Key result
The Toronto SPV bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement was associated with a 4% hospital mortality rate and no clinically relevant aortic valve incompetence at up to 1 year of follow-up.
Why the study?
Does the Stentless Toronto SPV Bioprosthesis provide adequate valve function and safety in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Observational (n=100)
Does the Stentless Toronto SPV Bioprosthesis provide adequate valve function and safety in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
The Stentless Toronto SPV bioprosthesis demonstrates favorable short-term hemodynamic performance and safety for aortic valve replacement.
Short-term safety data for Toronto SPV are reassuring; longer-term randomized studies required before practice change.
The Toronto SPV bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement has been prospectively evaluated in 100 patients, since March 1993. Intraoperative transoesophageal and postoperative transthoracic echocardiography were used to assess valve function. Follow-up was complete in 74 patients at 6 months and in 38 patients at 1 year. The average valve size implanted was 26.5 mm. Some 37 patients had additional coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. The hospital mortality rate was 4%. Non-structural valve dysfunction occurred in one patient and late endocarditis in another patient required operation. There were no other valve complications. None of the patients developed clinically relevant aortic valve incompetence during follow-up and there was a significant decrease in pressure gradients, increase in valve orifice areas and decrease in left ventricular hypertrophy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walther et al. (1996) conducted an observational in Aortic valve replacement (n=100). Toronto SPV bioprosthesis was evaluated. The Toronto SPV bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement was associated with a 4% hospital mortality rate and no clinically relevant aortic valve incompetence at up to 1 year of follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: