PMID- 10440656
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 19990916
LR  - 20190921
IS  - 0886-0440 (Print)
IS  - 0886-0440 (Linking)
VI  - 13
IP  - 5
DP  - 1998 Sep-Oct
TI  - Clinical and hemodynamic comparison of the Medtronic Freestyle and Toronto SPV 
      stentless valves.
PG  - 398-407
AB  - The excellent hemodynamics of stentless valves have been observed by numerous 
      investigators. With the recent release of the Toronto SPV (stentless porcine 
      valve) and the Medtronic Freestyle stentless valves in North America, it is 
      appropriate to now compare the clinical and hemodynamic performance of these 
      devices. We analyzed the results of 995 patients who underwent aortic valve 
      replacement (AVR) with either of the two valves; in all cases a subcoronary 
      implant technique was used. There were important differences in the preoperative 
      characteristics for the two groups: Medtronic Freestyle patients were notably 
      older than the Toronto SPV patients (70.7+/-8.6 vs 61.8+/-11.1 years, p < 0.001) 
      and were markedly more symptomatic (p < 0.0001). In the Toronto SPV group, most 
      patients had New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II (41.5%) or Class III 
      (44.7%) symptoms preoperatively, while in the Freestyle group, 61.5% were in 
      Class III and 12.5% were in Class IV. There were no notable differences in 
      mortality or morbidity for the two groups. Both devices demonstrated a meaningful 
      decrease in mean gradient and a corresponding increase in effective orifice area 
      (EOA). Furthermore, the indexed EOA (EOA/body surface area [BSA]) was > 1cm2/m2 
      for all valves indicating there was no patient-prosthetic mismatch. There was a 
      meaningful decrease in left ventricular (LV) mass as well as LV mass index (LVMI) 
      for both devices up to 3 years postoperatively. Our data indicate that there were 
      no differences in clinical outcome or hemodynamic performance of these two 
      valves. Both devices offer excellent results with normalization of LV function.
FAU - Del Rizzo, D F
AU  - Del Rizzo DF
AD  - Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 
      ddelrizzo@exchange.hsc.mb.ca
FAU - Abdoh, A
AU  - Abdoh A
LA  - eng
PT  - Clinical Trial
PT  - Clinical Trial, Phase II
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Multicenter Study
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PL  - United States
TA  - J Card Surg
JT  - Journal of cardiac surgery
JID - 8908809
SB  - IM
MH  - Aged
MH  - Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging/surgery
MH  - *Bioprosthesis
MH  - Female
MH  - Follow-Up Studies
MH  - Heart Valve Diseases/mortality/physiopathology/*surgery
MH  - *Heart Valve Prosthesis
MH  - Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/*instrumentation/mortality
MH  - Heart Ventricles/diagnostic imaging/physiopathology
MH  - *Hemodynamics
MH  - Humans
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Prospective Studies
MH  - Prosthesis Design
MH  - Safety
MH  - Survival Rate
MH  - Treatment Outcome
MH  - Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color
EDAT- 1999/08/10 00:00
MHDA- 1999/08/10 00:01
CRDT- 1999/08/10 00:00
PHST- 1999/08/10 00:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 1999/08/10 00:01 [medline]
PHST- 1999/08/10 00:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1111/j.1540-8191.1998.tb01103.x [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Card Surg. 1998 Sep-Oct;13(5):398-407. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8191.1998.tb01103.x.