4 . 2017

Immediate and long-term results of application of UniLine bioprostheses in the aortic position

Abstract

In this study we performed a clinical analysis, as well as an evaluation of the results of surgical treatment of 81 patients (41 men and 40 women) with aortic valve defects, who underwent implantation of the biological valve UniLine in the aortic position within the period from October 2011 to December 2013 in the Scientific Research Institute of Cardiology in Tomsk. Echocardiography performed before discharge allowed us to establish that UniLine aortic bioprostheses had good hemodynamic characteristics, adequately correcting intracardiac hemodynamics and were not inferior than the best foreign analogs in such parameters as peak and average transvalvular gradient. Some echocardiographic indicators, reflecting LV function, tended to improve. For the entire follow-up period, maximum follow-up period was 5 years, there was not a single case of reoperation regarding the inconsistency of the aortic bioprosthesis.

Keywords:aortic valve replacement, bioprostheses

Clin. Experiment. Surg. Petrovsky J. 2017; 5 (4): 37–42.

DOI: 10.24411/2308-1198-2017-00005

Received: 10.03.2017. Accepted: 10.10.2017.

References

1. Nishimura R.A., Otto C.M., Bonow R.O., et al. ACC/AHA Task Force Members. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014; 129: 2440–92. doi: 10.1161/CIR. 0000000000000029 pmid:24589852.

2. Rahimtoola S.H. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults: an update. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55 (22): 2413–26. doi: 10.1016/ j.jacc.2009.10.085.

3. Dunning J., Gao H., Chambers J., Moat N., et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use – an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 142 (4): 776–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.04.048.

4. Foroutan F., et al. Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies. BMJ. 2016; 354: i5965. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5065.

5. Durham N.C. Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database Committee. Annual Report 1999. STS, 2000: 52.

6. Shahian D.M., Peterson E.D.; Principal Investigator. Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database Committee. Data analyses of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. October 11, 2011 (data through June 30, 2011). Durham, N.C.

7. Bokeriya L.A., Gudkova R.G. Cardiovascular Surgery-2015. Diseases and congenital anomalies of the circulatory system. Moscow, 2016. (in Russian)

8. Chambers J.B., Rajani R., Parkin D., Rimington H.M., et al. Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: Early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008; 136: 1142–8.

9. Ruggieri V.G., Flecher E., Donal E. Early Hemodynamic and Clinical Results of Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis (100 Patients). In: 6th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Heart Valve Disease. Barcelona, 2011. http://shvd.org/ abstracts/2011/P53.cgi.

10. Cheung A., Carbonneau E., Fradet G., et al. Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of a new aortic bioprosthesis (Trifecta): a multicentre study. Can Cardiovasc Congr. 2010. URL: http://www. pulsus.com/ccc2010/abs/ 242.htm.

11. Dell’Aquila A.M., Schlarb D., Schneider S.R.B., Sindermann J.R., et al. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after implantation of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis: an initial single- centre experience. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Adv Access. 2012; Nov 15: 1–4.

12. Hanke T., Charitos E.I., Stierle U., Sievers H.-H. First clinical results with the new St. Jude Medical Trifecta Pericardial Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis – a non-investigational study. In: 6th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Heart Valve Disease. Barcelona, 2011. URL: http://shvd.org/abstracts/2011/P150.cgi.

13. Karas’kov A.M., et al. Clinical and hemodynamic results of application of UniLine bioprostheses in aortic position. Kardiologiya i serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya [Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery]. 2014; (4): 1–6. (in Russian)

14. Wong S.P., Legget M.E., Greaves S.C., Barratt-Boyes B.G., et al. Early experience with the Mosaic bioprosthesis: a new generation porcine valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; 69: 1846–50.

15. Aupart M., Neville P., Dreyfus X., Meurisse Y., et al. The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve: intermediate results in 420 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1994; 8: 277.

16. Carrel T., Zingg U., Jenni R., Aeschbacher B., et al. Early in vivo experience with the Hemodynamic Plus St. Jude Medical heart valves in patients with narrowed aortic annulus. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996; 61: 48.

17. Cartier P.C., Dumesnil J.G., Metras J., Desaulniers D., et al. Clinical and hemodynamic performance of Freestyle aortic root bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999; 67: 345.