Key result
The St. Jude Medical Regent prosthesis produced a higher LAD systolic VTI proportion (0.41 vs 0.29, P=0.04) and normalized systolic velocity (0.88 vs 0.55, P=0.01) than the Sorin Freedom Solo.
Why the study?
Does the type of aortic valve prosthesis (mechanical vs stentless bioprosthesis) influence coronary blood flow velocity in patients undergoing AVR?
Observational (n=22)
Does the type of aortic valve prosthesis (mechanical vs stentless bioprosthesis) influence coronary blood flow velocity in patients undergoing AVR?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.41% vs 0.29%
p-value: p=.04
The type of aortic valve prosthesis significantly influences the coronary flow velocity profile in the LAD, likely reflecting differences in valve design and systolic transvalvular flow patterns.
Prosthesis type may influence post-AVR LAD flow velocity; hypothesis-generating and needs randomized confirmation before guiding selection.
BACKGROUND: Severe aortic valve stenosis is associated with high resting and reduced hyperemic coronary blood flow. Coronary blood flow increases after aortic valve replacement (AVR); however, the increase depends on the type of prosthesis used. The present study investigates the influence of type of aortic valve prosthesis on coronary blood flow velocity. METHODS: The blood flow velocity in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and the right coronary artery (RCA) was measured intraoperatively before and after AVR with a stentless bioprosthesis (Sorin Freedom Solo; n = 11) or a bileaflet mechanical prosthesis (St. Jude Medical Regent; n = 11). Measurements were made with an X-Plore epicardial Doppler probe (Medistim, Oslo, Norway) following induction of hyperemia with an adenosine infusion. Preoperative and postoperative echocardiography evaluations were used to assess valvular and ventricular function. Velocity time integrals (VTI) were measured from the Doppler signals and used to calculate the proportion of systolic VTI (SF), diastolic VTI (DF), and normalized systolic coronary blood flow velocities (NSF) and normalized diastolic coronary blood flow velocities (NDF). RESULTS: The systolic proportion of the LAD VTI increased after AVR with the St. Jude Medical Regent prosthesis, which produced higher LAD SF and NSF values than the Sorin Freedom Solo prosthesis (SF, 0.41 ± 0.09 versus 0.29 ± 0.13 [P = .04]; NSF, 0.88 ± 0.24 versus 0.55 ± 0.17 [P = .01]). No significant changes in the LAD velocity profile were noted after valve replacement with the Sorin Freedom Solo, despite a significant reduction in transvalvular gradient and an increase in the effective orifice area. AVR had no effect on the RCA flow velocity profile. CONCLUSION: The coronary flow velocity profile in the LAD was significantly influenced by the type of aortic valve prosthesis used. The differences in the LAD velocity profile probably reflect differences in valve design and the systolic transvalvular flow pattern.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jelenc et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Severe aortic valve stenosis (n=22). St. Jude Medical Regent bileaflet mechanical prosthesis vs. Sorin Freedom Solo stentless bioprosthesis was evaluated on Proportion of systolic velocity time integral (SF) in the left anterior descending coronary artery (p=.04). The St. Jude Medical Regent prosthesis produced a higher LAD systolic VTI proportion (0.41 vs 0.29, P=0.04) and normalized systolic velocity (0.88 vs 0.55, P=0.01) than the Sorin Freedom Solo.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: