These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Stentless valves for aortic valve replacement: where do we stand?
    Author: de Kerchove L, Glineur D, El Khoury G, Noirhomme P.
    Journal: Curr Opin Cardiol; 2007 Mar; 22(2):96-103. PubMed ID: 17284987.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Following more than a decade's experience with stentless valves and the development of better profiled stented valves, the article discusses the advantages of stentless valves regarding hemodynamic performance, left ventricular mass regression, durability and survival. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies show that stentless valves remain hemodynamically superior compared with modern porcine stented valves. This superiority is, however, rarely reported in comparison with modern pericardial stented valves. In general, patient-prosthesis mismatch is less frequent in stentless vs. stented valves. Recent randomized trials comparing stentless valves and modern stented valves show equivalent left ventricular mass regression at 1 year. At 10 years, stentless valve durability is excellent and comparable with that of stented valves. Recent comparative studies do not confirm the previously reported midterm survival advantages of stentless valves. SUMMARY: Improvement of stented valves has significantly reduced the hemodynamic differences between them and their stentless counterpart. Patients with small aortic annulus, however, should benefit from a stentless valve due to the better expected gradients and lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Midterm results suggest equivalent durability and survival for both prosthesis types but additional and longer-term trials are necessary to confirm these results.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]