Stentless Versus Conventional Xenograft Aortic Valve Replacement: Midterm Results of a Prospectively Randomized Trial

Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 467-472

  Lehmann, Sven ^a   Walther, Thomas ^a   Kempfert, Jörg ^a   Leontjev, Sergey ^a   Rastan, Ardawan ^a   Falk, Volkmar ^a   Mohr, Friedrich W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AORTA GRAFT; AORTA VALVE DISEASE; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART EJECTION FRACTION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STENT; STROKE; THROMBOEMBOLISM; TREATMENT OUTCOME; XENOGRAFT;

AGED; AORTIC VALVE; BLOOD PRESSURE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STENTS; TIME FACTORS; TRANSPLANTATION, HETEROLOGOUS;

EID: 34447542076     PISSN: 00034975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.02.017     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Levy D., Garrison R.J., Savage D.D., Kannel W.B., and Castelli W.P. Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham heart study. N Engl J Med 322 (1990) 1561-1566
2. Bonow R.O., Carabello B.A., Kanu C., et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 114 (2006) e84-e231
3. Davis E.A., Greene P.S., Cameron D.E., et al. Bioprosthetic versus mechanical protheses for aortic valve replacment in the elderly. Circulation 94 Suppl 2 (1996) 121-125
4. Burr L.H., Jamieson W.R., Munro A., Miyagishima R.T., and Germann E. Pocine bioprotheses in the elderly: clinical performance by age groups and valve positions. Ann Thorac Surg 60 Suppl (1995) 264-269
5. Fann J.I., Miller D.C., Morre K.A., et al. Twenty year clinical experience with porcine bioprotheses. Ann Thorac Surg 62 (1996) 1301-1311
6. Jamieson W.R., Burr L.H., Munro A.L., and Miyagishima R.T. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprothesis: a 21-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 66 Suppl (1998) 40-43
7. Fann J.I., and Burdon T.A. Are the indication for tissue valves different in 2001 and how do we communicate these changes to our cardiology colleagues?. Curr Opin Cardiol 16 (2001) 126-135
8. Walther T., Falk V., Langebartels G., et al. Prospectively randomized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biological aortic valves. Impact on early regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Circulation 100 Suppl 2 (1999) 6-10
9. Walther T., Falk V., Autschbach R., et al. Comparison of different anticalcification treatments for stentless aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 66 Suppl (1998) 249-254
10. Walther T., Falk V., Autschbach R., et al. Hemodynamic assessment of the stentless Toronto SPV bioprothesis by echocardiography. J Heart Valve Dis 3 (1994) 657-665
11. Cohen G., Christakis G.T., Buth K.J., et al. Early experience with stentless versus stented valves. Circulation 96 Suppl 2 (1997) 76-82
12. Edmunds L.H., Clark R.E., Cohn L.H., Grunkemeier G.L., Miller D.C., and Weisel R.D. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Ann Thorac Surg 62 (1996) 932-935
13. Walther T., Falk V., Weigl C., et al. Discrepancies of sizers for conventional and stentless aortic valve implants. J Heart Valve Dis 6 (1997) 145-148
14. Mohr F.W., Walther T., Baryalei M., et al. The SPV Toronto bioprothesis: results in 100 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 60 (1995) 171-175
15. Hunt S.M., McKenna S.P., McEwen J., Backett E.M., Williams J., and Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Comm Health 34 (1980) 281-286
16. Cohen G., Christakis G.T., Joyner C.D., et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 73 (2002) 767-778
17. Ali A., Halstead J.C., Cafferty F., et al. Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Circulation 114 Suppl 1 (2006) 535-540
18. Doss M., Martens S., Wood J.P., et al. Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the elderly patient: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 23 (2003) 299-304
19. Santini F., Bertolini P., Montalbano G., et al. Hancock versus stentless bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients older than 75 years. Ann Thorac Surg 66 Suppl (1998) 99-103
20. David T.E., Ivanov J., Eriksson M., Bos J., Feindel C., and Rakowski H. Dilation of the sinotubular junction causes aortic insufficiency after aortic valve replacement with the Toronto SPV bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122 (2001) 929-934
21. Shargall Y., Goldman B., Christakis G., and David T. Analysis of explants and causes of mortality during long-term follow-up of the Toronto stentless porcine valve. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 13 Suppl 1 (2001) 106-112
22. Bach D.S., Kon N.D., Dumesnil J.G., Sintek C.F., and Doty D.B. Ten-year outcome after aortic valve replacement with the freestyle stentless bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 80 (2005) 480-487
23. Statistical Federal Agency. Survival tables from the Federal Republic of Germany, 2004; statistics year book for the Federal Republic of Germany, Schuber (2005)