Why the study?
Does a stentless bioprosthesis compared to a stented bioprosthesis improve survival or increase operative risks in elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Does a stentless bioprosthesis compared to a stented bioprosthesis improve survival or increase operative risks in elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
In elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, stentless bioprostheses do not increase operative risk but also do not demonstrate a 3-year survival benefit compared to stented valves.
Stentless valves show comparable safety and survival to stented valves in elderly AVR; leaves open need for longer-term randomized data.
Recent studies suggest that the hemodynamic advantage of stentless bioprostheses over the stented type improves long-term survival after aortic valve replacement, but the more complex and time-consuming implantation technique may increase the risks of operative death and postoperative complications. Between April 1996 and June 2001, 519 patients with a mean age of 76 +/- 5 years underwent aortic valve replacement using a stentless (Medtronic Freestyle, n = 277) or stented bioprosthesis (Medtronic Mosaic, n = 242). Multiple logistic regression analysis considering different patient populations revealed no increased risk of operative death, postoperative complications, or neurological impairment after implantation of a stentless bioprosthesis. Survival curves in respect of 367 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement up to September 2000 and were followed up for 3 years were not different (p = 0.98). As the patients were elderly, improved survival due to implantation of a stentless valve could not be demonstrated within this time span.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ennker et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: