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: Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future?
    Author: Shrestha M, Maeding I, Höffler K, Koigeldiyev N, Marsch G, Siemeni T, Fleissner F, Haverich A.
    Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2013 Nov; 17(5):778-82; discussion 782. PubMed ID: 23851988.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in geriatric patients (>75 years) with small aortic roots is a challenge. Patient-prosthesis mismatch and the long cross-clamp time necessary for stentless valves or root enlargement are matters of concern. We compared the results of AVR with sutureless valves (Sorin Perceval), against those with conventional biological valves. METHODS: Between April 2007 and December 2012, 120 isolated AVRs were performed in patients with a small annulus (<22 mm) at our centre. In 70 patients (68 females, age 77.4 ± 5.5 years), conventional valves (C group) and in 50 patients (47 females, age 79.8 ± 4.5 years), sutureless valves (P group) were implanted. The Logistic EuroSCORE of the C group was 16.7 ± 10.4 and that of the P group 20.4 ± 10.7, (P = 0.054). Minimal-access surgery was performed in 4.3% (3/70) patients in the C group and 72% (36/50) patients in the P group. RESULTS: The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times of the C group were 75.3 ± 23 and 50.3 ± 14.2 min vs 58.7 ± 20.9 and 30.1 ± 9 min in the P group, (P < 0.001). In the C group, two annulus enlargements were performed. Thirty-day mortality was 4.3% (n = 3) in the C group and 0 in the P group, (n.s.). At follow-up (up to 5 years), mortalities were 17.4% (n = 12) in the C group and 14% (n = 7) in the P group, (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the advantages of sutureless valves for geriatric patients with small aortic roots reflected by shorter cross-clamp and CPB times, even though most of these patients were operated on via a minimally invasive access. Moreover, due to the absence of a sewing ring, these valves are also almost stentless, with greater effective orifice area (EOA) for any given size. This may potentially result in better haemodynamics even without the root enlargement. This is of advantage, as several studies have shown that aortic root enlargement can significantly increase the risks of AVR. Moreover, as seen in this series, these valves may also enable a broader application of minimally invasive AVR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]