Matched Comparison of Two Different Biological Prostheses for Complete Supra-annular Aortic Valve Replacement

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of the St. Jude Medical Trifecta (SJM Trifecta; St. Jude Medical, St Paul, Minnesota, United States) and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (CEPM Ease; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, United States) bioprostheses early postoperative and at 1 year. Methods From October 2007 to October 2008, a total of 61 consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the CEPM Ease prosthesis. From a prospective cohort of 201 patients (March 2011 to January 2012) who received AVR with the SJM Trifecta valve, a matched group of 51 patients was selected. Matching was conducted 1:1 by ejection fraction, gender, age, and body surface area. A Hegar dilator was used to define the aortic tissue annulus diameter. Data were grouped on the basis of the patient's tissue annulus diameter (≤22 mm; 23-24 mm; ≥25 mm). Results Early postoperative and at 1 year mean pressure gradients (MPGs) in the various groups ranged from 7.2 ± 4.6 to 7.1 ± 2.4 mm Hg and from 10.0 ± 4.3 to 8.0 ± 2.8 mm Hg in the SJM Trifecta group and from 18.0 ± 5.0 to 12.1 ± 3.6 mm Hg and from 17.7 ± 4.5 to 11.8 ± 3.2 mm Hg in the CEPM Ease group, respectively. Likewise, effective orifice areas (EOAs) ranged from 1.7 ± 0.5 to 2.0 ± 0.5 cm(2) and from 1.5 ± 0.3 to 1.7 ± 0.4 cm(2) in the SJM Trifecta group and from 1.3 ± 0.5 to 1.9 ± 0.5 cm(2) and from 1.2 ± 0.3 to 1.8 ± 0.3 cm(2) in the CEPM Ease group, respectively. A marked left ventricular mass (LVM) regression across all annulus sizes was noted in both groups. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was infrequent overall. Conclusion The SJM Trifecta valve showed lower MPGs early postoperative and at 1 year as well as higher EOA and effective orifice area index early postoperative. No significant differences were detected with regard to LVM regression and PPM.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.