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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dalmau, M. J. Articles by Nieto, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dalmau, M. J. Articles by Nieto, F. Related Collections Cardiac - other Valve disease

One year hemodynamic performance of the Perimount Magna pericardial xenograft and the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: a prospective randomized study

^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).

We compared the hemodynamic performance of the Edwards Perimount Magna (EPM) and the Medtronic Mosaic (MM) bioprostheses according to the patient aortic annulus diameter (AAD). Eighty-six patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were prospectively assigned to receive either an EPM-valve (n=43) or an MM-bioprosthesis (n=43). Randomization was performed after measuring the AAD and patients were grouped according to their AAD: <22 mm (n=12), 22–23 mm (n=31) and >23 mm (n=43). Echocardiographic assessment was performed one year postoperatively. The mean AAD (EPM 23.9±2.1 mm vs. MM 23.6±2.3 mm) and mean valve size implanted (EPM 22.6±2.1 mm vs. MM 23.3±2.1 mm) were comparable in both groups. The EPM-group showed significantly lower mean gradient (EPM 10.2±3.2 mmHg vs. MM 17.1±8.2 mmHg) and larger effective orifice area (EOA) (EPM 1.99±0.4 cm² vs. MM 1.69±0.4 cm², P<0.0001). The EPM-valve was superior with respect to mean pressure gradient and EOA in all AAD. This difference was statistically significant in AAD of 22–23 mm (EPM 9.6±3.0 mmHg vs. MM 18.2±8.6 mmHg; EPM 1.82±0.3 cm ² vs. MM 1.51±0.2 cm ²) and >23 mm (EPM 9.9±3.1 mmHg vs. MM 14.2±5.6 mmHg; EPM 2.18±0.4 cm² vs. MM 1.94±0.5 cm²). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was present in 26.8% (MM) vs. 6.9% (EPM) of the patients (P=0.01). When the same AAD is taken as a reference, the EPM-valve was hemodynamically superior to the MM-bioprosthesis. The EPM-prosthesis significantly reduced the incidence of PPM.

Key Words: Aortic valve replacement; Biological prosthesis; Hemodynamic performance

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Nozohoor, J. Nilsson, C. Luhrs, A. Roijer, and J. Sjogren Influence of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Diastolic Heart Failure After Aortic Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2008; 85(4): 1310 - 1317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]