Stentless porcine and pericardial valve in aortic position

Fifty-seven patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a stentless glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthesis; 27 received a porcine aortic valve and 30 had a bovine pericardial valve. Two groups of 30 patients each who had aortic valve replacement with a tilting-disc mechanical valve or a stented por...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Annals of thoracic surgery 1992-10, Vol.54 (4), p.681-4; discussion 685
Hauptverfasser: Casabona, R, De Paulis, R, Zattera, G F, di Summa, M, Bottone, W, Stacchino, C, Vrandecic, M O, Morea, M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 4; discussion 685
container_issue 4
container_start_page 681
container_title The Annals of thoracic surgery
container_volume 54
creator Casabona, R
De Paulis, R
Zattera, G F
di Summa, M
Bottone, W
Stacchino, C
Vrandecic, M O
Morea, M
description Fifty-seven patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a stentless glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthesis; 27 received a porcine aortic valve and 30 had a bovine pericardial valve. Two groups of 30 patients each who had aortic valve replacement with a tilting-disc mechanical valve or a stented porcine bioprosthesis served as controls. There were no differences in sex, body surface area, valve lesion, and valve size among the four groups. Results were assessed on a Doppler-based determination of maximum velocity across the valve, aortic valve area, and degree of valve regurgitation. Velocity across the valve was significantly less with stentless pericardial valves than with stentless porcine valves, stented bioprostheses, and mechanical valves. Stentless valves had a significantly larger aortic valve area when compared with stented valves. Mild central aortic insufficiency was detected more often with stentless pericardial than with stentless porcine bioprostheses (p = 0.04). Stentless valves showed a higher incidence of complete atrioventricular block when compared with stented valves (p = 0.04). Long-term studies are now warranted to assess the durability of both types of stentless valves.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0003-4975(92)91011-W
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73255549</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>73255549</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h173t-23d80ebee73203caebb3136d1fa3929b36cce9f37f5fce72a9175dd748f4b9b73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9j0lLBDEYRHNQxnH0Hyj0SfTQmrUz8SaDGwx4UPHYZPmCkfRikhnw39tg46mo4vGgEDoj-Jpg0txgjFnNlRSXil6paSL1xwFa_s9H6Djnr6lSIsQCLQgnklK-RLevBfoSIedqHJINPVS6d9UIKVidXNCx2uu4hyr0lR5SCXbicihh6E_Qodcxw-mcK_T-cP-2eaq3L4_Pm7tt_UkkKzVlbo3BAEhGMbMajGGENY54zRRVhjXWgvJMeuEtSKoVkcI5ydeeG2UkW6GLP--Yhu8d5NJ2IVuIUfcw7HI7eYUQXE3g-QzuTAeuHVPodPpp57PsF6_-VZM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73255549</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Stentless porcine and pericardial valve in aortic position</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Casabona, R ; De Paulis, R ; Zattera, G F ; di Summa, M ; Bottone, W ; Stacchino, C ; Vrandecic, M O ; Morea, M</creator><creatorcontrib>Casabona, R ; De Paulis, R ; Zattera, G F ; di Summa, M ; Bottone, W ; Stacchino, C ; Vrandecic, M O ; Morea, M</creatorcontrib><description>Fifty-seven patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a stentless glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthesis; 27 received a porcine aortic valve and 30 had a bovine pericardial valve. Two groups of 30 patients each who had aortic valve replacement with a tilting-disc mechanical valve or a stented porcine bioprosthesis served as controls. There were no differences in sex, body surface area, valve lesion, and valve size among the four groups. Results were assessed on a Doppler-based determination of maximum velocity across the valve, aortic valve area, and degree of valve regurgitation. Velocity across the valve was significantly less with stentless pericardial valves than with stentless porcine valves, stented bioprostheses, and mechanical valves. Stentless valves had a significantly larger aortic valve area when compared with stented valves. Mild central aortic insufficiency was detected more often with stentless pericardial than with stentless porcine bioprostheses (p = 0.04). Stentless valves showed a higher incidence of complete atrioventricular block when compared with stented valves (p = 0.04). Long-term studies are now warranted to assess the durability of both types of stentless valves.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-4975</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0003-4975(92)91011-W</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1417224</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aortic Valve - diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Valve - physiology ; Aortic Valve Insufficiency - diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Valve Insufficiency - etiology ; Bioprosthesis ; Echocardiography, Doppler ; Female ; Heart Block - etiology ; Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prosthesis Design ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The Annals of thoracic surgery, 1992-10, Vol.54 (4), p.681-4; discussion 685</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1417224$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Casabona, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Paulis, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zattera, G F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>di Summa, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bottone, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stacchino, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrandecic, M O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morea, M</creatorcontrib><title>Stentless porcine and pericardial valve in aortic position</title><title>The Annals of thoracic surgery</title><addtitle>Ann Thorac Surg</addtitle><description>Fifty-seven patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a stentless glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthesis; 27 received a porcine aortic valve and 30 had a bovine pericardial valve. Two groups of 30 patients each who had aortic valve replacement with a tilting-disc mechanical valve or a stented porcine bioprosthesis served as controls. There were no differences in sex, body surface area, valve lesion, and valve size among the four groups. Results were assessed on a Doppler-based determination of maximum velocity across the valve, aortic valve area, and degree of valve regurgitation. Velocity across the valve was significantly less with stentless pericardial valves than with stentless porcine valves, stented bioprostheses, and mechanical valves. Stentless valves had a significantly larger aortic valve area when compared with stented valves. Mild central aortic insufficiency was detected more often with stentless pericardial than with stentless porcine bioprostheses (p = 0.04). Stentless valves showed a higher incidence of complete atrioventricular block when compared with stented valves (p = 0.04). Long-term studies are now warranted to assess the durability of both types of stentless valves.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aortic Valve - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aortic Valve - physiology</subject><subject>Aortic Valve Insufficiency - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aortic Valve Insufficiency - etiology</subject><subject>Bioprosthesis</subject><subject>Echocardiography, Doppler</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart Block - etiology</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Hemodynamics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0003-4975</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9j0lLBDEYRHNQxnH0Hyj0SfTQmrUz8SaDGwx4UPHYZPmCkfRikhnw39tg46mo4vGgEDoj-Jpg0txgjFnNlRSXil6paSL1xwFa_s9H6Djnr6lSIsQCLQgnklK-RLevBfoSIedqHJINPVS6d9UIKVidXNCx2uu4hyr0lR5SCXbicihh6E_Qodcxw-mcK_T-cP-2eaq3L4_Pm7tt_UkkKzVlbo3BAEhGMbMajGGENY54zRRVhjXWgvJMeuEtSKoVkcI5ydeeG2UkW6GLP--Yhu8d5NJ2IVuIUfcw7HI7eYUQXE3g-QzuTAeuHVPodPpp57PsF6_-VZM</recordid><startdate>19921001</startdate><enddate>19921001</enddate><creator>Casabona, R</creator><creator>De Paulis, R</creator><creator>Zattera, G F</creator><creator>di Summa, M</creator><creator>Bottone, W</creator><creator>Stacchino, C</creator><creator>Vrandecic, M O</creator><creator>Morea, M</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19921001</creationdate><title>Stentless porcine and pericardial valve in aortic position</title><author>Casabona, R ; De Paulis, R ; Zattera, G F ; di Summa, M ; Bottone, W ; Stacchino, C ; Vrandecic, M O ; Morea, M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h173t-23d80ebee73203caebb3136d1fa3929b36cce9f37f5fce72a9175dd748f4b9b73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aortic Valve - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aortic Valve - physiology</topic><topic>Aortic Valve Insufficiency - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aortic Valve Insufficiency - etiology</topic><topic>Bioprosthesis</topic><topic>Echocardiography, Doppler</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart Block - etiology</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Hemodynamics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Casabona, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Paulis, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zattera, G F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>di Summa, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bottone, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stacchino, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vrandecic, M O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morea, M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Annals of thoracic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Casabona, R</au><au>De Paulis, R</au><au>Zattera, G F</au><au>di Summa, M</au><au>Bottone, W</au><au>Stacchino, C</au><au>Vrandecic, M O</au><au>Morea, M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Stentless porcine and pericardial valve in aortic position</atitle><jtitle>The Annals of thoracic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Thorac Surg</addtitle><date>1992-10-01</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>681</spage><epage>4; discussion 685</epage><pages>681-4; discussion 685</pages><issn>0003-4975</issn><abstract>Fifty-seven patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a stentless glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthesis; 27 received a porcine aortic valve and 30 had a bovine pericardial valve. Two groups of 30 patients each who had aortic valve replacement with a tilting-disc mechanical valve or a stented porcine bioprosthesis served as controls. There were no differences in sex, body surface area, valve lesion, and valve size among the four groups. Results were assessed on a Doppler-based determination of maximum velocity across the valve, aortic valve area, and degree of valve regurgitation. Velocity across the valve was significantly less with stentless pericardial valves than with stentless porcine valves, stented bioprostheses, and mechanical valves. Stentless valves had a significantly larger aortic valve area when compared with stented valves. Mild central aortic insufficiency was detected more often with stentless pericardial than with stentless porcine bioprostheses (p = 0.04). Stentless valves showed a higher incidence of complete atrioventricular block when compared with stented valves (p = 0.04). Long-term studies are now warranted to assess the durability of both types of stentless valves.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pmid>1417224</pmid><doi>10.1016/0003-4975(92)91011-W</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-4975
ispartof The Annals of thoracic surgery, 1992-10, Vol.54 (4), p.681-4; discussion 685
issn 0003-4975
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73255549
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Aortic Valve - diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve - physiology
Aortic Valve Insufficiency - diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Insufficiency - etiology
Bioprosthesis
Echocardiography, Doppler
Female
Heart Block - etiology
Heart Valve Prosthesis - adverse effects
Hemodynamics
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prosthesis Design
Treatment Outcome
title Stentless porcine and pericardial valve in aortic position
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T00%3A43%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Stentless%20porcine%20and%20pericardial%20valve%20in%20aortic%20position&rft.jtitle=The%20Annals%20of%20thoracic%20surgery&rft.au=Casabona,%20R&rft.date=1992-10-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=681&rft.epage=4;%20discussion%20685&rft.pages=681-4;%20discussion%20685&rft.issn=0003-4975&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0003-4975(92)91011-W&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E73255549%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73255549&rft_id=info:pmid/1417224&rfr_iscdi=true