HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Guido Van Nooten Katrien François Yves Van Belleghem Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Nooten, G. Articles by Taeymans, Y. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Van Nooten, G. Articles by Taeymans, Y.

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;15:31-36
© 1999 Elsevier Science NL

Stentless or stented aortic valve implants in elderly patients?¹

^a Cardiac Surgery Department, University Hospital Gent, Ghent, Belgium
^b Cardiology Department, University Hospital Gent, Ghent, Belgium

Received 23 September 1998; received in revised form 16 November 1998; accepted 25 November 1998.

Corresponding author. Cardiac Surgery Department 5K12, University Hospital Gent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Tel.: +32-9-240-4700; fax: +32-9-240-3882; e-mail: mailto:guido.vannnooten@rug.ac.be

Objective: To assess differences in indication and mid-term results between stentless and stented procedures in elderly patients, we followed aortic valve patients over a period of 5 years. Methods: In a consecutive series of 154 elderly aortic patients in regular sinus rhythm from 1992 to 1997, we inserted 103 stentless (Toronto SPVTM, St Jude Medical Inc., St Paul, Minneapolis, MN) and 51 stented (Carpentier–Edwards supra annular porcine, Baxter Inc., Irvine, CA) bioprostheses in the aortic position. Results: All 154 patients seemed preoperatively eligible for a stentless procedure. Mean age was 74.8 years (range 67–86 years) with a majority of female patients. The surgeon's (in)experience, major dilatation or calcifications of the ascending aorta and aberrant coronary anatomy were the most common reasons for drawback from the stentless procedure (51/154 patients). Aortic clamp time was significantly higher in the stentless vs. stented group (70 vs. 57 min, P<0.0001). The large average 25.3 mm size of the stentless prostheses (vs. 23.7 mm stented) stands in full contrast with the low mean body surface area of 1.68 m2 (vs. 1.70 m²) of the patients. We encountered. respectively. 5 and 2 hospital-deaths (P=n.s.). The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 66 months and was 97% complete, yielding, respectively, 302 and 139 patient-years. Survival (Kaplan–Meier method) was statistically higher in favor of the stentless procedures (log rank: P=0.03). All survivors progressed markedly to a mean postoperative NYHA class 1.3 respectively, 1.4 (vs. preop. 3.3 and 3.2). Echocardiographic transvalvular gradients compared favorable for the stentless group in the small under 25 mm valves (P=0.02 for 23 mm sized valves between groups) with improved left ventricular function and a significant decrease of left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD 48.0 vs. 56.5 mm) at 1 year follow-up. Cusp calcifications on control echocardiography were detected earlier (beyond 3 years) in the stented group, without signs of early significant regurgitation or dysfunction in both groups, except for one patient necessitating re-operation. Conclusion: Although the implantation technique is much more demanding for stentless procedures, reflected by a longer aortic clamp-time, and remains impossible in some cases, elderly, small sized patients take full benefit of their large, non-obstructive prostheses.

Key Words: Toronto SPVTM stentless prostheses • Stented • Technicality • Survival

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Gulbins and H. Reichenspurner Which Patients Benefit From Stentless Aortic Valve Replacement? Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2009; 88(6): 2061 - 2068. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Vicchio, A. Della Corte, L. S. De Santo, M. De Feo, G. Caianiello, M. Scardone, and M. Cotrufo Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in the Elderly: Survival, Ventricular Mass Regression, and Quality of Life Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2008; 86(6): 1791 - 1797. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Poppe, P. Blank, U. Boge, T. Kolzow, J. Loh, and B. Schwaab Extensive dehiscence of a stentless bioprosthesis with only mild paravalvular regurgitation after replacement of a degenerated bicuspid aortic valve Eur J Echocardiogr, January 1, 2008; 9(1): 88 - 91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Chambers, H. M. Rimington, F. Hodson, R. Rajani, and C. I. Blauth The subcoronary Toronto stentless versus supra-annular Perimount stented replacement aortic valve: Early clinical and hemodynamic results of a randomized comparison in 160 patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2006; 131(4): 878 - 882. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Tamim, T. Bove, Y. Van Belleghem, K. Francois, Y. Taeymans, and G. J Van Nooten Stentless vs. Stented Aortic Valve Replacement: Left Ventricular Mass Regression Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, June 1, 2005; 13(2): 112 - 118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Tamim, T. Bove, Y. Van Belleghem, F. Caes, K. Francois, and G. J Van Nooten Aortic Valve Replacement with Toronto SPV in Elderly Patients: 10-Year Results Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, June 1, 2005; 13(2): 143 - 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Aberg, X. Y. Jin, and P. Deverall Post operative assessment of a bioprosthetic aortic valve (Labcor) Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2001; 20(3): 658 - 658. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. P. Kappetein, J. Braun, L. H.B. Baur, A. Prat, K. Peels, M. G. Hazekamp, P. H. Schoof, and H. A. Huysmans Outcome and follow-up of aortic valve replacement with the freestyle stentless bioprosthesis Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2001; 71(2): 601 - 608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]