[A comparative study of the follow-up and hemodynamics in vivo of 21 mm Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular and perimount bioprostheses].
OBJECTIVE
Analysis and comparison of the clinical performance and hemodynamics in vivo of 21 mm Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular (CESA) and Perimount (CEPM) aortic bioprostheses.


METHODS
A follow-up study was made of 40 patients implanted a 21 mm CESA (n = 21) or CEPM (n = 19) prosthesis between October 1992 and September 1997. All eligible survivors (14 CESA, 12 CEPM) were assessed echocardiographically.


RESULTS
There were no significant differences between models in the effective orifice area (1.6 cm2 for CESA, 1.44 cm2 for CEPM), peak flow rate (rest: 2.5 m/s for CESA, 2.3 m/s for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 3.4 m/s for CESA, 3.3 m/s for CEPM), mean flow rate (rest: 1.7 m/s for CESA, 1.6 m/s for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 2.5 m/s for CESA, 2.2 m/s for CEPM), peak gradient (rest: 28.3 mmHg for CESA, 21.6 mmHg for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 48.4 mmHg for CESA, 41.6 mmHg for CEPM), and mean gradient (rest: 15.8 mmHg for CESA, 12.0 mmHg for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 28.5 mmHg for CESA, 22.5 mmHg for CEPM).


CONCLUSIONS
In our experience, these two prosthetic models have similar hemodynamic characteristics in small aortic annuli.
Hurlé
Aquilino
A
Servicio de Cirugía Cardíaca, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Spain. hurle_aqu@gva.es
Ibáñez
Alicia
A
Meseguer
Juan
J
Sánchez Payá
José
J
Martínez
Juan G
JG
Gómez Plana
Jesús
J
Llamas
Patricio
P
D000368:Aged; D001021:Aortic Valve; D001024:Aortic Valve Stenosis / Q000601:surgery*; D001705:Bioprosthesis; D004452:Echocardiography; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006350:Heart Valve Prosthesis; D006439:Hemodynamics; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013997:Time Factors