Why the study?
Does stentless aortic bioprosthesis improve clinical parameters compared to stented aortic bioprosthesis?
Does stentless aortic bioprosthesis improve clinical parameters compared to stented aortic bioprosthesis?
Stented aortic valves remain preferable to stentless valves for most patients due to simpler implantation and equivalent clinical performance.
Introduction of stentless valves into clinical practice has not replaced stented valve prosthesis as expected a decade ago. With respect to clinical parameters such as transvalvular pressure differences, left ventricular mass regression as well as a possible survival benefit, there are many contradictory studies published. The overall dilemma is the absence of large randomized studies. This review, therefore, focuses on two issues: Experimental research in order to disclose design advantages or drawbacks and clinical trials expressing the real benefit or risk for the patient. In general, both clinical and experimental studies show that stentless valves have several biomechanical and haemodynamic benefits when compared with stented valves though new generation pericardial valves have excellent blood flow profiles. However, stentless and stented valves seem to perform equally well when it comes to various clinical parameters. In most cases, a stented valve is therefore preferable because of the simpler implantation technique. In order to gain a more widespread clinical use, the design of the stentless valve needs to be improved in order to simplify the implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonas Amstrup Funder (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: