Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Hemodynamic performance and clinical outcome of pericardial Perimount Magna and Porcine Hancock-II valves in aortic position.
Caporali, Elena; Bonato, Riccardo; Klersy, Catherine; Ferrari, Enrico.
Afiliação
  • Caporali E; Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland.
  • Bonato R; Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland.
  • Klersy C; Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
  • Ferrari E; Department of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland.
J Card Surg ; 34(10): 1055-1061, 2019 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31389647
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

We investigated hospital and midterm outcome of patients operated for an aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a pericardial Perimount or a Porcine Hancock-II valve.

METHODS:

We analyzed 353 patients with Perimount Magna (n = 189) or Hancock-II valves (n = 164). Echocardiographic data, hospital outcome, and follow-up were collected and compared. The role of the type of valve on perioperative and midterm outcome was investigated.

RESULTS:

Mean age was 75.3 ± 6.8 and 74.3 ± 7.1 years (P = .17) for Perimount and Hancock-II group, respectively. Fifty-four Perimount (28.6%) and 24 patients with Hancock-II (14.6%) required urgent procedures (P = .002), including six type-A dissections and five endocarditis. EuroSCORE-II was 3.1 ± 2.7% (Perimount) and 2.7 ± 2.2% (Hancock-II). Combined procedures were performed in 115 Perimount (60.8%) and 71 patients with Hancock (43.3%); redo procedures counted for 1% and 2.4%, respectively (P = .42). Mean valve size was 23.2 ± 1.8 mm for pericardial and 23.6 ± 1.9 mm for porcine valves (P = .08). Hospital mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; P = .05), kidney failure (11.6% vs 9.8%; P = .73), and new pacemaker implantation rates (6.3% vs 3.0%; P = .21) were higher in the Perimount group reflecting the fact that more urgent, combined, and critical procedures were implanted with a Perimount Magna. Overall, 51 patients died over 60 months (34 Perimount, 17 Hancock), corresponding to a mortality of 5.3 per 100-persons year (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-7.4) and 3.0 (95% CI 1.8-4.8), respectively. Survival at 5 years was 76% (95% CI 68-82) and 83% (95% CI 74-89) in the Perimount and Hancock groups (log-rank test; P = .099).

CONCLUSIONS:

We confirm a good clinical outcome of patients with AVR with modern pericardial or a porcine bioprosthesis. Despite better hemodynamic, the Perimount does not improve the midterm clinical outcome compared with the porcine valve.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pericárdio / Bioprótese / Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas / Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca / Doenças das Valvas Cardíacas / Hemodinâmica Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Animals / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Card Surg Assunto da revista: CARDIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Suíça

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pericárdio / Bioprótese / Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas / Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca / Doenças das Valvas Cardíacas / Hemodinâmica Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Animals / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Card Surg Assunto da revista: CARDIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Suíça