Clinical & Experimental Cardiology
Open Access
ISSN: 2155-9880
+44 1300 500008
ISSN: 2155-9880
+44 1300 500008
Ayman Raweh
Klinikum Dortmund, Germany
Posters & Accepted Abstracts: J Clin Exp Cardiolog
The aortic valved prosthesis is a reliable solution to repair the aneurysm in aortic root and ascending aorta with involved aortic valve. The introduction of biological valved conduits brought important benefits to a large group of patients suffering from the anticoagulation therapy. Two of the most commonly used pre-sewn stentless biological conduits are BioValsalvaâ�?¢ and BioIntegral BioConduitâ�?¢. As a result of the lack of comparative studies between the different biological valved conduits, there was a need to review the midterm hemodynamic performance of these two conduits. Between July 2008 and June 2014, a total of 55 patients underwent aortic root replacement using a BioValsalva conduit (n=27) or a BioIntegral conduit (n=28). The median echocardiographic follow-up for the BioValsalva group was 44.0 months compared with 8.4 months for the BioIntegral group. The echocardiographic follow-up for the BioIntegral group was shorter because of the later introduction of BioIntegral prosthesis to the market. It was hypothesized that the BioIntegral prosthesis with no sewing ring will provide benefits in valve hemodynamics; however, these potential benefits were not observed when compared with the BioValsalva prosthesis in our echocardiographic follow-up. The effective orifice area in the BioValsalva group was 1.85 cm�?² compared with 1.80 cm�?² in the BioIntegral group (p=0.24). The mean pressure gradient in the BioValsalva group was 11.0 mm Hg compared with 11.5 in the BioIntegral group (p=0.82). In conclusion, we did not observe a significant difference in the outcome between the two biological valved conduits and both of them had excellent outcomes.
Email: AyRaweh@gmail.com