English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

ObjectiveLatest generation biologic aortic valve prostheses were designed to improve hemodynamic performance. We sought to determine whether there are clinically important early differences among these devices.MethodsThree hundred adults with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive the Edwards Magna, Sorin Mitroflow, or St. Jude Epic bioprostheses (n = 100, n = 101, n = 99, respectively). Early hemodynamic performance was studied by echocardiography.ResultsMean patient age was 76 ± 8 years and there were 203 men (68%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among implant groups. Early mortality was 1.7%, and there were no differences in early adverse events. Postoperative echocardiography showed small but statistically significant differences overall between the Magna, Mitroflow, and Epic valves in mean gradient (14.2 mm Hg, 16.3 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg, respectively; P = .011), aortic valve area (2.05 cm2, 1.88 cm2, 1.86 cm2, respectively; P = .012), and indexed aortic valve area (1.05 cm2/m2, 0.97 cm2/m2, 0.95 cm2/m2, respectively; P = .012). Prosthetic performance was similar among all with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. Patients who received the Magna device with a 23-mm annulus had slightly greater indexed aortic valve area; those with >23 mm had a slightly lower transprosthetic gradient. Analogous trends were found when data were stratified by either commercial implant size or echocardiography-determined aortic annulus size. Severe patient–prosthesis mismatch was infrequent overall and was similarly low among devices (P value not significant).ConclusionsThis prospective, randomized comparison reveals that there are small but consistent early postoperative hemodynamic differences among current third-generation porcine and pericardial aortic valve prostheses. The 3 valves studied performed equally well in patients with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. The Magna valve had a slightly lower mean gradient in those with larger annular size (>23 mm). Longitudinal follow-up of these randomized cohorts is essential to determine late clinical implications of these early postoperative findings

A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 contemporary bioprosthetic aortic valves: Should hemodynamic performance influence device selection?