This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ali, A. Articles by Tsui, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ali, A. Articles by Tsui, S. Related Collections CV surgery: valvular disease

(Circulation. 2006;114:I-535 – I-540.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Surgery for Valvular Heart Disease

Are Stentless Valves Superior to Modern Stented Valves?

A Prospective Randomized Trial

Ayyaz Ali, MRCS; James C. Halstead, MRCS; Fay Cafferty, MsC; Linda Sharples, PhD; Fiona Rose, BA; Richard Coulden, FRCR, FRCP; Evelyn Lee, FRCP; John Dunning, FRCS; Vincenzo Argano, FRCS; Steven Tsui, FRCS

From Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery (A.A., J.C.H., F.C., L.S., F.R., R.C., E.L., J.D., S.T.), Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, Cambridge, UK; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery (V.A.), Morriston Hospital, Swansea, Wales.

Correspondence to Ayyaz Ali, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, Cambridge, CB3 8RE.

Background— It is presumed that stentless aortic bioprostheses are hemodynamically superior to stented bioprostheses. A prospective randomized controlled trial was undertaken to compare stentless versus modern stented valves.

Methods and Results— Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (n=161) undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) were randomized intraoperatively to receive either the C-E Perimount stented bioprosthesis (n=81) or the Prima Plus stentless bioprosthesis (n =80). We assessed left ventricular mass (LVM) regression with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Transvalvular gradients were measured postoperatively by Doppler echocardiography to compare hemodynamic performance. There was no difference between groups with regard to age, symptom status, need for concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery, or baseline LVM. LVM regressed in both groups but with no significant difference between groups at 1 year. In a subset of 50 patients, MRI was also used to assess LVM regression, and again there was no significant difference between groups at 1 year. Hemodynamic performance of the 2 valves was similar with no difference in mean and peak systolic transvalvular gradients 1 year after surgery. In patients with reduced ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <60%), there was a significantly greater improvement in LVEF from baseline to 1 year in stentless valve recipients.

Conclusions— Both stented and stentless bioprostheses are associated with excellent clinical and hemodynamic outcomes 1 year after AVR. Comparable hemodynamics and LVM regression can be achieved using a second-generation stented pericardial bioprosthesis. In patients with ventricular impairment, stentless bioprostheses may allow for greater improvement in left ventricular function postoperatively.

Key Words: aortic stenosis • aortic valve • surgery • valve replacement • valves