Hemodynamic performance of stented and stentless aortic bioprostheses

Background. This study compares the hemodynamic performance of stented and stentless bioprostheses used for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and small aortic root. Methods. Between 1995 and 1998, 37 patients with a 21-mm aortic annulus (group 1) underwent aortic valve replacement with either a 21-mm Edwards Perimount or a 23-mm St. Jude Toronto bioprosthesis whereas 47 patients with a 23-mm aortic annulus (group 2) received either a 23-mm Medtronic Mosaic or a 25-mm Edwards Prima bioprosthesis. In each group mean and peak gradients, effective orifice area index, and left ventricular mass index were compared during follow-up. Results. Group 1 patients showed a significant reduction of mean (p < 0.001) and peak gradients (p = 0.001) during follow-up, more evident for St. Jude Toronto versus Edwards Perimount (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). Group 2 patients showed a significant reduction of mean and peak gradients (p < 0.001), more evident for Edwards Prima versus Medtronic Mosaic (p < 0.001 and p = 0.07, respectively). Effective orifice area index significantly increased only in group 1 (p = 0.005). Left ventricular mass index significantly decreased in all patients regardless of the type of valve (p < 0.001). Patients with Edwards Prima showed a trend to a higher regression of left ventricular mass index versus Medtronic Mosaic recipients (p = 0.07). Conclusions. After aortic valve replacement, stented and stentless bioprostheses exhibited similar results with a more evident hemodynamic improvement during follow-up in the stentless valves. Stented bioprostheses of new generation, however, may parallel the hemodynamic performance of stentless valves and appear to be a valid alternative for aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with a small aortic annulus.