Universität zu Köln

Wahlers, Thorsten C. W., Andreas, Martin ORCID: 0000-0003-4950-5432, Rahmanian, Parwis, Candolfi, Pascal, Zemanova, Barbora, Giot, Christophe, Ferrari, Enrico ORCID: 0000-0002-2837-3242 and Laufer, Guenther (2018). Outcomes of a Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Versus Its Conventional Counterpart A Propensity-Matched Analysis. Innovations, 13 (3). S. 177 - 184. PHILADELPHIA: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. ISSN 1559-0879

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) from two studies Methods: Patients who underwent RDAVR (INTUITY valve) in the prospective, 5-year, single-arm multicenter TRITON study, or conventional AVR (Perimount Magna Ease valve) in the prospective Perimount Magna Ease postmarket study, were propensity score matched and compared for procedural, hemodynamic, safety, and clinical outcomes. Results: Matched RDAVR (n = 106) and conventional AVR (n = 106) patients had similar baseline characteristics (mean +/- SD age, 72.8 +/- 7.6 vs 72.5 +/- 7.4 years; male 59.4% vs 61.3%) and procedures (concomitant procedures: 41.5% vs 50.9%). Mean +/- SD aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in RDAVR than AVR patients (51.8 +/- 20.9 vs 73.9 +/- 33.2 minutes; P < 0.001), as was mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.8 +/- 34.2 vs 102.4 +/- 41.7minutes; P < 0.001). At 1 year, RDAVR patients showed significantly lower mean +/- SD and peak aortic valve gradients (9.0 +/- 3.4 and 17.0 +/- 6.2 mm Hg, respectively) than conventional AVR patients (13.4 +/- 5.5 and 24.2 +/- 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P < 0.001). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was significantly less common with RDAVR than with AVR [overall: 16/66 (24.2%) vs 46/76 (60.5%); P = 0.007; severe: 2/66 (3.0%) vs 13/76 (17.1%)]. There were no significant differences between the RDAVR and AVR groups regarding 30-day safety endpoints. Survival rates in the RDAVR and conventional AVR groups were, respectively, 99.1% and 100.0% at 30 days, 97.1% and 95.1% at 1 year, and 93.3% and 94.1% at 3 years (P = nonsignificant). Conclusions: In this retrospective study with matched populations, the RDAVR with the INTUITY valve system provided superior procedural and hemodynamic outcomes than a standard bioprosthesis without compromising safety.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID ORCID Put Code Wahlers, Thorsten C. W. UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Andreas, Martin UNSPECIFIED orcid.org/0000-0003-4950-5432 UNSPECIFIED Rahmanian, Parwis UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Candolfi, Pascal UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Zemanova, Barbora UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Giot, Christophe UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Ferrari, Enrico UNSPECIFIED orcid.org/0000-0002-2837-3242 UNSPECIFIED Laufer, Guenther UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED
URN:	urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-187202
DOI:	10.1097/imi.0000000000000509
Journal or Publication Title:	Innovations
Volume:	13
Number:	3
Page Range:	S. 177 - 184
Date:	2018
Publisher:	LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Place of Publication:	PHILADELPHIA
ISSN:	1559-0879
Language:	English
Faculty:	Unspecified
Divisions:	Unspecified
Subjects:	no entry
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Keywords Language PROSTHESIS-PATIENT MISMATCH; PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER; CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS; CARDIAC-SURGERY; REPLACEMENT; MORTALITY; BIOPROSTHESIS; METAANALYSIS; STERNOTOMY; SUTURELESS Multiple languages Surgery Multiple languages
Refereed:	Yes
URI:	http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/id/eprint/18720