Prospectively randomized evaluation of stented xenograft hemodynamic function in the aortic position

Circulation

Volumn 110, Issue 11 SUPPL., 2004, Pages

  Walther, Thomas ^a   Lehmann, Sven ^a   Falk, Volkmar ^a   Metz, Sebastian ^a   Doll, Nicolas ^a   Rastan, Ardawan ^a   Viehweg, Marika ^a   Richter, Markus ^a   Gummert, Jan ^a   Mohr, Friedrich W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aortic annulus diameter; Aortic valve replacement; Hemodynamics; Stented bioprosthesis

Indexed keywords

AGED; AORTA GRAFT; AORTA VALVE DISEASE; AORTA VALVE PROSTHESIS; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART HEMODYNAMICS; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE MASS; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STENT; TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; XENOGRAFT;

AGED; ANIMALS; AORTIC VALVE; AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS; BIOPROSTHESIS; BODY SURFACE AREA; CALCINOSIS; CATTLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COATED MATERIALS, BIOCOMPATIBLE; DEATH, SUDDEN, CARDIAC; DETERGENTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEMODYNAMIC PROCESSES; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; HYPERTROPHY, LEFT VENTRICULAR; INFECTION; MALE; MULTIPLE ORGAN FAILURE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STENTS; SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS; SUS SCROFA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 4644299165     PISSN: 00097322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000138947.63799.89     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, deLeon AC, et al. Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Circulation. 1998;98:1949-1984.
2. Davis EA, Greene PS, Cameron DE, et al. Bioprosthetic versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in the elderly. Circulation. 1996;94:S121-S125.
3. Jones EL, Weintraub WS, Graver JM, et al. Interaction of age and coronary disease after valve replacement: implications for valve selection. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58:378-384.
4. Burr LH, Jamieson WR, Munro AI, et al. Porcine bioprostheses in the elderly: clinical performance by age groups and valve positions. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:S264-9.
5. Fann JI, Miller DC, Moore KA, et al. Twenty year clinical experience with porcine bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:1301-1311.
6. Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Munro AI, et al. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66: S40-S43.
7. Jamieson WR. Modern cardiac valve devices-bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses: State of the art. J Card Surg. 1993;8:89-98.
8. Fann JI, Burdon TA. Are the indications for tissue valves different in 2001 and how do we communicate these changes to our cardiology colleagues? Curr Opin Cardiol. 2001;16:126-135.
9. 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. 1999;100:II-6-II-10.
10. Autschbach R, Walther T, Falk V, et al. Prospectively randomized comparison of different mechanical aortic valves. Circulation. 2000;102:III-1-III-4.
11. Bonchek LI, Burlingame MW, Vazales BE. Accuracy of sizers for aortic valve prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1987;94:632-634.
12. Cochran RP, Kunzelman KS. Discrepancies between labeled and actual dimensions of prosthetic valves and sizers. J Card Surg. 1996;11:318-324.
13. Christakis GT, Buth KJ, Goldman BS, et al. Inaccurate and misleading valve sizing: a proposed standard for valve size nomenclature. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:1198-1203.
14. Bartels C, Leyh RG, Bechtel MJF, et al. Discrepancies between sizer and valve dimensions: implications for small aortic root. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:1631-1633.
15. Zuckerman BD, Sapirstein W. Prosthetic cardiac valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:1563.
16. Walther T, Falk V, Weigl C, et al. Discrepancy of sizers for conventional and stentless aortic valve implants. J Heart Valve Dis. 1997;6:145-148.
17. Biais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2003;108:983-988.
18. Quintero LJ, Lohre JM, Hernandez N, et al. Evaluation of in vivo models for studying calcification behavior of commercially available bovine pericardium. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7:262-267.
19. Walther T, Falk V, Autschbach R, et al. Comparison of different anticalcification treatments for stentless aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:S249-54.
20. Fehske W. Praxis der konventionellen und farbkodierten Doppler-Echokardiographie, 1st ed. Toronto, Canada: Huber; 1988.
21. Devereux RB, Reichek N. Echocardiographic determination of left ventricular mass in man: anatomic validation of the method. Circulation. 1977;55:613-618.
22. Edmunds LH, Clark RE, Cohn LH, et al. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:932-935.
23. Jamieson WRE, Janusz MT, MacNab J, et al. Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:S282-S284.
24. Dellgren G, David TE, Raanani E, et al. Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;124:146-154.
25. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Thomas JD et al. Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1460-1465.
26. Thomson DJ, Jamieson WRE, Dumesnil JG, et al. Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: Midterm investigational trial results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:S269-72.
27. Gansera B, Botzenhardt F, Gunzinger R, et al. The Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: seven years' results. J Heart Valve Dis. 2003;12:354-361.