RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study compares the hemodynamic performance of stented and stentless bioprostheses used for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and small aortic root. METHODS: Between 1995 and 1998, 37 patients with a 21-mm aortic annulus (group 1) underwent aortic valve replacement with either a 21-mm Edwards Perimount or a 23-mm St. Jude Toronto bioprosthesis whereas 47 patients with a 23-mm aortic annulus (group 2) received either a 23-mm Medtronic Mosaic or a 25-mm Edwards Prima bioprosthesis. In each group mean and peak gradients, effective orifice area index, and left ventricular mass index were compared during follow-up. RESULTS: Group 1 patients showed a significant reduction of mean (p < 0.001) and peak gradients (p = 0.001) during follow-up, more evident for St. Jude Toronto versus Edwards Perimount (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). Group 2 patients showed a significant reduction of mean and peak gradients (p < 0.001), more evident for Edwards Prima versus Medtronic Mosaic (p < 0.001 and p = 0.07, respectively). Effective orifice area index significantly increased only in group 1 (p = 0.005). Left ventricular mass index significantly decreased in all patients regardless of the type of valve (p < 0.001). Patients with Edwards Prima showed a trend to a higher regression of left ventricular mass index versus Medtronic Mosaic recipients (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: After aortic valve replacement, stented and stentless bioprostheses exhibited similar results with a more evident hemodynamic improvement during follow-up in the stentless valves. Stented bioprostheses of new generation, however, may parallel the hemodynamic performance of stentless valves and appear to be a valid alternative for aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with a small aortic annulus.