Key result
Aortic valve replacement with a viable cryopreserved allograft valve eliminated reoperation for leaflet perforation or rupture compared to nonviable valves (0% vs 18.5%; p<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does a viable cryopreserved aortic allograft valve reduce reoperation for leaflet perforation or rupture compared to a nonviable refrigerated allograft in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
308 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement
Comparison
Viable cryopreserved aortic allograft valve vs Nonviable 4 degrees C refrigerated aortic…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Up to 16 years (nonviable group) and 11 years (viable group)
Authors
Loading...
Associated durability advantage should not yet change practice; leaves open randomized confirmation of allograft viability benefits.
Cohort (n=308)
Does a viable cryopreserved aortic allograft valve reduce reoperation for leaflet perforation or rupture compared to a nonviable refrigerated allograft in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 18.5%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Viable cryopreserved aortic allograft valves offer significantly improved durability over nonviable refrigerated allografts, with zero reoperations for leaflet perforation or rupture up to 11 years.
O’Brien et al. (1987) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease requiring replacement (n=308). Viable cryopreserved aortic allograft valve vs. Nonviable 4 degrees C refrigerated aortic allograft valve was evaluated on Reoperation for leaflet perforation or rupture (p=<0.0001). Aortic valve replacement with a viable cryopreserved allograft valve eliminated reoperation for leaflet perforation or rupture compared to nonviable valves (0% vs 18.5%; p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: