Key result
Cryopreserved allograft aortic valves showed superiority over 4°C stored valves, with higher 14-year survival (71% vs 57%, p=0.014) and freedom from structural deterioration (85% vs 51%, p=0.000003).
Why the study?
Does a cryopreserved allograft aortic valve improve long-term survival and freedom from structural deterioration compared to a 4°C stored valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
534 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant procedures using an allograft…
Comparison
Cryopreserved allograft aortic valve (n=410) vs 4°C stored allograft aortic valve (n=124)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
14 years
Authors
Loading...
May support cryopreserved allograft preference in AVR; hypothesis-generating and leaves open randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=534)
Does a cryopreserved allograft aortic valve improve long-term survival and freedom from structural deterioration compared to a 4°C stored valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 71% vs 57%
p-value: p=0.014
Cryopreserved allograft aortic valves demonstrate superior long-term performance, survival, and freedom from structural deterioration compared to 4°C stored valves.
O’Brien et al. (1991) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=534). Cryopreserved allograft aortic valve vs. 4°C stored allograft aortic valve was evaluated on Actuarial patient survival at 14 years (p=0.014). Cryopreserved allograft aortic valves showed superiority over 4°C stored valves, with higher 14-year survival (71% vs 57%, p=0.014) and freedom from structural deterioration (85% vs 51%, p=0.000003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: