HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): John R. Pepper Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jin, X. Y. Articles by Pepper, J. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jin, X. Y. Articles by Pepper, J. R. Related Collections Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002;22:95-100
© 2002 Elsevier Science NL

Review

Do stentless valves make a difference?

Department of Academic Surgery, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, Dovehouse Street, London, SW3 6LY, UK

Received 18 January 2002; received in revised form 18 March 2002; accepted 22 March 2002.

* Corresponding author

Stentless glutaraldehyde-preserved bioprosthetic valves for the aortic position were introduced into clinical practice in 1988. Their introduction coincided with the publication of several long-term observational studies of aortic homografts, which showed superior freedom from structural valve damage compared to the first generation stented porcine bioprosthesis. There followed 10 years of intensive investigation into the haemodynamic characteristics of stentless valves. These studies have demonstrated superior haemodynamic features in terms of transvalvular pressure gradients, effective orifice area, and more complete regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Despite these advantages, stentless valves have yet to be adopted widely. This review seeks to explain this paradox.

Key Words: Aotic valve • Stentless valve • Bioprosthesis • Haemodynamics

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Pavoni, L. P. Badano, F. Ius, E. Mazzaro, R. Frassani, S. Gelsomino, and U. Livi Limited Long-Term Durability of the Cryolife O'Brien Stentless Porcine Xenograft Valve Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11_suppl): I-307 - I-313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Kunihara, K. Schmidt, P. Glombitza, V. Dzindzibadze, H. Lausberg, and H.-J. Schafers Root replacement using stentless valves in the small aortic root: a propensity score analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2006; 82(4): 1379 - 1384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Perez de Arenaza, B. Lees, M. Flather, F. Nugara, T. Husebye, M. Jasinski, M. Cisowski, M. Khan, M. Henein, J. Gaer, et al. Randomized Comparison of Stentless Versus Stented Valves for Aortic Stenosis: Effects on Left Ventricular Mass Circulation, October 25, 2005; 112(17): 2696 - 2702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. F. Konertz Stentless Aortic Xenograft Heart Valves Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, March 1, 2003; 11(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]