This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement All Versions of this Article: 112/17/2696    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.104.521161v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Perez de Arenaza, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Perez de Arenaza, D. Related Collections CV surgery: valvular disease

(Circulation. 2005;112:2696-2702.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Vascular Medicine

Randomized Comparison of Stentless Versus Stented Valves for Aortic Stenosis

Effects on Left Ventricular Mass

Diego Perez de Arenaza, MD; Belinda Lees, PhD; Marcus Flather, MB, BS, FRCP; Fiona Nugara, BSc; Trygve Husebye, MD; Marek Jasinski, MD, PhD; Marek Cisowski, MD, PhD; Mohammed Khan, MSc, MPH; Michael Henein, MD; Jullien Gaer, MB, BS, FRCS; Levant Guvendik, MD, FRCS; Andrzej Bochenek, MD, PhD; Stanislaw Wos, MD, PhD; Mons Lie, MB, BS, MD; Guido Van Nooten, MD, PhD; Dudley Pennell, MD, FRCP; John Pepper, MA, MChir, FRCS, on behalf of the ASSERT (Aortic Stentless versus Stented valve assessed by Echocardiography Randomized Trial) Investigators

From the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK (D.P.d.A., B.L., M.F., F.N., M.K., M.H., J.G., D.P., J.P.); Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina (D.P.d.A.); National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK (B.L., M.F., M.K., M.H., D.P., J.P.); Ullevaal Sykehus, Oslo, Norway (T.H., M.L.); Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland (M.J., M.C., A.B., S.W.); Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK (L.G.); and UZ Gent, Gent, Belgium (G.V.N.).

Correspondence to Professor J. Pepper, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney St, London SW3 6NP, UK. E-mail j.pepper{at}rbh.nthames.nhs.uk

Received March 21, 2005; revision received May 26, 2005; accepted June 13, 2005.

Background— Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the established treatment for severe aortic stenosis. In response to the long-term results of aortic homografts, stentless porcine valves were introduced as an alternative low-resistance valve. We conducted a randomized trial comparing a stentless with a stented porcine valve in adults with severe aortic stenosis.

Methods and Results— The primary outcome was change in left ventricular mass index (LVMI) measured by transthoracic echocardiography and, in a subset, by cardiovascular MR. Measurements were taken before valve replacement and at 6 and 12 months. Patients undergoing AVR with an aortic annulus 25 mm in diameter were randomly allocated to a stentless (n=93) or a stented supra-annular (n=97) valve. There were no significant differences in mean LVMI between the stentless versus stented groups at baseline (176±62 and 182±63 g/m², respectively) or at 6 months (142±49 and 131±45 g/m², respectively), although within-group changes from baseline to 6 months were highly significant. Changes in LVMI measured by cardiovascular MR (n=38) were consistent with the echo findings. There was a greater reduction in peak aortic velocity (P<0.001) and a greater increase in indexed effective orifice area (P<0.001) in the stentless group than in the stented group. There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 valve groups.

Conclusions— Despite significant differences in indexed effective orifice area and peak flow velocity in favor of the stentless valve, there were similar reductions in left ventricular mass at 6 months with both stented and stentless valves, which persisted at 12 months.

Key Words: echocardiography • hypertrophy • magnetic resonance imaging • stenosis • valves

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, A. Rudolph, R. Wassmuth, S. Bohl, E. E. Buschmann, H. Abdel-Aty, R. Dietz, and J. Schulz-Menger Feasibility of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance to Assess the Orifice Area of Aortic Bioprostheses Circ Cardiovasc Imaging, September 1, 2009; 2(5): 397 - 404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-A. Clavel, J. G. Webb, P. Pibarot, L. Altwegg, E. Dumont, C. Thompson, R. De Larochelliere, D. Doyle, J.-B. Masson, S. Bergeron, et al. Comparison of the Hemodynamic Performance of Percutaneous and Surgical Bioprostheses for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2009; 53(20): 1883 - 1891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. S. Risteski, S. Martens, A. Rouhollahpour, G. Wimmer-Greinecker, A. Moritz, and M. Doss Prospective randomized evaluation of stentless vs. stented aortic biologic prosthetic valves in the elderly at five years Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2009; 8(4): 449 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil Prosthetic Heart Valves: Selection of the Optimal Prosthesis and Long-Term Management Circulation, February 24, 2009; 119(7): 1034 - 1048. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Bjornstad, N. O. Neverdal, O. A. Vengen, C. W. Knudsen, T. Husebye, J. Pepper, M. Lie, G. Christensen, and T. Tonnessen Alterations in circulating activin A, GDF-15, TGF-{beta}3 and MMP-2, -3, and -9 during one year of left ventricular reverse remodelling in patients operated for severe aortic stenosis Eur J Heart Fail, December 1, 2008; 10(12): 1201 - 1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. E. David, C. M. Feindel, J. Bos, J. Ivanov, and S. Armstrong Aortic valve replacement with Toronto SPV bioprosthesis: Optimal patient survival but suboptimal valve durability J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2008; 135(1): 19 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kallikourdis and S. Jacob Is a stentless aortic valve superior to conventional bioprosthetic valves for aortic valve replacement? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, October 1, 2007; 6(5): 665 - 672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Dunning, R.J. Graham, J. Thambyrajah, M.J. Stewart, S.W.H. Kendall, and S. Hunter Stentless vs. stented aortic valve bioprostheses: a prospective randomized controlled trial Eur. Heart J., October 1, 2007; 28(19): 2369 - 2374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Borger, K. Prasongsukarn, S. Armstrong, C. M. Feindel, and T. E. David Stentless Aortic Valve Reoperations: A Surgical Challenge Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2007; 84(3): 737 - 744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D'Onofrio, S. Auriemma, P. Magagna, A. Favaro, A. Cannarella, C. Piccin, M. Bilotta, N. Abbiate, N. Lamascese, and A. Fabbri Aortic valve replacement with the Sorin Pericarbon Freedom stentless prosthesis: 7 years' experience in 130 patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2007; 134(2): 491 - 495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Kunadian, K. Vijayalakshmi, A. R. Thornley, M. A. de Belder, S. Hunter, S. Kendall, R. Graham, M. Stewart, J. Thambyrajah, and J. Dunning Meta-Analysis of Valve Hemodynamics and Left Ventricular Mass Regression for Stentless Versus Stented Aortic Valves Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2007; 84(1): 73 - 78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H. Kincaid, A. R. Cordell, J. W. Hammon, S. M. Adair, and N. D. Kon Coronary Insufficiency After Stentless Aortic Root Replacement: Risk Factors and Solutions Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2007; 83(3): 964 - 968. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bove, Y. Van Belleghem, K. Francois, F. Caes, H. Van Overbeke, and G. Van Nooten Stentless and stented aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: factors affecting midterm clinical and hemodynamical outcome Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2006; 30(5): 706 - 713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. J. Howell, B. E. Keogh, V. Barnet, R. S. Bonser, T. R. Graham, S. J. Rooney, I. C. Wilson, and D. Pagano Patient-prosthesis mismatch does not affect survival following aortic valve replacement. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., July 1, 2006; 30(1): 10 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]