Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes of Sutureless versus Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement
Guner, Yesim; Çiçek, Ayse; Karacalilar, Mehmet; Ersoy, Burak; Kyaruzi, Mugisha; Onan, Burak.
Affiliation
  • Guner, Yesim; University of Health Sciences Turkey. Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery. Istanbul. TR
  • Çiçek, Ayse; University of Health Sciences Turkey. Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery. Istanbul. TR
  • Karacalilar, Mehmet; University of Health Sciences Turkey. Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery. Istanbul. TR
  • Ersoy, Burak; University of Health Sciences Turkey. Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery. Istanbul. TR
  • Kyaruzi, Mugisha; University of Health Sciences Turkey. Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery. Istanbul. TR
  • Onan, Burak; University of Health Sciences Turkey. Istanbul Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Hospital. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery. Istanbul. TR
Rev. bras. cir. cardiovasc ; Rev. bras. cir. cardiovasc;37(3): 328-334, May-June 2022. tab, graf
Article in En | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1376532
Responsible library: BR1.1
ABSTRACT
Abstract

Objective:

Sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR) offers an alternative to supra-annular stented biological aortic prostheses. This single-center study aimed to compare early outcomes after aortic valve replacement with sutureless and conventional stented bioprostheses.

Methods:

In this retrospective study, we analyzed 52 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with sutureless and stented bioprostheses between January 2013 and October 2017. Sorin Perceval S sutureless valves were implanted in group 1 and Sorin Mitroflow stented bioprosthetic valves were used in group 2. Postoperative outcomes, including demographics, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, cross-clamp times, morbidity and mortality, as well as echocardiography in the first month, were compared.

Results:

Mortality occurred in 1 (3.6%) patient in group 1, and in 2 (8.3%) patients in group 2 (P=0.186). Group 1 had significantly shorter CPB (61.6±26.1 min vs. 106.3±32.7 min, P=0.001) and cross-clamp (30.9±13.6 min vs. 73.3±17.3 min, P=0.001) times. The length of stay in the intensive care unit (1.9±1.3 days vs. 2.4±4.9 days, P=0.598) and hospital stay (7.6±2.7 days vs. 7.3±2.6 days, P=0.66) were similar. Postoperatively, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in echocardiography results, and morbidities. The mean aortic valve gradient was 13.5±5.8 mmHg in group 1 and 14.5±8.0 mmHg in group 2 (P=0.634). Paravalvular regurgitation was diagnosed in 3 (10.7%) patients in group 1 and in 1 (4.2%) patient in group 2 (P=0.220).

Conclusions:

Su-AVR resulted in shorter cross-clamp and CPB times. However, early mortality, postoperative morbidity, and echocardiography results were similar between groups.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: LILACS Type of study: Observational_studies Language: En Journal: Rev. bras. cir. cardiovasc Journal subject: CARDIOLOGIA / CIRURGIA GERAL Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Turkey Country of publication: Brazil

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: LILACS Type of study: Observational_studies Language: En Journal: Rev. bras. cir. cardiovasc Journal subject: CARDIOLOGIA / CIRURGIA GERAL Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Turkey Country of publication: Brazil