Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Consequences of Aortic Valve Replacement with 21-mm Sized Pericardial Bioprostheses[*]

Abstract

Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a 21-mm sized bioprothesis is still discussed controversially. Since better results have been reported for pericardial valves, the aim of the current study was to analyze the hemodynamic performance as well as clinical parameters in our patients and to compare pericardial and standard porcine valves in particular. Methods: 342 patients underwent AVR with a bioprosthesis between 1987 and 2000. A 21 mm prosthesis was used in 39 patients (group S), while 303 patients received at least a 23-mm sized valve (group L). Group S was further divided into 19 patients with a pericardial valve (group S1) and 20 patients with a standard porcine valve (group S2). The hemodynamic and clinical parameters were studied in all three groups. Results: The peak and mean transprosthetic gradients were significantly lower in the pericardial group than in the porcine group, particularly between patients with 21 mm valves (peak/mean: S1: 24 ± 9/20.8 ± 6.5 mm Hg vs. S2: 38 ± 15/33 ± 9 mm Hg, p < 0.05) at discharge. We could also observe that the peak transprosthetic gradient 7 days postoperatively was not significantly higher in patients with a 21 mm pericardial valve compared to group L patients. Comparing clinical parameters, we found significantly more cerebral ischemic events, a prolonged mechanical ventilation, a higher mortality and a longer stay in hospital in the group S2 compared to the group S1. Conclusion: The current study shows that pericardial valves perform well, particularly in patients with small aortic roots. Postoperative hemodynamics and clinical results were better than for comparable standard porcine valves. As the outcome of patients with a 21 mm pericardial valve was no worse than that in patients with bigger valves, enlarging procedures for the aortic root are not necessary in the majority of these patients.

Aortic valve replacement - small aortic annulus - pericardial bioprosthesis

References

• 1 Poirier N C, Pelletier L C, Pellerin M, Michel C. 15-year experience with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;  66 (Suppl 1) 57-67
• 2 Pellerin M, Mihailenu S, Couetil J P, Relland J YM, Deloche A, Fabiani J-N, Jindani A, Carpentier A F. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in aortic position: long-term follow-up 1980 to 1994.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;  60 (Suppl 2) 292-296
• 3 Torka M C, Salefski B E, Hacker R W. Intermediate clinical results after aortic valve replacment with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;  60 (Suppl 2) 311-315
• 4 Aupart M R, Sirinelli A L, Diemont F F, Meurisse Y A, Dreyfus X B, Merchand M A. The last generation of pericardial valves in the aortic position: ten-year follow-up in 589 patients.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;  61 615-620
• 5 Frater R WM, Furlong P, Cosgrove D M, Okies J E, Colburn L Q, Katz A S, Lowe N L, Ryba E A. Long-term durability, and patient functional status of the Carpentier-Edwards perimount pericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;  7 48-53
• 6 Banbury M K, Cosgrove 3rd D M. Long-term results of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve: a 12-year follow-up.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;  66 (Suppl 6) 73-76
• 7 Le Tourneau T, Savoye C, McFadden E P, Grandmougin D, Carton H F, Hennequin J L, Dubar A, Fayad G, Warembourg H. Mid-term comparative follow-up after aortic valve replacment with Carpentier-Edwards and Pericarbon pericardial prostheses.  Circulation. 1999;  100 (Suppl 2) 111-116
• 8 Ionescu M I, Tandon A P, Mary D A, Abid A. Heart valve replacement with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1977;  73 31-41
• 9 Perier P, Mihaileanu S, Fabiani J N, Deloche A, Chauvaud S, Jindani A, Carpentier A. Long-term evaluation of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in aortic position.  J Card Surg. 1991;  6 (Suppl 4) 589-594
• 10 Frater R WM, Salomon N W, Rainer W G, Cosgrove D M, Wickham E. The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprothesis: intermediate results.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1992;  53 764-771
• 11 Cosgrove D M, Lytle B W, Gill C C, Golding L A, Stewart R W, Loop F D, Williams G W. In vivo hemodynamic comparison of porcine and pericardial valves.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1985;  89 358-368
• 13 Edmunds Jr L H, Clark R E, Cohn L H, Grunkemeier G L, Miller D C, Weisel R D. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;  112 708-711
• 14 Edward T J, Livesey S A, Simpson I A, Monro J L, Ross J K. Biological valves beyond fifteen years: The Wessex experience.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;  60 (Suppl 1) 211-215
• 15 Jamieson W RE, Burr L H, Tyers G F, Munro A L. Carpentier-Edwards standard and supraanular porcine bioprostheses: 10 year comparison of structural valve deterioration.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1994;  3 59-65
• 16 Gill C C, King H C, Lytle B W, Cosgrove D M, Golding L A, Loop F D. Early clinical evaluation after aortic valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical valve in patients with a small aortic root.  Circulation. 1982;  66 (Suppl 1) 147-149
• 17 Arom K V, Goldenberg I F, Emery R W. Long-term clinical outcome with small size standard St. Jude Medical valves implanted in the aortic position.  J Heart Valve Dis. 1994;  3 531-536
• 18 Sim E K, Orszulak T A, Schaff H V, Shub C. Influence of prosthesis size on change in left ventricular mass following aortic valve replacement.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1994;  8 293-297
• 19 Sommers K E, David T E. Aortic valve replacement with patch enlargement of the aortic annulus.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;  63 1608-1612
• 20 Petracek M R. Assessing options for the small aortic root.  J Heart Valve Dis. 2002;  11 (Suppl 1) 50-55

1 The results of this paper were presented in part during the 34th annual meeting of the German Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, February 13th - 16th, 2005 in Hamburg, Germany.