Mid-term haemodynamic and clinical results after aortic valve replacement using the Freedom Solo stentless bioprosthesis versus the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented bioprosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the mid-term haemodynamic and clinical results after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Sorin Freedom Solo (SFS) stentless bioprosthesis, compared with the standard Carpentier Edwards Perimount (CEP) stented bioprosthesis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data, 116 patients were included in the SFS group (53 males; median age 74 years, range 56-85 years), and 122 patients in the CEP group (85 males; median age 73 years, range 43-88 years) between July 2007 and January 2013. Echocardiography was performed at 6 weeks after surgery in our centre, and the most recent echocardiography (in our centre or in referring cardiology departments) was requested. Between September 2013 and April 2014, all patients were called by the same researcher to gain clinical follow-up data. RESULTS: Mid-term mortality was 16.4% in the SFS group (19 patients) and 21.3% in the CEP group (26 patients); (P = 0.3). The mean transvalvular gradient was 7.4 ± 3.1 mmHg in the SFS group, and 11.6 ± 3.2 mmHg in the CEP group at 6 weeks postoperatively (P < 0.001). When stratified by labelled valve size, mean gradients were significantly lower in the SFS group for every size (P ≤ 0.03). After 3.3 ± 1.4 years of follow-up, the mean gradient was still significantly lower in the SFS group than that in the CEP group (P < 0.001). Clinical follow-up showed relatively low complication rates. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the Sorin Freedom Solo stentless bioprosthesis is as safe as the Carpentier Edwards bioprosthesis, and provides better short- and mid-term haemodynamic performance than the Carpentier Edwards bioprosthesis.

Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement after Displacement of a Percutaneously Implanted Aortic Prosthesis: Case Report.

A case is described of aortic stenosis that was initially treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to a high-risk profile. Following dysfunction of the TAVI prosthesis, conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) was successfully performed; the subsequent postoperative course was uneventful. In conclusion, the target population for TAVI must be more accurately specified, with further research helping to define whether AVR or TAVI is the best treatment option for 'intermediate-risk' patients.