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: Haemodynamic benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via a minimally invasive approach: 1-year results of a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial.
    Author: Borger MA, Dohmen PM, Knosalla C, Hammerschmidt R, Merk DR, Richter M, Doenst T, Conradi L, Treede H, Moustafine V, Holzhey DM, Duhay F, Strauch J.
    Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2016 Oct; 50(4):713-720. PubMed ID: 26935407.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may provide clinical benefits in patients with aortic valve disease. A new class of bioprosthetic valves that enable rapid deployment AVR (RDAVR) may facilitate MIS. We here report the 1-year results of a randomized, multicentre trial comparing the outcomes for MIS-RDAVR with those for conventional AVR via full sternotomy (FS) with a commercially available stented aortic bioprosthesis. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with aortic stenosis were enrolled in a prospective, multicentre, randomized comparison trial (CADENCE-MIS). Key exclusion criteria included AVR requiring concomitant procedures, ejection fraction of <25% and recent myocardial infarction or stroke. Patients were randomized to undergo MIS-RDAVR via upper hemisternotomy (EDWARDS INTUITY) or AVR via FS with a commercially available stented valve. Procedural, early and late clinical outcomes were assessed for both groups. Haemodynamic performance was evaluated by an echocardiography CoreLaboratory. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 94% of MIS-RDAVR patients. MIS-RDAVR was associated with significantly reduced cross-clamp times compared with FS (41.3 ± 20.3 vs 54.0 ± 20.3 min, P < 0.001). Clinical and functional outcomes were similar at 30 days and 1 year postoperatively for both groups. While both groups received a similarly sized implanted valve (22.9 ± 2.1 mm MIS-RDAVR vs 23.0 ± 2.1 mm FS-AVR; P = 0.91), MIS-RDAVR patients had significantly lower peak gradients 1 year postoperatively (16.9 ± 5.3 vs 21.9 ± 8.6 mmHg; P = 0.033) and a trend towards lower mean gradients (9.1 ± 2.9 vs 11.5 ± 4.3 mmHg; P = 0.082). In addition, MIS-RDAVR patients had a significantly larger effective orifice area 1 year postoperatively (1.9 ± 0.5 vs 1.7 ± 0.4 cm2; P = 0.047). Paravalvular leaks, however, were significantly more common in the MIS-RDAVR group (P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: MIS-RDAVR is associated with a significantly reduced cross-clamp time and better valvular haemodynamic function than FS-AVR. However, paravalvular leak rates are higher with MIS-RDAVR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]