Aortic annulus diameter and valve design each determine the valve size implanted

Journal of Heart Valve Disease

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 591-598

  Von Oppell, Ulrich O ^a   Segadal, Leidulf ^b   Busund, Rolf ^c   Johnston, G Gilbert ^d   Dimitrakakis, George ^a   Masani, Navroz ^a   Lung, Te Hsin ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

^b HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH NORWAY   (Norway)

^d St Joseph Hospital Tacoma   (United States)

^e MEDTRONIC INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AORTA STENOSIS; AORTA VALVE PROSTHESIS; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; AORTIC VALVE REPAIR; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; DEBRIDEMENT; FEMALE; HEART HEMODYNAMICS; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE FUNCTION; HEART SIZE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MITRAL VALVE REPAIR; MORTALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TRICUSPID VALVE REPAIR; ANIMAL; AORTA VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; CATTLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT; HEMODYNAMICS; HISTOLOGY; INSTRUMENTATION; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; SWINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANIMALS; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; CATTLE; FEMALE; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SWINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84871858002     PISSN: 09668519     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Seitelberger R, Bialy J, Gottardi R, et al. Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: Comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:358-363
2. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves; selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation 2009;119:1034-1048
3. Bonchek LI, Burlingame MW, Vazales BE. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;94:632-634
4. Cochran RP, Kunzelman KS. J Cardiac Surg 1996;11:318-324
5. Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009;22:975-1014
6. Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, López-Rodríguez J, Bueno M, Arribas A, Nieto F. One year hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna pericardial xenograft and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: A prospective study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2007;6:345-349
7. Jamieson WRE, Janusz MT, MacNab J, Henderson C. Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S282-S284
8. Chambers JB, Rajani R, Parkin D, et al. Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: Early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and Mosaic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136:1142-1148
9. Ruzicka DJ, Hettich I, Hutter A, et al. The complete supraannular concept: In vivo hemodynamics of bovine and porcine aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2009;120(Suppl.1):S139-S145
10. David IB, Catinella F, Herskowitz K. Does valve design impact the maximum implantable bioprosthetic diameter? A prospective, multicenter observational study. J Heart Valve Dis 2007;16:662-666
11. Eichenger WB, Botzenhardt F, Keithahn A, et al. Exercise hemodynamics of bovine versus porcine bioprostheses: A prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount aortic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:1056-1063
12. Suri RM, Zehr KJ, Sundt TM, III, et al. Left ventricular mass regression after porcine versus bovine aortic valve replacement: A randomized comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:1232-1237
13. Blais C, Dumesnil JG, Baillot R, Simard S, Doyle D, Pibarot P. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on short-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2003;108:983-988
14. Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on cardiac events and midterm mortality after aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis. Circulation 2006;113:570-576
15. Urso S, Sadaba R, Aldamiz-Echevarria G. Is patient-prosthesis mismatch an independent risk factor for early and mid-term overall mortality in adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement ? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2009;9:510-519
16. Moon MR, Lawton JS, Moazami N, Munfakh NA, Pasque MK, Damiano RJ, Jr. POINT: Prosthesis-patient mismatch does not affect survival for patients greater than 70 years of age undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;137:278-283
17. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. New concepts in valvular hemodynamics: Implications for diagnosis and treatment of aortic stenosis. Can J Cardiol 2007;23(Suppl.B):40B-47B
18. Garcia D, Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG, Sakr F, Durand LG. Assessment of aortic valve stenosis severity: A new index based on the energy loss concept. Circulation 2000;101:765-771
19. Akins CW, Travis B, Yoganathan AP. Energy loss for evaluating valve performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136 820-833
20. Heinrich RS, Marcus RH, Ensley AE, Gibson DE, Yoganathan AP. Valve orifice area alone is an insufficient index of aortic stenosis severity: Effects of the proximal and distal geometry on transaortic energy loss. J Heart Valve Dis 1999;8:509-515
21. Dzemali O, Bakhtiary F, Steinseiffer U, et al. Hemodynamic performance of fresh and calcified aortic valve prostheses in critical low stroke volume. J Heart Valve Dis 2008;17:317-324
22. Bottio T, Tarzia V, Rizzoli G, Gerosa G. The changing spectrum of bioprostheses hydrodynamic performance: Considerations on in-vitro tests. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2008;7:750-754
23. Kulik A, Al-Saigh M, Chan V, et al. Enlargement of the small aortic root during aortic valve replacement: Is there a benefit ? Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85:94-101
24. Garcia D, Pibarot P, Landry C, et al. Estimation of aortic valve effective orifice area by Doppler echocardiography: Effects of valve inflow shape and flow rate. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2004;17:756-765
25. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valves in adults; an update. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2413-2426
26. David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: The gold standard of bioprosthetic valve durability? Ann Thorac Surg 2010;90:775-781
27. Valfrè C, Ius P, Minniti G, et al. The fate of Hancock II porcine valve recipients 25 years after implant. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010;38:141-146
28. Bakhtiary F, Dzemali O, Steinseiffer U, et al. Opening and closing kinematics of fresh and calcified aortic prostheses: An in vitro study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;134:657-662