Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses

Background: The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiology 2021-09, Vol.146 (5), p.656-666
Hauptverfasser: Taboada-Martín, Rubén, Arribas-Leal, José María, Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción, Abellán Alemán, José, Marín, Francisco, Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel, Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 666
container_issue 5
container_start_page 656
container_title Cardiology
container_volume 146
creator Taboada-Martín, Rubén
Arribas-Leal, José María
Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción
Abellán Alemán, José
Marín, Francisco
Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel
Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan
description Background: The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves. Method and Results: From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18–29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16–29] mm Hg and 18 [14–24] mm Hg, p < 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups. Conclusions: We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
doi_str_mv 10.1159/000516465
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_karge</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2540719808</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2540719808</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-eff4d81c0206d8c56ebb3723724576ada4a694e5444b2356871029dc5be63e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kU9P3DAQxa2qVVloD71XlY8gkdZ2bCc5wvKvElUlQFyjiTMphiQOtgPi2_Sj4mWXlUYae_yb9yw9Qr5x9pNzVf1ijCmupVYfyIJLwbOqUPwjWaR5memcix2yG8J9uspCis9kJ5dcMM6qBfm_dMME3gY3UtfRI-ejNfTcQ2txjBTGlt6mg7dm7sHTPxAChS6ip7fQPyG9wqkHg8MK7px_F7iOOLpgA3228Y5ewWRbepJQ97IiD-n1HGePPYZw-OaxdONTerBuhJ4eWzd5F-IdBgxfyKcO-oBfN32P3Jyd3iwvssu_57-XR5eZyZmOGXadbEtumGC6LY3S2DR5IVJJVWhoQYKuJCopZSNypcuCM1G1RjWo81R7ZH8tm5wfZwyxHmww2PcwoptDLZRkBa9KVib0YI2a9MngsasnbwfwLzVn9SqPeptHYn9sZOdmwHZLvgeQgO9r4AH8P_RbYLP_ChyxkII</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2540719808</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals</source><creator>Taboada-Martín, Rubén ; Arribas-Leal, José María ; Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción ; Abellán Alemán, José ; Marín, Francisco ; Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel ; Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan</creator><creatorcontrib>Taboada-Martín, Rubén ; Arribas-Leal, José María ; Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción ; Abellán Alemán, José ; Marín, Francisco ; Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel ; Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan</creatorcontrib><description>Background: The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves. Method and Results: From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18–29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16–29] mm Hg and 18 [14–24] mm Hg, p &lt; 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups. Conclusions: We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-6312</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-9751</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000516465</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34120109</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland</publisher><subject>Aortic Valve Stenosis - diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery ; Bioprosthesis ; Cardiac Surgery: Research Article ; Humans</subject><ispartof>Cardiology, 2021-09, Vol.146 (5), p.656-666</ispartof><rights>2021 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-eff4d81c0206d8c56ebb3723724576ada4a694e5444b2356871029dc5be63e63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-eff4d81c0206d8c56ebb3723724576ada4a694e5444b2356871029dc5be63e63</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3001-9960</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,2425,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34120109$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Taboada-Martín, Rubén</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arribas-Leal, José María</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abellán Alemán, José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marín, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses</title><title>Cardiology</title><addtitle>Cardiology</addtitle><description>Background: The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves. Method and Results: From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18–29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16–29] mm Hg and 18 [14–24] mm Hg, p &lt; 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups. Conclusions: We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.