Key result
UniLine bioprosthetic AVR is associated with a ~65% reduction in peak transvalvular pressure gradient.
Why the study?
Does aortic valve replacement with xenopericardial bioprostheses compared to xenoaortic bioprostheses improve hemodynamic outcomes in patients with degenerative aortic valvular disease?
Observational (n=130)
Does aortic valve replacement with xenopericardial bioprostheses compared to xenoaortic bioprostheses improve hemodynamic outcomes in patients with degenerative aortic valvular disease?
Both xenoaortic and xenopericardial bioprostheses provide good clinical and hemodynamic outcomes for degenerative aortic valve disease, with xenopericardial valves showing a more pronounced decrease in transvalvular pressure gradients.
Associated with early hemodynamic improvement after AVR; leaves open comparative effectiveness versus xenoaortic bioprostheses.
Aim. To assess clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of aortic valve replacement with xenoaortic biological prosthesis “Aspire Vascutek” and xenopericardial biological prosthesis “UniLine”. Methods. 130 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses in the period from October 2012 to March 2016 were included in the study. All patients were enrolled into two groups according to the model of the implanted device. 65 recipients of xenoaortic bioprostheses “Aspire Vascutek” were included in Group 1, whereas patients (n = 65) xenopericardial bioprostheses “UniLine” were assigned in Group 2. Males prevailed in Group 1 (63%, the mean age - 66.4±5.5 years). 85% of Group 1 patients had heart failure Strazhesko-Vasilenko IIA grade and 94% of patients had chronic heart failure NYHA III. Similarly, male patients (58%) prevailed in Group 2. The mean age of Group 2 patients was 66.5±3.65 years. All patients in Group 2 II had heart failure Strazhesko-Vasilenko IIA grade and chronic heart failure NYHA III. Results Two patients in Group 1 died in the early postoperative period (the overall mortality was 1.5%). All patients had chronic heart failure NYHA I-II at discharge. Peak transvalvular pressure gradient significantly decreased in the in-hospital period, particularly in Group 2 patients (82,3±22,7 mm Hg vs. 28.8±7.6 mm Hg). 88% of Group 1 patients underwent the 60-month follow-up, and 96% of Group 2 patients - the 48-month follow-up. Transvalvular pressure gradients decreased progressively in both study groups within 60 months follow-up. This decrease was more pronounced in recipients of xenopericardial biological prostheses. Conclusion. Aortic valve replacement with xenopericardial bioprostheses “UniLine” and xenoaortic bioprostheses “Aspire Vascutek” for aortic valvular disease allows treating intracardiac hemodynamic derangements and achieving good clinical and hemodynamic outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Федоров et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Degenerative aortic valvular disease (n=130). Xenoaortic biological prosthesis Aspire Vascutek vs. Xenopericardial biological prosthesis UniLine was evaluated on Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes (peak transvalvular pressure gradient). Aortic valve replacement with xenopericardial UniLine bioprostheses significantly decreased peak transvalvular pressure gradient in the in-hospital period from 82.3±22.7 to 28.8±7.6 mm Hg.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: