurgitation; AVR = aortic valve replacement; EOA = effective orifice area; LVEDD = left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; LVH = left ventricular hypertrophy; LVM = left ventricular mass; LVMI = left ventricular mass index






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 2008 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.