</description><subject>Aortic Valve Stenosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery</subject><subject>Bioprosthesis</subject><subject>Cardiac Surgery: Research Article</subject><subject>Humans</subject><issn>0008-6312</issn><issn>1421-9751</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kU9P3DAQxa2qVVloD71XlY8gkdZ2bCc5wvKvElUlQFyjiTMphiQOtgPi2_Sj4mWXlUYae_yb9yw9Qr5x9pNzVf1ijCmupVYfyIJLwbOqUPwjWaR5memcix2yG8J9uspCis9kJ5dcMM6qBfm_dMME3gY3UtfRI-ejNfTcQ2txjBTGlt6mg7dm7sHTPxAChS6ip7fQPyG9wqkHg8MK7px_F7iOOLpgA3228Y5ewWRbepJQ97IiD-n1HGePPYZw-OaxdONTerBuhJ4eWzd5F-IdBgxfyKcO-oBfN32P3Jyd3iwvssu_57-XR5eZyZmOGXadbEtumGC6LY3S2DR5IVJJVWhoQYKuJCopZSNypcuCM1G1RjWo81R7ZH8tm5wfZwyxHmww2PcwoptDLZRkBa9KVib0YI2a9MngsasnbwfwLzVn9SqPeptHYn9sZOdmwHZLvgeQgO9r4AH8P_RbYLP_ChyxkII</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Taboada-Martín, Rubén</creator><creator>Arribas-Leal, José María</creator><creator>Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción</creator><creator>Abellán Alemán, José</creator><creator>Marín, Francisco</creator><creator>Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel</creator><creator>Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3001-9960</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses</title><author>Taboada-Martín, Rubén ; Arribas-Leal, José María ; Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción ; Abellán Alemán, José ; Marín, Francisco ; Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel ; Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c306t-eff4d81c0206d8c56ebb3723724576ada4a694e5444b2356871029dc5be63e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aortic Valve Stenosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery</topic><topic>Bioprosthesis</topic><topic>Cardiac Surgery: Research Article</topic><topic>Humans</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Taboada-Martín, Rubén</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arribas-Leal, José María</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abellán Alemán, José</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marín, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Taboada-Martín, Rubén</au><au>Arribas-Leal, José María</au><au>Esteve-Pastor, María Asunción</au><au>Abellán Alemán, José</au><au>Marín, Francisco</au><au>Rivera-Caravaca, José Miguel</au><au>Cánovas-Lopez, Sergio Juan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses</atitle><jtitle>Cardiology</jtitle><addtitle>Cardiology</addtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>146</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>656</spage><epage>666</epage><pages>656-666</pages><issn>0008-6312</issn><eissn>1421-9751</eissn><abstract>Background: The use of rapid deployment and sutureless aortic prostheses is increasing. Previous reports have shown promising results on haemodynamic performance and mortality rates. However, the impact of these bioprostheses on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression remains unknown. We decided to study the changes in remodelling and LVM regression in isolated severe aortic stenosis treated with conventional or Perceval® or Intuity® valves. Method and Results: From January 2011 to January 2016, 324 bioprostheses were implanted in our centre. The collected characteristics were divided into 3 groups: conventional valves, Perceval®, and Intuity®, and they were analysed after 12 months. There were 183 conventional valves (56%), 72 Perceval® (22%), and 69 Intuity® (21.2%). The statistical analysis showed significant differences in transprosthetic postoperative peak gradient (23 [18–29] mm Hg vs. 21 [16–29] mm Hg and 18 [14–24] mm Hg, p &lt; 0.001), ventricular mass electrical criteria regression (Sokolow and Cornell products), and 1-year survival (90 vs. 93% and 97%, log rank p value = 0.04) in conventional, Perceval®, and Intuity® groups. Conclusions: We observed differences in haemodynamic, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters related to the different types of prosthesis. Patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had the highest reduction in peak aortic gradient and the higher ventricular mass regression. Besides, patients with the Intuity® prosthesis had less risk of mortality during follow-up than the other two groups. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pmid>34120109</pmid><doi>10.1159/000516465</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3001-9960</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-6312
ispartof Cardiology, 2021-09, Vol.146 (5), p.656-666
issn 0008-6312
1421-9751
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2540719808
source MEDLINE; Karger Journals
subjects Aortic Valve Stenosis - diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery
Bioprosthesis
Cardiac Surgery: Research Article
Humans
title Comparison of Aortic Gradient and Ventricular Mass after Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with Rapid Deployment, Sutureless, and Conventional Bioprostheses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T20%3A44%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_karge&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Aortic%20Gradient%20and%20Ventricular%20Mass%20after%20Valve%20Replacement%20for%20Aortic%20Stenosis%20with%20Rapid%20Deployment,%20Sutureless,%20and%20Conventional%20Bioprostheses&rft.jtitle=Cardiology&rft.au=Taboada-Mart%C3%ADn,%20Rub%C3%A9n&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=146&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=656&rft.epage=666&rft.pages=656-666&rft.issn=0008-6312&rft.eissn=1421-9751&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000516465&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_karge%3E2540719808%3C/proquest_karge%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2540719808&rft_id=info:pmid/34120109&rfr_iscdi=true