Hemodynamics and reverse remodeling associated with Mosaic, Perimount and Trifecta aortic bioprostheses.

References

• Santarpino G, Kalisnik JM, Fischlein T, et al. Current knowledge and future perspectives regarding stented valves. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2016;64(5):542–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoye JP, Harmouche M, Soulami RB, et al. Feasibility of valve-in-valve procedure for degenerated St. Jude Medical Trifecta bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2015;24(4):484–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganapathi AM, Englum BR, Keenan JE, et al. Long-term survival after bovine pericardial versus porcine stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: does valve choice matter? Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(2):550–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap KH, Murphy R, Devbhandari M, et al. Aortic valve replacement: is porcine or bovine valve better? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;16(3):361–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickey GL, Grant SW, Bridgewater B, et al. A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38,040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47(6):1067–1074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campisi S, Camilleri L, Innorta A, et al. Early failures of Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(1):e133–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito T, Maekawa A, Fujii G, et al. Marked discrepancy in pressure gradient between Doppler and catheter examinations on Medtronic Mosaic valve in aortic position. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;60(12):818–821.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frater RW, Furlong P, Cosgrove DM, et al. Long-term durability and patient functional status of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position. J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7(1):48–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson DJ, Jamieson WR, Dumesnil JG, et al. Medtronic mosaic porcine bioprosthesis satisfactory early clinical performance. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66(6 Suppl):S122–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fouquet O, Flecher E, Nzomvuama A, et al. Haemodynamic performance of the small supra-annular Trifecta bioprosthesis: results from a French multicentre study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22(4):439–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubens FD, Rao RV, Chan V, et al. A matched-paired comparative analysis of the hemodynamics of the Trifecta and Perimount aortic bioprostheses. J Heart Valve Dis. 2015;24(4):487–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollari F, Dinges C, Vogt F, et al. First experience with the new Sorin Crown PRT bioprosthetic aortic valve: early postoperative outcome and hemodynamic performance in 90 patients. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2015;56(6):939–943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helder MR, Ugur M, Bavaria JE, et al. The effect of postoperative medical treatment on left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(3):781–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Manna A, Sanfilippo A, Capodanno D, et al. Left ventricular reverse remodeling after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuh DD. Left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement: does size really matter? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(3):787–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Bmj. 2009;339:b2700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson WR, Janusz MT, MacNab J, et al. Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71(5 Suppl):S282–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milano AD, Blanzola C, Mecozzi G, et al. Hemodynamic performance of stented and stentless aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72(1):33–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seitelberger R, Bialy J, Gottardi R, et al. Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;25(3):358–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther T, Lehmann S, Falk V, et al. Prospectively randomized evaluation of stented xenograft hemodynamic function in the aortic position. Circulation. 2004;110(11 Suppl 1):Ii74–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichinger WB, Botzenhardt F, Keithahn A, et al. Exercise hemodynamics of bovine versus porcine bioprostheses: a prospective randomized comparison of the mosaic and perimount aortic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(5):1056–1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner IM, Eichinger WB, Bleiziffer S, et al. Influence of completely supra-annular placement of bioprostheses on exercise hemodynamics in patients with a small aortic annulus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133(5):1234–1241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers JB, Rajani R, Parkin D, et al. Bovine pericardial versus porcine stented replacement aortic valves: early results of a randomized comparison of the Perimount and the Mosaic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136(5):1142–1148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanigawa K, Eishi K, Yamachika S, et al. Comparison of the effects of aortic valve replacement using 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis and 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;14(2):81–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruzicka DJ, Hettich I, Hutter A, et al. The complete supraannular concept: in vivo hemodynamics of bovine and porcine aortic bioprostheses. Circulation. 2009;120(11 Suppl):S139–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt D, Buck T, Janosi RA, et al. Results of a propensity score-matched comparison of the Perimount Magna and Mosaic Ultra aortic valve prostheses. J Heart Valve Dis. 2009;18(6):703–711. discussion 712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalmau MJ, Gonzalez-Santos JM, Blazquez JA, et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39(6):844–852. discussion 852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okamura H, Yamaguchi A, Yoshizaki T, et al. Clinical outcomes and hemodynamics of the 19-mm Perimount Magna bioprosthesis in an aortic position: comparison with the 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic Ultra valve. Circ J. 2012;76(1):102–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt D, Thielmann M, Plicht B, et al. The new St Jude Trifecta versus Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna and Magna Ease aortic bioprosthesis: is there a hemodynamic superiority? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(5):1553–1560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domoto S, Niinami H, Uwabe K, et al. Comparison of early haemodynamics of 19-mm aortic valve bioprostheses in patients with a small aortic annulus. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22(1):19–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiegl K, Deutsch MA, Rondak IC, et al. Matched comparison of two different biological prostheses for complete supra-annular aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;63(6):459–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach DS, Patel HJ, Kolias TJ, et al. Randomized comparison of exercise haemodynamics of freestyle, Magna Ease and Trifecta bioprostheses after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50(2):361–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colli A, Marchetto G, Salizzoni S, et al. The TRIBECA study: (TRI)fecta (B)ioprosthesis (E)valuation versus (C)arpentier Magna-Ease in (A)ortic position. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49(2):478–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stock S, Lohmann I, Hanke T, et al. Rest and exercise haemodynamics in patients with one of two stented bioprostheses and in healthy controls with small aortic annuli. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018;26(3):425–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobiarski J, Newcomb AE, Elhenawy AM, et al. One-year hemodynamic comparison of Perimount Magna with St Jude Epic aortic bioprostheses. Arch Med Sci. 2013;9(3):445–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahou A, Mahjoub H, Pibarot P. Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2016;18(11):67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alizadeh-Ghavidel A, Azarfarin R, Alizadehasl A, et al. Moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch has no negative effect on patients’ functional status after aortic valve replacement with carbomedics prosthesis. Res Cardiovasc Med. 2016;5(2):e29038.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen J, Lin Y, Kang B, et al. Indexed effective orifice area is a significant predictor of higher mid- and long-term mortality rates following aortic valve replacement in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45(2):234–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kato Y, Suehiro S, Shibata T, et al. Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival and left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Card Surg. 2007;22(4):314–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(12):1518–1529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl JS, Videbaek L, Poulsen MK, et al. Effect of candesartan treatment on left ventricular remodeling after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(5):713–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohty D, Dumesnil JG, Echahidi N, et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity, and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(1):39–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bech-Hanssen O, Caidahl K, Wallentin I, et al. Assessment of effective orifice area of prosthetic aortic valves with doppler echocardiography: an in vivo and in vitro study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;122(2):287–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali A, Patel A, Ali Z, et al. Enhanced left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis is associated with improved long-term survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142(2):285–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito H, Mizumoto T, Shomura Y, et al. The impact of global left ventricular afterload on left ventricular reverse remodeling after aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg. 2017;32(9):530–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar