Search

Background: Stentless aortic bioprostheses were designed to provide improved hemodynamic performance and potentially better survival., Objectives: To report the outcomes of patients after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis at the Tel Aviv Medical Center followed for < or = 15 years., Methods and Results: Between 1997 and 2011, 268 patients underwent primary aortic valve replacement with a Freestyle bioprosthesis, 211 (79%) of them in the sub-coronary position. Mean age, Charlson comorbidity index and Euro-score were 71.0 +/- 9.2 years, 4.2 +/- 1.5 and 10.2 +/- 11 respectively, and 156 (58%) were male. Peak and mean trans-aortic gradient decreased significantly (75.0 +/- 29.1 vs. 22.8 +/- 9.6 mmHg, P < 0.0001; and 43.4 +/- 17.2 vs. 12.1 +/- 5.4 mmHg, P < 0.0001 respectively) during 3 months of follow-up. Mean overall follow-up was 4.9 +/- 3.1 years and was complete in all patients. In-hospital mortality was 4.1% (n=11) but differed significantly between the first 100 patients operated before 2006 and the last 168 patients operated after January 2006 (8 vs. 3 patients, 8.0% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.01). Overall, 5 and 10 year survival rates were 85 +/- 2.5% and 57.2 +/- 5.7%, respectively. Five year survival was markedly improved in patients operated after January 2006 compared to those operated in the early years of the experience (92.3 +/- 2.3% vs. 76.0 +/- 4.4%, P = 0.0009). All the 21 octogenarians operated after January 2006 survived surgery, with excellent 5 year survival (85.1 +/- 7.9%). Six patients required reoperation during follow-up: structural valve deterioration in five and endocarditis in one., Conclusions: Aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle bioprosthesis provides good long-term hemodynamic and clinical outcomes, even in octogenarians. Valve calcification is the major (and rare) mode of valve deterioration leading to reoperation in these patients.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement of proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) and vena contracta (VC) for differentiating severe from nonsevere mitral regurgitation (MR)., Background: Recommendation for MR evaluation stresses the importance of VC width and effective regurgitant orifice area by PISA measurements. Reliable and accurate assessment of MR is important for clinical decision making regarding corrective surgery. We hypothesize that color Doppler-based quantitative measurements for classifying MR as severe versus nonsevere may be particularly susceptible to interobserver agreement., Methods: The PISA and VC measurements of 16 patients with MR were interpreted by 18 echocardiologists from 11 academic institutions. In addition, we obtained quantitative assessment of MR based on color flow Doppler jet area., Results: The overall interobserver agreement for grading MR as severe or nonsevere using qualitative and quantitative parameters was similar and suboptimal: 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1 to 0.52) for jet area-based MR grade, 0.28 (95% CI: 0.11 to 0.45) for VC measurements, and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.16 to 0.58) for PISA measurements. Significant univariate predictors of substantial interobserver agreement for: 1) jet area-based MR grade was functional etiology (p = 0.039); 2) VC was central MR (p = 0.013) and identifiable effective regurgitant orifice (p = 0.049); and 3) PISA was presence of a central MR jet (p = 0.003), fixed proximal flow convergence (p = 0.025), and functional etiology (p = 0.049). Significant multivariate predictors of raw interobserver agreement > or =80% included: 1) for VC, identifiable effective regurgitant orifice (p = 0.035); and 2) for PISA, central regurgitant jet (p = 0.02)., Conclusions: The VC and PISA measurements for distinction of severe versus nonsevere MR are only modestly reliable and associated with suboptimal interobserver agreement. The presence of an identifiable effective regurgitant orifice improves reproducibility of VC and a central regurgitant jet predicts substantial agreement among multiple observers of PISA assessment., (Copyright 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)