November 7, 2000Circulation
Prospectively Randomized Comparison of Different Mechanical Aortic Valves
Why the study?
Do different bileaflet mechanical aortic valves (ATS, Carbomedics, St Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus) differ in hemodynamic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
300 consecutive patients undergoing mechanical aortic valve replacement, average age 61 years.
Comparison
ATS or Carbomedics bileaflet mechanical aortic… vs St Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus bileaflet…
Design
RCT, randomly assigned
Follow-up
1-year
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports equivalent valve selection by non-hemodynamic factors; confirms no meaningful differences among these bileaflet mechanical aortic valves.
Structured PICO
Do different bileaflet mechanical aortic valves (ATS, Carbomedics, St Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus) differ in hemodynamic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
P
Population
300 consecutive patients undergoing mechanical aortic valve replacement (approximately 90% with aortic stenosis), average age 61 years.
I
Intervention
ATS (n=100) or Carbomedics (n=100) bileaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement
C
Comparator
St Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus (n=100) bileaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement
O
Outcome
Hemodynamic and functional outcomes at 6-month and 1-year follow-upssurrogate
There are no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic outcomes or complication rates among ATS, Carbomedics, and St Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus bileaflet mechanical aortic valves at 1 year.
Cite This Study
Autschbach et al. (2000) studied this question.