초록접수 현황
| 20F-070 | 포스터 발표 |
A comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement : Carpentier-Edwards Magna Mitral Ease valve versus PERIMOUNT Plus valve
Seung Woo Ryu, Ho Jin Kim, Joon Bum Kim, Sung-Ho Jung, Suk Jung Joo, Cheol Hyun Chung, Jae Won Lee
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Purpose : Carpentier-Edwards Magna Mitral Ease valve has a low-profile design and uses ThermaFix process for enhanced calcium removal. We compared the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of the Magna Mitral Ease valve with the PERIMOUNT Plus mitral valve.
Methods : A total of 170 patients underwent bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement between January 2015 and December 2019, with implantation of the PERIMOUNT Plus mitral valve (group 1, n = 93) or the Magna Mitral Ease valve (group 2, n=77). We retrospectively reviewed clinical and hemodynamic data. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated by echocardiography, including left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) flow acceleration, mean pressure gradients, mitral valve area.
Results : The groups did not differ for variables known to affect hemodynamic measurements including age, sex, body surface area, left ventricular inner dimension and aortomitral annular angle. Postoperatively, LVOT flow acceleration was observed in 9 patients of group 1 and none in group 2 (p=0.004). Early mortality was reported in 8 (8.6%) and 2 (2.6%) patients in the group 1 and the group 2, respectively (p=0.115). There were no significant difference in the incidence of major valve-related complications.
Conclusion : The Mitral Magna Ease valve’s low-profile design make less LVOT flow acceleration compared with the PERIMOUNT Plus mitral valve. However there were no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Further studies should be performed for comparison of long-term outcomes.
Methods : A total of 170 patients underwent bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement between January 2015 and December 2019, with implantation of the PERIMOUNT Plus mitral valve (group 1, n = 93) or the Magna Mitral Ease valve (group 2, n=77). We retrospectively reviewed clinical and hemodynamic data. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated by echocardiography, including left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) flow acceleration, mean pressure gradients, mitral valve area.
Results : The groups did not differ for variables known to affect hemodynamic measurements including age, sex, body surface area, left ventricular inner dimension and aortomitral annular angle. Postoperatively, LVOT flow acceleration was observed in 9 patients of group 1 and none in group 2 (p=0.004). Early mortality was reported in 8 (8.6%) and 2 (2.6%) patients in the group 1 and the group 2, respectively (p=0.115). There were no significant difference in the incidence of major valve-related complications.
Conclusion : The Mitral Magna Ease valve’s low-profile design make less LVOT flow acceleration compared with the PERIMOUNT Plus mitral valve. However there were no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Further studies should be performed for comparison of long-term outcomes.
첨부파일 : Table 0902.docx
책임저자: Sung-Ho Jung
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
발표자: Seung Woo Ryu, E-mail : ryus_1018@naver.com