The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon · 2005
Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of the complete supraannular perimount magna bioprosthesis in the aortic position.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Botzenhardt F, Eichinger W B, Guenzinger R, Bleiziffer S, Wagner I, Bauernschmitt R, Lange R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Complete supraannular placement and smaller stent design allow the implantation of a Perimount Magna bioprosthesis with a larger inner diameter than that of a standard Perimount. This study compares the hemodynamic performance and the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) of both prostheses.
METHODS: 128 patients underwent aortic valve replacement, receiving either a Magna (n = 57) or a standard (n = 71) prosthesis. Inner aortic annulus diameter was measured intraoperatively by a hegar dilator to match echocardiographically obtained results to the annulus diameter instead of matching them to labelled valve size.
RESULTS: The Magna was significantly superior with respect to mean pressure gradient and effective orifice area in patients with an annulus diameter of 22-23 mm. In patients with an annulus diameter < 22 mm or > 23 mm, there was a non-significant trend towards superior hemodynamics in the Magna group. Severe PPM (effective orifice area index < or = 0.65 cm (2)/m (2)) was present in 11.1% (Magna) vs. 42.1% (Standard) of patients with an annulus diameter < 22 mm; in 0% (Magna) vs. 13.8% (Standard) with an annulus diameter of 22-23 mm; no PPM was seen in patients with annulus diameter > 23 mm in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The Perimount Magna had a significantly reduced incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and superior hemodynamics compared to the standard Perimount.
METHODS: 128 patients underwent aortic valve replacement, receiving either a Magna (n = 57) or a standard (n = 71) prosthesis. Inner aortic annulus diameter was measured intraoperatively by a hegar dilator to match echocardiographically obtained results to the annulus diameter instead of matching them to labelled valve size.
RESULTS: The Magna was significantly superior with respect to mean pressure gradient and effective orifice area in patients with an annulus diameter of 22-23 mm. In patients with an annulus diameter < 22 mm or > 23 mm, there was a non-significant trend towards superior hemodynamics in the Magna group. Severe PPM (effective orifice area index < or = 0.65 cm (2)/m (2)) was present in 11.1% (Magna) vs. 42.1% (Standard) of patients with an annulus diameter < 22 mm; in 0% (Magna) vs. 13.8% (Standard) with an annulus diameter of 22-23 mm; no PPM was seen in patients with annulus diameter > 23 mm in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The Perimount Magna had a significantly reduced incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and superior hemodynamics compared to the standard Perimount.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Age FactorsAgedAged, 80 and overAortic Valve InsufficiencyAortic Valve StenosisBioprosthesisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHemodynamicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProbabilityProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureRisk AssessmentSeverity of Illness IndexSex FactorsStatistics, NonparametricSurvival RateTreatment Outcome