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: Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with different valve substitutes.
    Author: De Paulis R, Sommariva L, Colagrande L, De Matteis GM, Fratini S, Tomai F, Bassano C, Penta de Peppo A, Chiariello L.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1998 Oct; 116(4):590-8. PubMed ID: 9766587.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Stentless biologic aortic valves are less obstructive than stented biologic or mechanical valves. Their superior hemodynamic performances are expected to reflect in better regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. We compared the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in 3 groups of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Group I (10 patients) received stentless biologic aortic valves, group II (10 patients) received stented biologic aortic valves, and group III (10 patients) received bileaflet mechanical aortic valves. METHODS: Echocardiographic evaluations were performed before the operation and after 1 year, and the results were compared with those of a control group. Left ventricular diameters and function, left ventricular wall thickness, and left ventricular mass were assessed by echocardiography. RESULTS: Group I patients had a significantly lower maximum and mean transprosthetic gradient than the other valve groups (P = .001). One year after operation there was a significant reduction in left ventricular mass for all patient groups (P < .01), but mass did not reach normal values (P = .05). Although the rate of regression in the interventricular septum and posterior wall thickness differed slightly among groups, their values at follow-up were comparable and still higher than control values (P = .002). The ratio between interventricular septum and posterior wall and the ratio between wall thickness and chamber radius did not change significantly at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Because the number of patients was relatively small, we could not use left ventricular mass regression after I year to distinguish among patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis by means of valve prostheses with different hemodynamic performances.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]