In this prospective single-center study included 60 patients with a severe degenerative aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (\<21 mm) who underwent standard AVR with stented bioprosthesis (group 1, n=30) and aortic valve reconstruction using autologus pericardium (Ozaki procedure) (group 2, n=30)
Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with a small aortic annulus is a challenging problem. Implantation of a small aortic valve sometimes leads to high residual gradients, despite a normally functioning prosthesis. Patients with a small aortic annulus, especially those with a large body surface area, are at higher risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch, which is associated with worse clinical outcomes and decreased survival. The purpose of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance among the 2 management strategies (standard AVR with stented bioprosthesis and Ozaki procedure) in the context of a small aortic annulus (\<21 mm)
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
60
Standart AVR using stented stented bioprosthesis aortic valve reconstruction using autologus pericardium
FederalCCS
Penza, Russia
Indexed effective orifice area, cm²/m²
Assessment of aortic valve dimension
Time frame: 12 months after surgery
prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM)
Indicator of the effectiveness of aortic valve replacement
Time frame: 12 months after surgery
Peak pressure gradient, mm.Hg
Indicator of the effectiveness of aortic valve replacement
Time frame: 12 months after surgery
Mean pressure gradient, mm.Hg
Indicator of the effectiveness of aortic valve replacement
Time frame: 12 months after surgery
Effective orifice area, EOA, cm²
Assessment of aortic valve dimension
Time frame: 12 months after surgery
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.