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 Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dalmau, M. J. Articles by Arribas, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dalmau, M. J. Articles by Arribas, A. Related Collections Valve disease

The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna aortic xenograft: a new design with an improved hemodynamic performance

^a Department of Cardiac Surgery, Salamanca University Hospital, Paseo de San Vicente 58-182, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
^b Department of Cardiology, Salamanca University Hospital, Paseo de San Vicente 58-182, 37007 Salamanca, Spain

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-923291383; fax: +34-923291383.

E-mail address: dalmau_mjo{at}gva.es (M.J. Dalmau).

This study compares the implantation characteristics and the hemodynamic performance of the new Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna (CEPM) xenograft with those of the standard Perimount (CEPS) valve in the aortic position. Eighty consecutive patients surviving an aortic valve replacement with either the CEPS valve (n=40) or the CEPM prosthesis (n=40) in the supra-annular position were retrospectively reviewed. One year follow-up was complete and hemodynamic performance assessed by Doppler echocardiography. The mean valve size implanted was 21.3±1.7 mm (CEPS) vs. 22.2±1.8 mm (CEPM). The average mean pressure gradient was 13.6±5.1 mmHg in the CEPS group and 9.6±3.3 mmHg in the CEPM group (P<0.0001). Mean and peak gradients were slightly lower and the effective orifice areas (EOA) were larger for the Magna prosthesis than for the comparable standard valves: 19 mm (1.58±0.2 vs. 1.28±0.1 cm²), 21 mm (1.90±0.4 vs. 1.69±0.4 cm²), 23 mm (2.07±0.3 vs. 1.86±0.3 cm²), 25 mm (2.30±0.1 vs. 1.89±0.5 cm²). The average indexed EOA was statistically different between groups (CEPS 0.98±0.21 cm²/m² vs. CEPM 1.20±0.25 cm²/m²). Patient-prosthesis mismatch (indexed EOA0.85 cm²/m²) was present in 40.7% (CEPS) vs. 16.6% (CEPM) of the patients with valve sizes 21 mm. Our study demonstrates that the Magna prosthesis significantly reduces the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch when compared to the standard Perimount valve in the aortic position.

Key Words: Aortic valve replacement; Tissue valves; Hemodynamic performance