RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively compared the haemodynamic performance of the BioValsalva (BV) and BioIntegral (BI) biological aortic-valved conduits in the aortic root position. METHODS: Between July 2008 and June 2014, a total of 55 patients underwent aortic root replacement using the BV conduit (n = 27) or the BI conduit (n = 28). The primary study endpoints were haemodynamic performance during follow-up, including mean pressure gradients (MPGs) and effective orifice areas (EOAs). Secondary study endpoints were early postoperative outcomes within 30 days and survival. RESULTS: Both groups did not differ in regard to demographics (BV: median age 71 years, 70.4% female; BI: median age 66 years, 85.7% female, P = 0.15 and P = 0.17) and risk profile (median EuroSCORE-II BV: 3.8 vs 5.3% for BI, P = 0.38). A total of 20% of the total patients (BV 5/27, 18.5% vs BI 6/28, 21.4%) presented with acute type-A aortic dissection. During follow-up, both groups showed no difference in MPGs for all valve sizes [BV, 11.0 mmHg (8.3-14.8 mmHg) vs BI, 11.5 mmHg (9.0-13.0), P = 0.82]. Similar results were achieved for EOAs for all valve sizes [BV, 1.85 cm(2) (1.55-2.21) vs BI, 1.80 cm(2) (1.64-1.83), P = 0.24]. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in aortic regurgitation (AR) with none/trace AR in (21/23) 91.3% in BV patients versus (16/21) 76.2% in BI patients (P = 0.23) at follow-up. Both groups showed a high rate of concomitant procedures (BV: 59.3% vs BI: 71.4%, P = 0.40) and emergency indication (BV: 18.5% vs BI: 21.4%, P = 0.79), resulting in an overall 30-day mortality rate of 7.3% (4/55 patients). CONCLUSIONS: The present small single-centre study is one of the first to evaluate and compare the BioValsalva and BioIntegral biological aortic-valved conduit in the aortic root position. Both conduits showed optimal haemodynamic results with a low incidence of aortic regurgitation.