Why the study?
Does a stentless aortic valve improve left ventricular mass regression and hemodynamics compared to conventional stented valves in patients undergoing tissue aortic valve replacement?
Does a stentless aortic valve improve left ventricular mass regression and hemodynamics compared to conventional stented valves in patients undergoing tissue aortic valve replacement?
Stentless aortic valves offer early hemodynamic and LV mass regression benefits over stented valves, but these advantages do not persist at 12 months.
Stentless valves lack sustained LV mass benefit beyond 6 months; challenges routine preference over stented valves in tissue AVR.
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether a stentless valve is superior to conventional stented valves when tissue aortic valve replacement is performed. Altogether more than 515 papers were found using the reported search, of which 16 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We conclude that stentless valves allow a larger effective orifice area valve to be implanted with a lower mean and peak aortic gradient postoperatively. At six months several studies and a meta-analysis have shown superior left ventricular mass regression in the stentless valve groups. However, by 12 months the stented valve groups catch up in terms of mass regression and this significance disappears. So the 'eminent speaker from the floor', was right with his statement, that there have been no definitively proven benefits for stentless valves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kallikourdis et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: