Publications (6)7.46 Total impact
-
Article: Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement may be influenced by the presence of residual gradients and patient-prosthesis mismatch. The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes at 5 years after prospectively randomized porcine versus bovine aortic valve replacement. We also aimed to determine the effects of valve hemodynamics on left ventricular (LV) mass regression. A total of 108 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive either the Medtronic Mosaic (MM) porcine (n=54) or the Edwards Perimount Magna (EPM) bovine pericardial prosthesis (n=54). Clinical outcomes, mean gradients, effective orifice area and LV mass regression were evaluated at 1 and 5 years after surgery. Follow-up echocardiograms were performed on 106 (98%) and 87 (92%) patients, respectively. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups. Mean aortic annulus diameter and mean implant size were comparable in both groups. At 1 and 5 years, mean transprosthetic gradients were lower in the EPM group: EPM 10.3±3.4mmHg versus MM 16.3 ± 7.6 mmHg (p<0.0001) and EPM 9.6 ± 3.5 mmHg versus MM 16.8 ± 8.7 mmHg (p<0.0001), respectively. Similarly, indexed effective orifice areas (IEOA) at 1 and 5 years were significantly greater in the EPM group: EPM 1.10 ± 0.22 cm(2)m(-2) versus MM 0.96 ± 0.22 cm(2)m(-2) (p<0.004) and EPM 1.02 ± 0.25 cm(2)m(-2) versus MM 0.76 ± 0.19 cm(2)m(-2) (p<0.0001), respectively. At 5 years, the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (IEOA ≤0.85 cm(2)m(-2)) was significantly lower in the EPM group: EPM 22.9% vs MM 73.9% (p<0.0001). Such differences were similar when analysis was stratified by surgically measured annular size and implant valve size. During the first year after surgery, both groups demonstrated similar regression of LV mass index (MM -26.3 ± 43 gm(2) vs EPM -30.1 ± 36 gm(-2); p=0.8); however, at 5 years, regression of LV mass index was significantly greater in the EPM group: (EPM -47.4 ± 35 gm(-2) vs -4.4 ± 36 gm(-2); p<0.0001). Five-year survival was 79.6 ± 4.1% in the MM group and 94.4 ± 2.2% in the EPM group (p=0.03). Conclusions: At 5 years, the EPM valve was significantly superior to the MM prosthesis with regard to hemodynamic performance, incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and regression of LV mass index. The hemodynamic superiority of the EPM prostheses in comparison to MM-prostheses demonstrated at 1 year, increased significantly over time.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 12/2010; 39(6):844-52; discussion 852. · 2.40 Impact Factor -
Article: One year hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna pericardial xenograft and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: a prospective randomized study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We compared the hemodynamic performance of the Edwards Perimount Magna (EPM) and the Medtronic Mosaic (MM) bioprostheses according to the patient aortic annulus diameter (AAD). Eighty-six patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were prospectively assigned to receive either an EPM-valve (n=43) or an MM-bioprosthesis (n=43). Randomization was performed after measuring the AAD and patients were grouped according to their AAD: <22 mm (n=12), 22-23 mm (n=31) and >23 mm (n=43). Echocardiographic assessment was performed one year postoperatively. The mean AAD (EPM 23.9+/-2.1 mm vs. MM 23.6+/-2.3 mm) and mean valve size implanted (EPM 22.6+/-2.1 mm vs. MM 23.3+/-2.1 mm) were comparable in both groups. The EPM-group showed significantly lower mean gradient (EPM 10.2+/-3.2 mmHg vs. MM 17.1+/-8.2 mmHg) and larger effective orifice area (EOA) (EPM 1.99+/-0.4 cm(2) vs. MM 1.69+/-0.4 cm(2), P<0.0001). The EPM-valve was superior with respect to mean pressure gradient and EOA in all AAD. This difference was statistically significant in AAD of 22-23 mm (EPM 9.6+/-3.0 mmHg vs. MM 18.2+/-8.6 mmHg; EPM 1.82+/-0.3 cm (2) vs. MM 1.51+/-0.2 cm (2)) and >23 mm (EPM 9.9+/-3.1 mmHg vs. MM 14.2+/-5.6 mmHg; EPM 2.18+/-0.4 cm(2) vs. MM 1.94+/-0.5 cm(2)). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was present in 26.8% (MM) vs. 6.9% (EPM) of the patients (P=0.01). When the same AAD is taken as a reference, the EPM-valve was hemodynamically superior to the MM-bioprosthesis. The EPM-prosthesis significantly reduced the incidence of PPM.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 06/2007; 6(3):345-9. -
Article: The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna aortic xenograft: a new design with an improved hemodynamic performance.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study compares the implantation characteristics and the hemodynamic performance of the new Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna (CEPM) xenograft with those of the standard Perimount (CEPS) valve in the aortic position. Eighty consecutive patients surviving an aortic valve replacement with either the CEPS valve (n=40) or the CEPM prosthesis (n=40) in the supra-annular position were retrospectively reviewed. One year follow-up was complete and hemodynamic performance assessed by Doppler echocardiography. The mean valve size implanted was 21.3+/-1.7 mm (CEPS) vs. 22.2+/-1.8 mm (CEPM). The average mean pressure gradient was 13.6+/-5.1 mmHg in the CEPS group and 9.6+/-3.3 mmHg in the CEPM group (P<0.0001). Mean and peak gradients were slightly lower and the effective orifice areas (EOA) were larger for the Magna prosthesis than for the comparable standard valves: 19 mm (1.58+/-0.2 vs. 1.28+/-0.1 cm(2)), 21 mm (1.90+/-0.4 vs. 1.69+/-0.4 cm(2)), 23 mm (2.07+/-0.3 vs. 1.86+/-0.3 cm(2)), 25 mm (2.30+/-0.1 vs. 1.89+/-0.5 cm(2)). The average indexed EOA was statistically different between groups (CEPS 0.98+/-0.21 cm(2)/m(2) vs. CEPM 1.20+/-0.25 cm(2)/m(2)). Patient-prosthesis mismatch (indexed EOA<or=0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) was present in 40.7% (CEPS) vs. 16.6% (CEPM) of the patients with valve sizes <or=21 mm. Our study demonstrates that the Magna prosthesis significantly reduces the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch when compared to the standard Perimount valve in the aortic position.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 06/2006; 5(3):263-7. -
Article: [Arterial grafts in coronary surgery. Treatment for everyone?].
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: At present, arterial conduits are the key elements of coronary bypass surgery. The clear benefits of using the left internal mammary artery for revascularization of the left anterior descending coronary artery have encouraged the use of other arteries in different areas. The right internal mammary artery and the radial artery are competing for the role as the second most useful conduit. Moreover, use of the right gastroepiploic artery or the inferior epigastric artery, although both are less popular, enables complete revascularization to be carried out using only arterial grafts in most patients. The majority of publications on the subject endorse the extensive use of arterial conduits. However, most findings are based on observational and angiographic data that are derived essentially from studies on symptomatic patients. Consequently, indications for the different techniques have not been standardized. On the other hand, the patency of saphenous vein grafts has improved recently. This article describes the anatomical and histologic characteristics of arterial conduits. The indications for, and advantages and limitations of, the different techniques available are reviewed. In addition, the clinical and angiographic results achieved are considered, as is the role of arterial conduits in different anatomical and clinical settings. Finally, the future application of this type of surgery is discussed.Revista Espa de Cardiologia 11/2005; 58(10):1207-23. · 2.53 Impact Factor -
Article: [Ross operation: attractive in theory but, is it superior in daily practice?].
Revista Espa de Cardiologia 02/2004; 57(1):7-11. · 2.53 Impact Factor -
Article: La operación de Ross: teóricamente ideal, pero ¿ventajosa en la práctica?
Revista española de cardiología, ISSN 0300-8932, Vol. 57, Nº. 1, 2004, pags. 7-11.
