Article

Stentless aortic valve replacement: an update.

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan.
Vascular Health and Risk Management 01/2011; 7:345-51. DOI: 10.2147/VHRM.S11253
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although porcine aortic valves or pericardial tissue mounted on a stent have made implantation techniques easier, these valves sacrifice orifice area and increase stress at the attachment of the stent, which causes primary tissue failure. Optimizing hemodynamics to prevent patient-prosthetic mismatch and improve durability, stentless bioprostheses use was revived in the early 1990s. The purpose of this review is to provide a current overview of stentless valves in the aortic position. Retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies showed similar operative mortality and morbidity in stented and stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR), though stentless AVR required longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass time. Several cohort studies showed improved survival after stentless AVR, probably due to better hemodynamic performance and earlier left ventricular (LV) mass regression compared with stented AVR. However, there was a bias of operation age and nonrandomization. A randomized trial supported an improved 8-year survival of patients with the Freestyle or Toronto valves compared with Carpentier-Edwards porcine valves. On the contrary, another randomized study did not show improved clinical outcomes up to 12 years. Freedom from reoperation at 12 years in Toronto stentless porcine valves ranged from 69% to 75%, which is much lower than for Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valves. Cusp tear with consequent aortic regurgitation was the most common cause of structural valve deterioration. Cryolife O'Brien valves also have shorter durability compared with stent valves. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 44% at 10 years. Early prosthetic valve failure was also reported in patients who underwent root replacement with Shelhigh stentless composite grafts. There was no level I or IIa evidence of more effective orifice area, mean pressure gradient, LV mass regression, surgical risk, durability, and late outcomes in stentless bioprostheses. There is no general recommendation to prefer stentless bioprostheses in all patients. For new-generation pericardial stentless valves, follow-up over 15 years is necessary to compare the excellent results of stented valves such as the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount and Hancock II valves.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Junjiro Kobayashi, Jun 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
218 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study reports a series of pitfalls, premature failures and explantations of the third-generation Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve. A total of 149 patients underwent aortic valve replacement using the FS. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average observation time of 5.5 ± 2.3 years (maximum 8.7 years) and a total of 825 patient-years. Following intraoperative documentation, all explanted valve prostheses underwent histological examination. Freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 92, 88, 80, 70 and 62%, respectively. Fourteen prostheses required explantation due to valve-independent dysfunction (n = 5; i.e. thrombus formation, oversizing, aortic dilatation, endocarditis and suture dehiscence) or valve-dependent failure (acute leaflet tears, n = 4 and severe stenosis, n = 5). Thus, freedom from explantation at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years was 95, 94, 91, 81 and 72%, respectively. An acute vertical tear along the non-coronary/right coronary commissure to the base occurred at a mean of 6.0 years (range 4.3-7.3 years) and affected size 25 and 27 prostheses exclusively. Four FS required explantation after a mean of 7.5 years (range 7.0-8.3 years) due to severe functional stenosis and gross calcification that included the entire aortic root. The FS stentless valve is safe to implant and shows satisfying mid-term results in our single institution experience. Freedom from SVD and explantation decreased markedly after only 6-7 years, so that patients with FS require close observation and follow-up. Exact sizing, symmetric positioning and observing patient limitations are crucial for optimal outcome. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 12/2014; DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezu473 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stentless prostheses have an interesting hemodynamic performance when compared to stented prostheses and are recommended in cases of small aortic annulus. From January 1996 to January 2004, 138 patients suffering from aortic disease, underwent aortic valve replacement. There was a significant difference in terms of time of extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross clamp. The actuarial survival at 4, 8, 12, and 15 years is 77%, 50%, 21%, and 18%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation at 4, 8, 12, and 14 years was 92%, 83%, 73%, and 63%, respectively. Freedom from all events, death, and reoperation at 4, 8, 12, and 14 years was 70%, 39%, 13%, and 8%, respectively. There is no statistical difference among the two groups in terms of actuarial survival, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from re-hospitalization for prosthesis-related causes. There was a significantly higher incidence of pacemaker implantation in Group A and the causes are not known. The rate of freedom from reoperation is high in both groups for the patients who remained alive. There was no statistical difference about prosthesis dysfunction between the two groups. The higher incidence of death in Group A cannot be explained by causes related to the prosthesis because there is no difference in terms of causes of death. Rates of reoperation did not differ between the two groups. The results obtained with stentless prostheses are encouraging even in long-term follow-up.
    Journal of Cardiology 11/2013; 63(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jjcc.2013.09.011 · 2.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The design of stentless valve prostheses is intended to achieve a more physiological flow pattern and superior hemodynamics in comparison to stented valves. First - generation stentless bioprosthesis were the Prima valve, the Freestyle valve and the Toronto stentless porcine valve. The second generation of stentless valves, as the Super stentless aortic porcine valve, need only one suture line. The Sorin Pericarbon Freedom and the Equine 3F heart Valve belong to the third generation of stentless valve pericardial bioprostheses. A stentless valve to replace a full root can be implanted by several surgical techniques: complete or modified subcoronary, root inclusion and full root. The full root technique is accompanied by the lowest incidence of patient-prothesis mismatch. Our own clinical experience reflects more than 3000 stentless valve implantations since April 1996. Randomized study trials showed a hemodynamic advantage for stentless valves, but several could not reach a significant level. Also reported was a significant advantage of stentless bioprostheses concerning transvalvular gradients, effective valve area and quicker regression of the left ventricular mass 6 months after the operation, but at 12 months. Advantages are obvious in patients with a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction of less than 50% and in smaller implanted valve size, concomitant aortic root pathology (e.g. dissection) and aortic valve endocarditis. A survival advantage for stentless bioprostheses in comparison to stented ones has been reported by all studies in the literature. Stentless valves enrich the surgical armamentarium. Time will define the place of stentless valves in the future.
    04/2012; 4(2):77-82.