Comparative evaluation of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized analysis

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

Anton Moritz¹  Arndt H Kiessling¹  Jeffrey P Wood¹  Mirko Doss¹ 

[1] Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

关键词: Prospective randomized Analysis;    Aortic Valve Replacement;    Left Ventricular Mass;   

Others  :  1153735
DOI  :  10.1186/1749-8090-6-136

 received in 2011-01-21, accepted in 2011-10-13,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

We assessed the hemodynamic performance of various prostheses and the clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement, in different age groups.

Methods

One-hundred-and-twenty patients with isolated aortic valve stenosis were included in this prospective randomized randomised trial and allocated in three age-groups to receive either pulmonary autograft (PA, n = 20) or mechanical prosthesis (MP, Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 1 (age < 55 years), either stentless bioprosthesis (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or MP (Edwards Mira n = 20) in group 2 (age 55-75 years) and either stentless (CE Prima Plus n = 20) or stented bioprosthesis (CE Perimount n = 20) in group 3 (age > 75). Clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance were evaluated at discharge, six months and one year.

Results

In group 1, patients with PA had significantly lower mean gradients than the MP (2.6 vs. 10.9 mmHg, p = 0.0005) with comparable left ventricular mass regression (LVMR). Morbidity included 1 stroke in the PA population and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the MP subgroup. In group 2, mean gradients did not differ significantly between both populations (7.0 vs. 8.9 mmHg, p = 0.81). The rate of LVMR and EF were comparable at 12 months; each group with one mortality. Morbidity included 1 stroke and 1 gastrointestinal bleeding in the stentless and 3 bleeding complications in the MP group. In group 3, mean gradients did not differ significantly (7.8 vs 6.5 mmHg, p = 0.06). Postoperative EF and LVMR were comparable. There were 3 deaths in the stented group and no mortality in the stentless group. Morbidity included 1 endocarditis and 1 stroke in the stentless compared to 1 endocarditis, 1 stroke and one pulmonary embolism in the stented group.

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes justify valve replacement with either valve substitute in the respective age groups. The PA hemodynamically outperformed the MPs. Stentless valves however, did not demonstrate significantly superior hemodynamics or outcomes in comparison to stented bioprosthesis or MPs.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Doss et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Peterseim DS, Cen YY, Cheruvu S, et al.: Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999, 117:890-7.
• [2]Edmunds LH Jr, Cohn LH, Weisel RD: Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988, 96:351-3.
• [3]He GW, Grunkemeier GL, Gately HL, Furnary AP, Starr A: Up to thirty-year survival after aortic valve replacement in the small aortic root. Ann Thorac Surg 1995, 59:1056-62.
• [4]Bikkina M, Larson MG, Levy D: Asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias and mortality risk in subjects with left ventricular hypertrophy. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993, 22:1111-6.
• [5]Michel PL, Mandagout O, Vahanian A, et al.: Ventricular arrhythmias in aortic valve disease before and after aortic valve replacement. Acta Cardiol 1992, 47:145-56.
• [6]Krayenbuehl HP, Hess OM, Monrad ES, Schneider J, Mall G, Turina M: Left ventricular myocardial structure in aortic valve disease before, intermediate, and late after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 1989, 79:744-55.
• [7]Turrentine MW, Ruzmetov M, Vijay P, Bills RG, Brown JW: Biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in children. Ann Thorac Surg 2001, 71:S356-60.
• [8]Lupinetti FM, Warner J, Jones TK, Herndon SP: Comparison of human tissues and mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in children. Circulation 1997, 96:321-5.
• [9]Jin XY, Zhang ZM, Gibson DG, Yacoub MH, Pepper JR: Effects of valve substitute on changes in left ventricular function and hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 1996, 62:683-90.
• [10]De Paulis R, Sommariva L, Colagrande L, et al.: Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with different valve substitutes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998, 116:590-8.
• [11]Brown JW, Ruzmetov M, Vijay P, Bills RG, Turrentine MW: Clinical outcomes and indicators of normalization of left ventricular dimensions after Ross procedure in children. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001, 13:28-34.
• [12]Niwaya K, Elkins RC, Knott-Craig CJ, Santangelo KL, Cannon MB, Lane MM: Normalization of left ventricular dimensions after Ross operation with aortic annular reduction. Ann Thorac Surg 1999, 68:812-8. discussion 818-9
• [13]De Paulis R, Sommariva L, De Matteis GM, et al.: Extent and pattern of regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with small size CarboMedics aortic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997, 113:901-9.
• [14]Monrad ES, Hess OM, Murakami T, Nonogi H, Corin WJ, Krayenbuehl HP: Time course of regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement. Circulation 1988, 77:1345-55.
• [15]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:II6-10.
• [16]Cohen G, Christakis GT, Joyner CD, et al.: Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2002, 73:767-75. discussion 775-8