Compartilhar
Informação da revista
Vol. 37. Núm. 10.Outubro 2018
Páginas 799-872
Compartilhar
Compartilhar
Baixar PDF
Mais opções do artigo
Visitas
146
Vol. 37. Núm. 10.Outubro 2018
Páginas 799-872
Editorial comment
DOI: 10.1016/j.repc.2018.09.004
Acesso de texto completo
The place of a stentless aortic bioprosthetic valve
O lugar de uma bioprótese aórtica sem stent
Visitas
146
Pedro M. Correia
Centro de Cirurgia Cardiotorácica, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Conteúdo relacionado
Rev Port Cardiol.2018;37:811-810.1016/j.repc.2017.11.015
Marta Andrade, Francisca Saraiva, Mário J. Amorim, Benjamim Marinho, Rui J. Cerqueira, André P. Lourenço, Paulo Pinho, Jorge Almeida, Adelino F. Leite-Moreira
Este item recebeu
146
Visitas
Informação do artigo
Texto Completo
Bibliografia
Baixar PDF
Estatísticas
Texto Completo

Despite progress in prosthetic valve manufacturing and the different types of valves that have appeared in the last two decades, the ideal replacement valve is yet to be found. Stentless aortic bioprosthetic valves were introduced to overcome some of the disadvantages of stented valves, particularly to improve hemodynamics, by increasing the effective orifice area, and to increase durability. Despite some enthusiasm, the greater technical demands of implanting stentless aortic valves have favored the widespread use of stented valves, leaving stentless valves with advantages in patients with a small aortic root or impaired left ventricular function, in whom the better hemodynamics of the stentless valve may result in better long-term results.1

The study by Andrade et al.2 published in this issue of the Journal describes the short- and medium-term outcomes of Freedom Solo and Solo Smart stentless aortic valves in a single-center experience. The authors present a retrospective cohort involving 345 patients regardless of primary indication for surgery or concomitant procedures. The perioperative results were good, as was the hemodynamic performance of the valve at six months, as demonstrated by the low mean gradient and large effective orifice area, and also reflected in the low incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Concerning long-term follow-up, the high survival and low rate of structural valve degeneration and endocarditis are encouraging, although a period longer than six years is warranted to confirm these expectations. As pointed out by the authors, the results are similar to previously published findings,3,4 and may suffer from selection bias that could affect comparisons with stented bioprostheses.

The way to change the paradigm of surgical options and bring about more widespread use of stentless valves is to prove that the more technically demanding, and thus potentially riskier, procedure is more beneficial to patients. In fact, current stentless valves are less demanding to implant, due to the simplified single suture line. Data comparing the Freedom Solo with stented valves have been recently published. Wollersheim et al.5 compared outcomes of the Freedom Solo and the Mitroflow bioprosthetic valve in patients with a small aortic root. Cross-clamp times for isolated replacement procedures were similar, around 80 min, and eight-year survival did not differ between groups, although the stentless valve had an impressive 0% cumulative incidence of aortic valve reoperation at seven years compared to 7.1% for the stented valve. Christ et al.6 compared the hemodynamic performance of the Freedom Solo to that of a stented valve (Labcor Dokimos Plus) and found no significant difference in effective orifice area. Finally, from the same group as the present paper, Cerqueira et al.7 compared the stentless Freedom Solo to the stented Trifecta. In a propensity-matched population, the stented valve showed a better hemodynamic profile, although reverse remodeling and six-year survival were comparable between the groups.

Dealing with small aortic roots, the potential for patient-prosthesis mismatch, and the desire to improve the hemodynamics of bioprostheses have long been concerns of surgeons. Aortic root enlargement to enable placement of a larger prosthesis has also proved to be feasible and effective.8 The sutureless aortic prosthesis recently appeared as an option with apparently excellent hemodynamics, reducing cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times and facilitating minimally invasive surgery and complex cardiac interventions.9 The exponential growth of transcatheter aortic valve implantation has added this technique to an already complex equation.10 While the data presented by the authors enrich the literature, it is likely that only randomized trials and longer follow-up times can give a clear view of the place of the Freedom Solo stentless aortic bioprosthetic valve in valve replacement surgery.

Conflicts of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References
[1]
H. Gulbins,H. Reichenspurner
Which patients benefit from stentless aortic valve replacement?
Ann Thorac Surg, 88 (2009), pp. 2061-2068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.06.060
[2]
M. Andrade,F. Saraiva,M.J. Amorim
Hemodynamic and clinical performance of Solo stentless bioprosthetic aortic valves
[3]
H. Grubitzsch,S. Wang,K. Matschke
Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 804 patients receiving the Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve: results from an international prospective multicentre study
Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg, 47 (2015), pp. e97-e104
[4]
A. Repossini,T. Fischlein,G. Santarpino
Pericardial stentless valve for aortic valve replacement: long-term results
Ann Thorac Surg, 102 (2016), pp. 1956-1965 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.080
[5]
L.W. Wollersheim,W.W. Li,A. Kaya
Stentless vs stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the small aortic root
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 28 (2016), pp. 390-397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2016.02.012
[6]
T. Christ,S. Holinski,K. Zhigalov
Hemodynamics of pericardial aortic valves: contemporary stented versus stentless valves in a matched comparison
Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 23 (2017), pp. 298-303 http://dx.doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.17-00061
[7]
R.J. Cerqueira,R. Raimundo,S. Moreira
Freedom Solo® versus Trifecta® bioprostheses: clinical and haemodynamic evaluation after propensity score matching
Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg, (2018), pp. 1-8
[8]
P.M. Correia,G.F. Coutinho,C. Branco
Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing aortic root enlargement for insertion of a larger prosthesis
Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg, 50 (2016),
[9]
B. Gersak,T. Fischlein,T.A. Folliguet
Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an International Expert Consensus Panel
Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg, (2015), pp. ezv369
[10]
A. Repossini,T. Fischlein,M. Solinas
Stentless sutureless and transcatheter valves: a comparison of the hemodynamic performance of different prostheses concept
Minerva Cardioangiol, 66 (2018), pp. 180-190 http://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4725.17.04564-9
Copyright © 2018. Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia
Idiomas
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia

Receba a nossa Newsletter

Opções de artigo
Ferramentas
en pt
Cookies policy Política de cookies
To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.
en pt

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos