Why the study?
Does stentless aortic valve replacement improve left ventricular mass regression compared to stented aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing AVR?
Does stentless aortic valve replacement improve left ventricular mass regression compared to stented aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing AVR?
Stentless aortic valve replacement offers better midterm survival compared to stented valves, though both provide similar early left ventricular mass regression.
Stentless AVR was associated with superior survival versus stented AVR; observational data leave open whether this extends to randomized settings or alters LVM regression.
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the time-related regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after stentless vs. stented aortic valve replacement. From January 1992 to December 2002, 145 patients had a Toronto stentless porcine valve and 106 had a stented Carpentier-Edwards aortic valve replacement. Over a 10-year follow-up, survival was superior in the Toronto group vs. the Carpentier-Edwards group (84% vs. 74% at 4 years; 78% vs. 68% at 6 years; p < 0.001). A significant and constant reduction of peak and mean transvalvular gradients after valve replacement resulted in substantial regression of left ventricular mass index in both groups, which did not reach statistical significance. However, this phenomenon stopped at 3 years, and left ventricular mass index increased slowly after 5 years. Stentless and stented bioprostheses both showed good early and late clinical and hemodynamic outcomes, with the advantage of better midterm survival for stentless xenografts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tamim et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: