|Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update.|
|Jump to Full Text|
|PMID: 21731886 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE|
|Although porcine aortic valves or pericardial tissue mounted on a stent have made implantation techniques easier, these valves sacrifice orifice area and increase stress at the attachment of the stent, which causes primary tissue failure. Optimizing hemodynamics to prevent patient-prosthetic mismatch and improve durability, stentless bioprostheses use was revived in the early 1990s. The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview of stentless valves in the aortic position. Retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies showed similar operative mortality and morbidity in stented and stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR), though stentless AVR required longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Several cohort studies showed improved survival after stentless AVR, probably due to better hemodynamic performance and earlier left ventricular (LV) mass regression compared with stented AVR. However, there was a bias of operation age and nonrandomization. A randomized trial supported an improved 8-year survival of patients with the Freestyle or Toronto valves compared with Carpentier-Edwards porcine valves. On the contrary, another randomized study did not show improved clinical outcomes up to 12 years. Freedom from reoperation at 12 years in Toronto stentless porcine valves ranged from 69% to 75%, which is much lower than for Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valves. Cusp tear with consequent aortic regurgitation was the most common cause of structural valve deterioration. Cryolife O'Brien valves also have shorter durability compared with stent valves. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 44% at 10 years. Early prosthetic valve failure was also reported in patients who underwent root replacement with Shelhigh stentless composite grafts. There was no level I or IIa evidence of more effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, LV mass regression, surgical risk, durability, and late outcomes in stentless bioprostheses. There is no general recommendation to prefer stentless bioprostheses in all patients. For new-generation pericardial stentless valves, follow-up over 15 years is necessary to compare the excellent results of stented valves such as the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount and Hancock II valves.|
Related Documents :
|11462926 - Salvaging procedures for dysfunctional peritoneovenous shunt.
20878166 - Assessment of modified blalock-taussig shunt in children with congenital heart disease ...
7085736 - A new revascularization procedure for extensive arterial occlusions of lower extremity....
1697476 - Percutaneous transcatheter myectomy of subvalvar pulmonary stenosis in tetralogy of fal...
24440776 - Temporal profile of the vascular anatomy evaluated by 9.4-tesla magnetic resonance angi...
9155706 - Atypical manifestations in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus.
|Type: Journal Article; Review Date: 2011-06-02|
|Title: Vascular health and risk management Volume: 7 ISSN: 1178-2048 ISO Abbreviation: Vasc Health Risk Manag Publication Date: 2011|
|Created Date: 2011-07-06 Completed Date: 2011-10-28 Revised Date: 2013-06-28|
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 101273479 Medline TA: Vasc Health Risk Manag Country: New Zealand|
|Languages: eng Pagination: 345-51 Citation Subset: IM|
|Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan. email@example.com|
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex|
Heart Valve Diseases / physiopathology, surgery*
Heart Valve Prosthesis*
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / adverse effects, instrumentation*
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Vasc Health Risk Manag
Journal ID (publisher-id): Vascular Health and Risk Management
Publisher: Dove Medical Press
© 2011 Kobayashi, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.
Received Day: 1 Month: 6 Year: 2011
collection publication date: Year: 2011
Print publication date: Year: 2011
Electronic publication date: Day: 02 Month: 6 Year: 2011
Volume: 7First Page: 345 Last Page: 351
PubMed Id: 21731886
Publisher Id: vhrm-7-345
|Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update|
|Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan
|Correspondence: Correspondence: Junjiro Kobayashi, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular, Center, 5-7-1 Fujishiro-dai, Suita, Osaka, 565-8565, Japan, Tel +81 6 6833 5012, Fax +81 6 6872 7486, Email firstname.lastname@example.org
Homografts for aortic valve replacement (AVR) were the first biologic stentless prostheses used in clinical practice in the 1960s.1,2 Binet et al3 introduced a stentless porcine bioprosthesis, but the valve was abandoned because of poor tissue fixation. Due to limited availability and a relatively difficult implantation technique, mechanical AVR became the popular therapeutic option. The disadvantage of life-long anticoagulation therapy in mechanical AVR prompted the development of xenogeneic bioprostheses. Although porcine aortic valves or pericardial tissue mounted on a stent made the implantation technique easier, these valves sacrificed orifice area and increased stress at the attachment of the stent, which caused earlier primary tissue failure. Optimizing hemodynamics to prevent patient–prosthetic mismatch and improve durability revived the use of stentless bioprostheses in the early 1990s. The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview of stentless valves in the aortic position.
First-generation stentless bioprostheses were the Freestyle valve4 (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and the Prima valve5 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) as well as a porcine root and fully scalloped Toronto stentless porcine valve (SPV)6 (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN). The O’Brien porcine stentless valve7 (CryoLife, Atlanta, GA) and Biocor porcine bioprosthesis (Biocor Industria e Pesquisa, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil)8 were also introduced to the market, but have not found widespread acceptance. Subcoronary and full-root replacements are major implantation techniques. Mini-root replacement, which is an inclusion technique, has been preferred to avoid bleeding from suture lines at the aortic annulus. The advantage of subcoronary implantation is to avoid the manipulation of coronary arterial ostia. The disadvantages are difficulties occurring in the small aortic annulus and calcified aortic root, and possibilities of valve insufficiency by changing the shape of the stentless valves in a diseased aortic root. The full-root technique requires reimplantation of coronary arteries to the stentless valves. The advantage of this technique is a larger orifice area compared with the subcoronary technique, especially in patients with small aortic annulus. The full-root technique restores the physiological function of the Valsalva sinus and the sinotubular junction, as identified by da Vinci in the 15th century. The disadvantage is the difficulty of reoperation when the aortic wall of the stentless valve calcifies.
The second generation of stentless valves improved the technical difficulties related to free-hand implantation with two rows of sutures for subcoronary implantation. The Shelhigh Super Stentless aortic porcine valve (Shelhigh, Inc, Millburn, NJ)9 is one of the bioprostheses that require only one row of sutures. The tip of each commissure is attached to the aortic wall. This valve is mounted on a super-flexible ring, preserved with glutaraldehyde, detoxified, and heparin treated with the No-React anticalcification treatment. This valve is easier to implant and possible to use in cases of a calcified aortic wall.
The third generation of stentless valves was pericardial bioprostheses. A bovine Sorin Pericarbon Freedom10 and an equine 3F heart valve11 are available in the market. These pericardial valves are flexible, easy to implant, and show an extremely good hemodynamic performance.
AVR is the treatment of choice for a vast majority of patients. However, in a subset of patients, ie, elderly patients with various comorbidities such as chronic renal failure, liver cirrhosis, chronic obstructive lung disease, and porcelain aorta, AVR is considered contraindicated because of too high predicted mortality and morbidity rates. Recent advances in valve technology have demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve implantation is feasible and real. Edwards Sapien12 and Medtronic CoreValve13 are commercially available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The concept of these valves is used for new-generation sutureless stentless valves.14,15
Reports of the operative mortality of stentless and stented AVR have differed in the literature.16 Retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies showed similar operative mortality and morbidity. Although stentless AVR required longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time, it did not impair the postoperative outcomes. In patients with depressed LV function, operative outcomes were better in stentless valves owing to the larger orifice area when the full-root technique was applied to avoid patient–prosthetic mismatch.16
Luciani et al17 reported survival rates after stentless and stented xenograft AVR. The stented valve was Hancock II bioprosthesis (Medtronic). Stentless bioprostheses were mainly the Biocor valve, Toronto SPV valve, and O’Brien valve. Hospital mortality was significantly (P < 0.02) higher in the stented group (6.2%) than in the stentless group (2.7%). Logistic regression analysis showed smaller aortic annulus, duration of aortic cross-clamp time, and coronary artery disease requiring coronary artery bypass as the predictive risk of hospital mortality. The stented valve was not a risk factor by itself. As a retrospective case match study, Vrandecic et al18 compared the clinical outcomes of Biocor porcine stented valves and stentless valves implanted between 1990 and 1999. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (stented 5.4% and stentless 4.4%, P = 0.79).
Ali et al19 compared the Prima Plus stentless valve with the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valve in a prospective randomized fashion. Although there was no significant difference in the mean aortic annular size, patients in the stentless group received a larger valve prosthesis (25.3 mm ± 2.0 mm versus 23.2 mm ± 2.0 mm, P < 0.001). Myocardial ischemic time and cardiopulmonary bypass time was about 30 minutes longer in the stentless group. Thirty-day mortality (2.5% in stented valve and 3.7% in stentless valve) and postoperative morbidity were similar. Chambers et al20 compared the Toronto SPV valve with the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valve in a prospective randomized fashion. The average labeled size of both valves was 24.7 mm. Thirty-day mortality was 3.5% with the stented valve and 4.0% with the stentless valve, and postoperative morbidity was similar. Dunning et al21 also compared the second-generation stentless valve Sorin Freedom with the Sorin More stented valve in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients in the stentless group received a larger valve prosthesis (25.7 mm ± 2.7 mm) than those in the stented group (22.9 mm ± 2.5 mm) (P < 0.001). The bypass time and cross-clamp time were about 10 minutes longer in the stentless group. Thirty-day mortality was 3.2% with the stented valve and 0% with the stentless valve, and postoperative morbidity was similar.
Long-term outcomes of various stentless bioprostheses have been reported (Table 1).22–30 Several studies showed an improved survival after stentless AVR, probably due to better hemodynamic performance and earlier LV mass regression compared with stented AVR.31–38 However, there was a bias of operation age and nonrandomization. A randomized trial supported improved survival of patients with stentless valves. Lehman et al39 compared the Freestyle or Toronto valves with Carpentier–Edwards porcine valves. Eight-year survival was significantly (P = 0.04) better in the stentless group (78.1% ± 3.8%) than in the stented group (66.0% ± 4.9%). On the contrary, another randomized study did not show improved clinical outcomes for up to 12 years. Cohen et al40 compared the Toronto SPV valve with the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valve. Freedom from valve-related morbidity at 12 years was 82% ± 7% in the stented group and 55% ± 7% in the stentless group (P = 0.05). The actuarial survival rate at 12 years was 35% ± 7% in the stented group and 52% ± 7% in the stentless group (P = 0.37). Although improved hemodynamic outcomes were obtained in patients with a Toronto SPV valve, clinical outcomes were similar in both groups.
The long-term results over more than 10 years were excellent with the Freestyle valves.23 However, the degeneration was still present in the Toronto SPV valves more than 10 years after implantation.24 Regarding structural valve deterioration and survival benefit, longer follow-up is necessary to compare the excellent results of stented valves such as the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount and Hancock II valves.
LV hypertrophy and increased LV mass were highly correlated with sudden death, congestive heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and other cardiovascular events.41 Incomplete regression of LV mass and LV function after AVR was also related to poor long-term survival.42 Therefore, pressure gradient across the implanted valve is one of the most important issues in AVR.
Early postoperative hemodynamic performance was not different between stentless and stented valves, though implanted valve size was larger in stented AVR.43–46 The hemodynamic advantage of stentless AVR is not unanimous, though stentless valves one size larger could be implanted if the aortic annulus has the same size. Subcoronary implantation of stentless prostheses does not necessarily allow for larger valve selection compared with stented valves, because the LV outflow suture line is within the aortic annulus. The stented valves can be placed in a supra-annular position, upsizing from the true aortic annular size. New-generation Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna (Edwards Life-sciences, Irvine, CA) valves had a better hemodynamic performance compared with stentless Edwards Prima Plus (Edwards Lifesciences) valves regarding pressure gradient and effective orifice area.47 No difference was found when the Prima Plus valve was compared with the Perimount pericardial valve.37,48,49 Compared with porcine stented valves, hemodynamic performance was better with stentless valves.39,50,51 A faster and better recovery of LV function and mass has been reported after stentless AVR.36,52–57 Implantation technique was also related to the improved hemodynamics. A full-root technique can implant a larger stentless valve in the supra-annular position, allowing upsizing, compared with the original aortic annulus.58,59 There may be a bias in the selection of stentless or stented valves by surgeons, because more complicated aortic root anatomy leads to the more frequent selection of stented valves in the learning curve period.
In randomized studies, better hemodynamic results were obtained with Freestyle,57,60 Sorin Freedom,21 Prima Plus,48,61,62 and Toronto SPV valves20,43 compared with stented valves. Although Freestyle valves showed a greater reduction in peak velocity and a greater increased effective orifice area than Mosaic porcine valves, there was a similar reduction in LV mass index and clinical outcomes at 6 months and 12 months after the operation.57 Narang et al60 compared the Freestyle valves with Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valves. LV ejection fraction, LV mass, New York Heart Association scale, and mean pressure gradient were similar in both groups. However, in patients with LV ejection fraction less than 50% and implanted valve less than 19 mm, there was a significant difference in LV mass index and mean pressure gradient. Sorin Freedom stentless valves had a better pressure gradient and effective orifice area than Sorin More stented valves.21 However, there was no significant difference in LV mass index at 12 months after the operation. Ali et al48 compared Prima Plus valves with Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valves. There was no difference in mean pressure gradient and LV mass 8 weeks postoperatively. Similar results were obtained by Doss et al61 and Risteski et al62 in patients over the age of 75 years. Chambers et al20 and Cohen et al43 compared Toronto SPV valves and Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valves in a randomized fashion. The effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, and LV mass index were similar 12 months after the operation.
Stentless valves showed no pressure gradient during dobutamine stress echocardiography in comparison with elevated transvalvular gradient in mechanical valves.45 Several studies demonstrated superior hemodynamics under exercise with stentless valves compared with mechanical valves after AVR.63,64 Fries et al44 compared 23 mm Freestyle valves implanted by the full-root technique with native aortic valves and 23 mm Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valves. There was a significant increase of pressure gradient in the stented valve group under exercise, though the native valve group and the stentless valve group showed no increase in pressure gradient under exercise.
An improved hemodynamic performance resulted in faster LV mass reduction in patients with aortic stenosis and LV hypertrophy.65 A meta-analysis showed a faster LV mass reduction in patients with stentless AVR than in those with stented AVR.52 However, some studies showed no differences in LV mass reduction.57,60–62 Although faster LV mass regression has been reported after stentless AVR, it was obtained by larger valve implantation, and final LV mass regression was not significant 1 year after AVR.21
Primary tissue failure is an important issue after biological valve implantation (Table 2). Theoretically, xenogenic stentless aortic valves have better durability by avoiding stress at the stent sites.66 The hypothesis that durability is improved by avoiding tissue stress as far as the treatment method is the same as the stented counterparts cannot be proved yet. The freedom rate from structural valve deterioration of the Freestyle valves was 97% at 10 years after AVR,23 which was similar to stented AVR.67 A major cause of structural valve deterioration was cusp tear.68 Toronto SPV valve demonstrated significant degeneration and an increase in LV mass at 10-year follow-up after AVR.40 Freedom from reoperation at 12 years was 75%, which is much lower than with the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valve (92%). Cusp tear with consequent aortic regurgitation was the most common cause of structural valve deterioration. Urgent or emergent reoperation was necessary due to hemolytic anemia and congestive heart failure. The Toronto valve group also reported that 12-year freedom from reoperation AVR was as low as 69%.24 The Carpentier–Edwards Perimount valve deteriorated with sclerosis and calcification rather than cusp tear by pathological study,69 which could permit the elective reoperation in patients of stable condition. The first-generation Cryolife O’Brien valve also has shorter durability compared with stent valves. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 94% at 5 years and 44% at 10 years.70 Early prosthetic valve failure was also reported in patients who underwent root replacement with the Shelhigh stentless valve and composite graft.71
The information of durability of xenogenic stentless valves in younger patients is absent because the majority of these valves are replaced in patients older than 50 years. Only Vrandecic et al18 reported the better durability of Biocor stentless bioprostheses than of its counterparts in patients with a mean age of 48.1 years and 46.1 years. Although long-term results of homograft aortic valves are excellent, faster calcification in homografts has been reported compared with Freestyle stentless valves in a younger age group.72
Homografts have been believed to be the substitute of choice in patients with active infective endocarditis. However, there was no difference in susceptibility to infection between homografts and mechanical valves.73 Several reports of cures for infective endocarditis with stentless valves have been demonstrated as the substitute of the homograft,74–76 which is not easily available in many countries.
Stentless bioprostheses were thought to replace stented biological valves by better hemodynamic performance and longer durability when they were introduced in the early 1990s. In 2008, less than 12% of all aortic valve prostheses implanted in Europe were stentless.49 The low percentage of stentless valves was attributed to similar hemodynamic performance and easier implanting technique of new-generation bioprostheses such as Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna valve and Medtronic Mosaic Ultra valve. The durability of long-term outcomes was not better than expected. A demanding, cumbersome technique prolongs cardiac ischemic and bypass time and increases risk to the patient. Most surgeons now tend to implant stented valves in complicated cases and octogenarians, knowing that operative mortality and durability are not worse than with stentless AVR. Stentless valves with an easier implantation technique (one suture line or sutureless) may increase the market of stentless bioprostheses in the future.
There was no level I or IIa evidence of better hemodynamic performance, LV mass regression, surgical risk, durability, and late outcomes. At present, stentless bioprostheses are recommended in relatively young and active patients with impaired LV function and small aortic annulus. There is no general recommendation to prefer stentless bioprostheses in all patients.
Bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation does not have long-term outcomes.12,13 Following the previous literature on stentless valves, modification of stentless bioprostheses used in the transcatheter technique should be restricted to patients with serious comorbidity or octogenarians contraindicated to standard AVR. Autologous pericardial stentless valves should also be limited to younger age groups of patients aged less than 50 years.77
The author discloses no conflicts of interest.
|1..||Ross DN. Aortic valve replacementLancetYear: 1966274614634161586|
|2..||Barrat-Boyes BG. Homograft aortic replacement in aortic incompetence and stenosisThoraxYear: 19641913115014128570|
|3..||Binet JP,Duran CCT,Carpentier A,et al. Heterologous aortic valve transplantationLancetYear: 19652127512764165410|
|4..||Kon ND,Westaby S,Amarasena N,et al. Comparison of implant techniques using the Freestyle stentless porcine aortic valveAnn Thorac SurgYear: 1995598578627695409|
|5..||Bortolotti U,Scioti G,Milano A,et al. The Edwards Prima stentless valve: hemodynamic performance at one yearAnn Thorac SurgYear: 1999682147215110616992|
|6..||David TE,Rpochan GC,Butany JW. Aortic valve replacement with stentless porcine bioprosthesisJ Cardiac SurgYear: 19883501505|
|7..||O’Brien MF. Implantation technique of the CryoLife-O’Brien stentless xenograft aortic valve: the simple, rapid, and correct way to implant and errors to avoidSemin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 199911Suppl 112112510660179|
|8..||Myken PS,Caidahl K,Larsson S,et al. 10-year experience with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic positionJ Heart Valve DisYear: 199436486568000608|
|9..||Musci M,Siniawski H,Pasic M,et al. Surgical therapy in patients with active infective endocarditis: seven-year single centre experience in a subgroup of 255 patients treated with the Shelhigh stentless bioprosthesisEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 200834410417|
|10..||D’Onofrio A,Auriemma S,Magagna P,et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Sorin Pericarbon Freedom stentless prosthesis: 7 years’ experience in 130 patientsJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200713449149517662795|
|11..||Doss M,Martens S,Wood JP,et al. Aortic leaflet replacement with the new 3F stentless bioprosthesisAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20057968268515680860|
|12..||Thomas M,Schymic G,Walther T,et al. Thirty-day results of the SAPIEN aortic bioprosthesis European outcome (SOURCE) registry: a European registry of transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN valveCirculationYear: 2010122626920566953|
|13..||Piazza N,Grube E,Gerckens U,et al. Procedural and 30-day outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the third generation (18Fr) CoreValve ReValving system: results from the multicenter, expanded evaluation registry. 1-year following CE mark approvalEuroInterventionYear: 2008424224919110790|
|14..||Martens S,Ploss A,Sirat S,et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable aortic bioprosthesisAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2009871914191719463619|
|15..||Breitenbach I,Wimmer-Greinecker G,Bockeria LA,et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement with the Trilogy aortic valve system: multicenter experienceJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 201014087888420674945|
|16..||Gulbins H,Reichenspurner H. Which patients benefit from stentless aortic valve replacement?Ann Thorac SurgYear: 2009882061206819932303|
|17..||Luciani GB,Casali G,Auriemma S,et al. Survival after stentless and stented xenograft aortic valve replacement: a concurrent, controlled trialAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2002741443144912440591|
|18..||Vrandecic M,Fantini FA,Filho BG,et al. Retrospective clinical analysis of stented vs stentless porcine aortic bioprosthesiesEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 2000184653|
|19..||Ali A,Halstead JC,Cafferty F,et al. Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trialCirculationYear: 2006114Suppl II535I54016820633|
|20..||Chambers JB,Rimington HM,Hodson F,et al. The subcoronary Toronto stentless versus supra-annular Perimount stented replacement aortic valve: early clinical and hemodynamic results of a randomized comparison in 160 patientsJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200613187888216580447|
|21..||Dunning J,Graham RJ,Thambyrajah J,et al. Stentless vs stented aortic valve bioprostheses: a prospective randomized controlled trialEur Heart JYear: 2007282369237417670757|
|22..||Deleuze PH,Fromes Y,Khoung W,et al. Eight-year results of Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis in the aortic position: a single center study of 500 patientsJ Heart Valve DisYear: 20061524725216607908|
|23..||Bach DS,Kon ND,Dumesnil,et al. Ten-year outcome after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesisAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20058048048616039189|
|24..||David TE,Feindel CM,Bos J,et al. Aortic valve replacement with Toronto SPV bioprosthesis: optimal patient survival but suboptimal valve durabilityJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 2008135192418179912|
|25..||Jin XY,Ratnatunga C,Pillai R. Performance of Edwards Prima stentless aortic valve over eight yearsSemin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200113Suppl 116316711805966|
|26..||Dellegren G,Eriksson MJ,Brodin LA,et al. Eleven years’ experience with the Biocor stentless aortic bioprosthesis: clinical and hemodynamic follow-up with long-term relative survival rateEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 200222912921|
|27..||Polvani G,Barili F,Dainese L,et al. Long-term results after aortic valve replacement with the Bravo 400 stentless valveAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20058049550116039192|
|28..||O’Brien MF,Gardner MAH,Garlick B,et al. CryoLife-O’Brien stentless valve: 10-year results of 402 implantsAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20057975776615734372|
|29..||Musci M,Siniawski H,Pasic M,et al. Surgical therapy in patients with active infective endocarditis: seven-year single centre experience in a subgroup of 255 patients with the Shelhigh stentless bioprosthesisEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 200834410417|
|30..||D’Onofrio A,Auriemma S,Magagna P,et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Sorin Pericarbon Freedom stentless prosthesis: 7 years’ experience in 130 patientsJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200713449149517662795|
|31..||David TE,Puschmann R,Ivanov J,et al. Aortic valve replacement with stentless and stented porcine valves: a case-match studyJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 19981162362419699575|
|32..||Van Nooten,Caes F,François K,et al. Stentless or stented aortic valve implants in elderly patients?Eur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 1999153136|
|33..||Vrandecic M,Fantini FA,Filho BG,et al. Retrospective clinical analysis of stented vs stentless porcine aortic bioprosthesesEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 2000184653|
|34..||Westaby S,Horton M,Jin XY,et al. Survival advantage of stentless aortic bioprosthesesAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20007078579111016310|
|35..||Luciani GB,Auriemma S,Santini F,et al. Comparison of late outcome after stentless versus stented xenograft aortic valve replacementSemin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200113Suppl II136I142|
|36..||Tamin M,Bove T,Van Belleghem Y,et al. Stentless vs stented aortic valve replacement: left ventricular mass regressionAsian Cardiovasc Thorac AnnYear: 20051311211815905337|
|37..||Borger MA,Carson SM,Ivanov J,et al. Stentless aortic valve are hemodynamically superior to stented valves during mid-term follow-up: a large retrospective studyAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2005802180218516305867|
|38..||Bové T,Bellenghem YV,François K,et al. Stentless and stented aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: factors affecting midterm clinical and hemodynamical outcomesEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 200630706715|
|39..||Lehmann S,Walther T,Kempfert J,et al. Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: midterm results of a prospectively randomized trialAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20078446747217643617|
|40..||Cohen G,Zagorski B,Christakis GT,et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? Long-term follow up of a randomized trial comparing Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve with Toronto stentless porcine valvesJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 201013984885920080264|
|41..||Levy D,Garrison RJ,Savage DD,et al. Left ventricular mass and incidence of coronary heart disease in an elderly cohort: the Framingham Heart StudyAnn Intern MedYear: 19891101011072521199|
|42..||He GW,Grunkemeier GL,Gately HL,et al. Up to thirty year survival after aortic valve replacement in small aortic rootAnn Thorac SurgYear: 199559105610627733698|
|43..||Cohen G,Christakis GT,Joyner CD,et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trialAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20027376777511899180|
|44..||Fries R,Wendler O,Schieffer H,et al. Comparative rest and exercise hemodynamics of 23-mm stentless versus 23-mm stented aortic bioprosthesesAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20006981782210750766|
|45..||Morsy S,Zahran M,Usama M,et al. Hemodynamic performance of stentless porcine bioprosthesis and mechanical bileaflet prosthesis using dobutamine stress echocardiographySemin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200113Suppl II129I135|
|46..||Bevilacqua S,Gianetti J,Ripoli A. Aortic valve disease with severe ventricular dysfunction: stentless valve for better recoveryAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2002742016202112643389|
|47..||Totaro P,Degno N,Zeidi A,et al. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount magna bioprosthesis: a stented valve with a stentless performance?J Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 20051301668167416308014|
|48..||Ali A,Halstead JC,Cafferty F. Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after stented and stentless aortic valve replacement: results from a randomized controlled trialAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2007832162216817532416|
|49..||Gulbins H,Florath I,Ennker J. Cerebrovascular events after stentless aortic valve replacement during a 9-year follow-up periodAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20098676977318721558|
|50..||Del Rizzo DF,Abdoh A,Cartier P,et al. Factors affecting left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with stentless valvesSemin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 199911Suppl II114I120|
|51..||Del Rizzo DF,Freed D,Abdoh A,et al. Mid-term results of stented versus stentless valves: does concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting impact survival?Semin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200113Suppl I14815511805964|
|52..||Kunadian B,Vijayalakshmi K,Thornley AR,et al. Meta-analysis of valve hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression for stentless versus stented aortic valvesAnn Thorac SurgYear: 200784737817588387|
|53..||Thomson HL,O’Brien MF,Almeida AA,et al. Haemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression: a comparison of the stentless, stented and mechanical aortic valve replacementEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 199813572575|
|54..||Walther T,Falk V,Langebartels G,et al. Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after stentless versus conventional aortic valve replacementSemin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 199911Suppl II18I21|
|55..||Maselli D,Pizio R,Bruno LP,et al. Left ventricular mass reduction after aortic valve replacement: homografts, stentless and stented valvesAnn Thorac SurgYear: 19996796697110320236|
|56..||Deeb GM,Smolens IA,Bolling SF,et al. Reoperation for Freestyle stentless aortic valvesSemin Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200113Suppl II16I23|
|57..||Arenaza DP,Lees B,Flather M,et al. ASSERT (Aortic Stentless versus Stented valve assessment by Echocardiography Randomized Trial) InvestigatorsCirculationYear: 20051122696270216230487|
|58..||Bortolotti U,Scioti G,Milano A,et al. The Edwards Prima stentless valve: hemodynamic performance at one yearAnn Thorac SurgYear: 1999682147215110616992|
|59..||Bach DS,Cartier PC,Kon ND,et al. Impact of implant technique following Freestyle stentless aortic valve replacementAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2002741107111312400753|
|60..||Narang S,Satsangi K,Banerjee A,et al. Stentless valves versus stented bioprostheses at the aortic position: midterm resultsJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200813694394718954634|
|61..||Doss M,Wood MJP,Aybek T,et al. Performance of stentless versus stented aortic valve prostheses in the elderly patients. A prospective randomized trialEur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 200323299304|
|62..||Risteski PS,Martens S,Rouhollahpour A,et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of stentless vs. stented aortic bioprosthetic valves in the elderly at five yearsInteactive Cardiovasc Thortac SurgYear: 20098449453|
|63..||De Paulis R,Sommariva L,Colagrande L,et al. Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with different valve substitutesJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 19981165905989766587|
|64..||Silberman S,Shaheen J,Merin O,et al. Exercise hemodynamics of aortic prostheses: comparison between stentless bioprostheses and mechanical valvesAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2001721217122111603439|
|65..||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 hypertrophyCirculationYear: 1999101Suppl IIII6II010567271|
|66..||Schoen FJ,Levy RJ. Calcification of tissue heart valve substitutes: progress toward understanding and preventionAnn Thorac SurgYear: 2005791072108015734452|
|67..||Aupart MR,Mirza A,Meurisse YA,et al. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosisJ Heart Valve DisYear: 20061576877617152784|
|68..||Mohammadi S,Baillot R,Voisine P,et al. Structural deterioration of the Freestyle aortic valve: mode of presentation and mechanismJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200613240140616872969|
|69..||Machida H,Ishibashi-Ueda H,Nakano K,et al. A morphological study of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial xenografts in the mitral position exhibiting primary tissue failure in adults in comparison with Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograftsJ Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 200112264965511581594|
|70..||Pavoni D,Badano LP,Ius F,et al. Limited long-term durability of the Cryolife O’Brien stentless porcine xenograft valveCirculationYear: 2007116Suppl II307I31317846322|
|71..||Carrel TP,Schoenhoff FS,Schmidili J,et al. Deleterious outcome of No React-treated stentless valved conduits after aortic root replacement: why were warnings ignored?J Thorac Cardiovasc SurgYear: 2008136525718603053|
|72..||El–Hamamsy I,Zaki M,Stevens LM,et al. Rate of progression and functional significance of aortic root calcification after homograft versus Freestyle aortic root replacementCirculationYear: 2009120Suppl 1S269S27519752378|
|73..||Hagl C,Galla JD,Lansman SL,et al. Replacing the ascending aorta and aortic valve for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: is using prosthetic material contraindicated?Ann Thorac SurgYear: 200274S1781S178512440665|
|74..||Müller LC,Chevtchik O,Bonatti JO,et al. Treatment of destructive aortic valve endocarditis with the Freestyle aortic root bioprosthesisAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20037545345612607653|
|75..||Siniawski H,Lehmkuhl H,Weng Y,et al. Stentless aortic valves as an alternative to homografts for valve replacement in active infective endocarditis complicated by ring abscessAnn Thorac SurgYear: 20037580380812645697|
|76..||Perrotta S,Lentini S. In patients with severe active aortic valve endocarditis, is a stentless valve as good as homograft?Interactive Cardiovasc Thorac SurgYear: 201011309313|
|77..||Halees ZA,Shahid MA,Sanei AA,et al. Up to 16 years follow-up of aortic valve reconstruction with pericardium: a stentless readily available cheap valve?Eur J Cardio Thorac SurgYear: 200528200205|
Keywords: cardiopulmonary bypass, valves, heart disease, surgery, follow-up studies.
Previous Document: Effect of atorvastatin therapy on oxidant-antioxidant status and atherosclerotic plaque formation.
Next Document: Aldosterone and aldosterone receptor antagonists in patients with chronic heart failure.