At 5 years, the EPM valve was significantly superior to the MM prosthesis with regard to hemodynamic performance, incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and regression of LV mass index. The hemodynamic superiority of the EPM prostheses in comparison to MM-prostheses demonstrated at 1 year, increased significantly over time.

Background-Left ventricular free wall rupture (LVFWR) is a dramatic complication after myocardial infarction. We present our mid-term clinical and echocardiographic results of LVFWR with an epicardial patch without cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods-From

This study compares the implantation characteristics and the hemodynamic performance of the new Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna (CEPM) xenograft with those of the standard Perimount (CEPS) valve in the aortic position. Eighty consecutive patients surviving an aortic valve replacement with either the CEPS valve (n=40) or the CEPM prosthesis (n=40) in the supra-annular position were retrospectively reviewed. One year follow-up was complete and hemodynamic performance assessed by Doppler echocardiography. The mean valve size implanted was 21.3+/-1.7 mm (CEPS) vs. 22.2+/-1.8 mm (CEPM). The average mean pressure gradient was 13.6+/-5.1 mmHg in the CEPS group and 9.6+/-3.3 mmHg in the CEPM group (P<0.0001). Mean and peak gradients were slightly lower and the effective orifice areas (EOA) were larger for the Magna prosthesis than for the comparable standard valves: 19 mm (1.58+/-0.2 vs. 1.28+/-0.1 cm(2)), 21 mm (1.90+/-0.4 vs. 1.69+/-0.4 cm(2)), 23 mm (2.07+/-0.3 vs. 1.86+/-0.3 cm(2)), 25 mm (2.30+/-0.1 vs. 1.89+/-0.5 cm(2)). The average indexed EOA was statistically different between groups (CEPS 0.98+/-0.21 cm(2)/m(2) vs. CEPM 1.20+/-0.25 cm(2)/m(2)). Patient-prosthesis mismatch (indexed EOA

We compared the hemodynamic performance of the Edwards Perimount Magna (EPM) and the Medtronic Mosaic (MM) bioprostheses according to the patient aortic annulus diameter (AAD). Eighty-six patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were prospectively assigned to receive either an EPM-valve (n=43) or an MM-bioprosthesis (n=43). Randomization was performed after measuring the AAD and patients were grouped according to their AAD: <22 mm (n=12), 22-23 mm (n=31) and >23 mm (n=43). Echocardiographic assessment was performed one year postoperatively. The mean AAD (EPM 23.9+/-2.1 mm vs. MM 23.6+/-2.3 mm) and mean valve size implanted (EPM 22.6+/-2.1 mm vs. MM 23.3+/-2.1 mm) were comparable in both groups. The EPM-group showed significantly lower mean gradient (EPM 10.2+/-3.2 mmHg vs. MM 17.1+/-8.2 mmHg) and larger effective orifice area (EOA) (EPM 1.99+/-0.4 cm(2) vs. MM 1.69+/-0.4 cm(2), P<0.0001). The EPM-valve was superior with respect to mean pressure gradient and EOA in all AAD. This difference was statistically significant in AAD of 22-23 mm (EPM 9.6+/-3.0 mmHg vs. MM 18.2+/-8.6 mmHg; EPM 1.82+/-0.3 cm (2) vs. MM 1.51+/-0.2 cm (2)) and >23 mm (EPM 9.9+/-3.1 mmHg vs. MM 14.2+/-5.6 mmHg; EPM 2.18+/-0.4 cm(2) vs. MM 1.94+/-0.5 cm(2)). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was present in 26.8% (MM) vs. 6.9% (EPM) of the patients (P=0.01). When the same AAD is taken as a reference, the EPM-valve was hemodynamically superior to the MM-bioprosthesis. The EPM-prosthesis significantly reduced the incidence of PPM.