Key result
Cryopreserved allograft aortic valves showed superior durability compared to 4°C stored valves, with 10-year actuarial freedom from reoperation for valve degeneration of 99% vs 88% (P=0.02).
Why the study?
Does a viable cryopreserved allograft aortic valve improve valve durability and reduce reoperation for degeneration compared to a 4°C stored nonviable allograft in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
355 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (127 had associated procedures)
Comparison
Allograft aortic valve sterilized by low dose… vs Allograft aortic valve sterilized by low dose…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
10 years
Authors
Loading...
May support cryopreserved allografts for durability in AVR; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
Cohort (n=355)
Does a viable cryopreserved allograft aortic valve improve valve durability and reduce reoperation for degeneration compared to a 4°C stored nonviable allograft in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 99% vs 88%
p-value: p=0.02
Cryopreserved viable allograft aortic valves demonstrate superior long-term durability and lower rates of reoperation for valve degeneration compared to 4°C stored nonviable valves.
McGiffin et al. (1988) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=355). Cryopreserved allograft aortic valve vs. 4°C stored allograft aortic valve was evaluated on Actuarial freedom from reoperation for allograft valve degeneration at 10 years (p=0.02). Cryopreserved allograft aortic valves showed superior durability compared to 4°C stored valves, with 10-year actuarial freedom from reoperation for valve degeneration of 99% vs 88% (P=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: