The Influence of Prosthesis Size and Design on Exercise Dynamics after Aortic Valve Replacement Niaz F. Ali1, Vinod S. Mahadevan2, Andrew Muir1, Christine Maguire2,
David Young3, Gianfranco Campalani1, Norman P. S. Campbell2, Mark H.
D. Danton1 |
|||||||
Background and aim of the study: Residual gradient following
aortic valve replacement (AVR) may adversely affect clinical outcome.
The size and design of the valve may influence these characteristics.
The study aim was to determine the influence of prosthesis physical size
and leaflet design on hemodynamic performance after mechanical AVR. |
However, in valve sizes £25 mm the bileaflet valves
demonstrated lower gradients, both at rest and under exercise conditions
(mean gradient during exercise, bileaflet versus monoleaflet 19.9 ± 7.2
mmHg versus 25.6 ± 6.3 mmHg, p = 0.01). Similarly, EOAs were larger
in the bileaflet group when equivalent GOAs £2.5 cm2 were compared
(EOA: bileaflet versus monoleaflet 1.51 ± 0.33 cm2 versus 1.14 ± 0.26
cm2, p = 0.018). The total work performed correlated with prosthesis
diameter (r2 = 0.81, p = 0.037) and was not influenced by valve design. |
||||||
|
|||||||