Cited 0 times in Scipus Cited Count

A retrospective comparison of hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between two differently designed aortic bioprostheses for small aortic annuli

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKim, DJ-
dc.contributor.authorLee, S-
dc.contributor.authorJoo, HC-
dc.contributor.authorYoun, YN-
dc.contributor.authorYoo, KJ-
dc.contributor.authorLee, SH-
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-26T00:39:09Z-
dc.date.available2022-12-26T00:39:09Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.ajou.ac.kr/handle/201003/23481-
dc.description.abstractThe Trifecta valve has externally mounted leaflets; it differs from classic internally mounted valves (e.g., Carpentier-Edwards [C-E]). We evaluated post-implantation hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of these bioprostheses in small aortic annuli. From January 2015 to April 2019, 490 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) were reviewed retrospectively. Alto-gether, 183 patients received 19 or 21 mm diameter C-E (n = 121) or Trifecta (n = 62) prostheses. To minimize confounding variables, we performed propensity-score matching analysis. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient (TVPG) was significantly lower in the Trifecta than in the C-E group at discharge (12.9 ± 4.8 vs. 15.0 ± 5.3 mmHg, p = 0.044). TVPG change over time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.357). Left ventricular mass index decreased postoperatively (reduc-tion: C-E, 28.1%; Trifecta, 30.1%, p = 0.879). No late mortality, severe patient–prosthesis mismatch, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage, structural valve degeneration, or valve thromboses were observed. Freedom from valve-related events at 3 years were similar for C-E (97.9% ± 2.1%) and Trifecta (97.7% ± 2.2%) patients (log-rank p = 0.993). Bioprosthesis design for small annuli significantly affected TVPG immediately after AVR. However, hemodynamics over time and clinical outcomes did not differ between the two designs.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.titleA retrospective comparison of hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between two differently designed aortic bioprostheses for small aortic annuli-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.pmid33806531-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7961368/-
dc.subject.keywordHeart valve prosthesis implantation-
dc.subject.keywordHemodynamic monitoring-
dc.subject.keywordProsthesis design-
dc.subject.keywordSmall aortic annulus-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, DJ-
dc.type.localJournal Papers-
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/jcm10051063-
dc.citation.titleJournal of clinical medicine-
dc.citation.volume10-
dc.citation.number5-
dc.citation.date2021-
dc.citation.startPage1063-
dc.citation.endPage1063-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJournal of clinical medicine, 10(5). : 1063-1063, 2021-
dc.identifier.eissn2077-0383-
dc.relation.journalidJ020770383-
Appears in Collections:
Journal Papers > School of Medicine / Graduate School of Medicine > Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery
Files in This Item:
33806531.pdfDownload

qrcode

해당 아이템을 이메일로 공유하기 원하시면 인증을 거치시기 바랍니다.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse