Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLoS One ; 13(1): e0191171, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29338037

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Current retrospective evidence suggests similar clinical and superior hemodynamic outcomes of the Sorin Freedom Solo stentless aortic valve (SFS) (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) compared to the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented aortic valve (CEP) (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, California, USA). To date, no reports exist describing case-matched long-term outcomes and analysis for treatment of native valve endocarditis (NVE). METHODS: From 2004 through 2014, 77 consecutive patients (study group, 59.7% male, 68.9 ± 12.5 years, logEuroSCORE II 7.6 ± 12.3%) received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the SFS. A control group of patients after SAVR with the CEP was retrieved from our database and matched to the study group regarding 15 parameters including preoperative endocarditis. Acute perioperative outcomes and follow-up data (mean follow-up time 48.7±29.8 months, 95% complete) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: No differences in early mortality occurred during 30-day follow up (3/77; 3.9% vs. 4/77; 5.2%; p = 0.699). Echocardiographic findings revealed lower postprocedural transvalvular pressure gradients (max. 17.0 ± 8.2 vs. 24.5 ± 9.2 mmHg, p< 0.001/ mean pressure of 8.4 ± 4.1 vs. 13.1 ± 5.9 mmHg, p< 0.001) in the SFS group. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) (5.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.04) and valve explantation due to SVD or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) (9.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.04) was more frequent in the SFS group. All-cause mortality during follow-up was 20.8% vs. 14.3% (p = 0.397). When patients were divided into subgroups of NVE and respective utilized bioprosthesis, the SFS presented impaired outcomes regarding mortality in NVE cases (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The hemodynamic superiority of the SFS was confirmed in this comparison. However, clinical outcomes in terms of SVD and PVE rates, as well as survival after NVE, were inferior in this study. Therefore, we are reluctant to recommend utilization of the SFS for treatment of NVE.


Assuntos
Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Bioprótese , Endocardite/cirurgia , Doenças das Valvas Cardíacas/cirurgia , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas , Desenho de Prótese , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Valva Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagem , Valva Aórtica/fisiopatologia , Bioprótese/efeitos adversos , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Ecocardiografia , Endocardite/diagnóstico por imagem , Endocardite/fisiopatologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Doenças das Valvas Cardíacas/diagnóstico por imagem , Doenças das Valvas Cardíacas/fisiopatologia , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas/efeitos adversos , Hemodinâmica , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Desenho de Prótese/efeitos adversos , Falha de Prótese , Stents/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA