Comparing Clinical and Hemodynamic Parameters between the Two Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Abstract

Context:Various techniques have been proposed for suturing following prosthetic aortic valve implantation, but each has its potential side effects such as patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular leak (PVL).Aims:In the present study, we aimed to compare the postoperative sequels of aortic valve replacement (AVR) following the use of two suturing techniques including from the inside of the aorta as the common and classic suturing techniques as compared to new approach including from the outside of the aorta.Settings and Design:This cross-sectional study was performed on patients suffering from symptomatic severe aortic valve disease and candidates for AVR in one of three referral hospitals for cardiovascular disease patients in Shiraz from 2019–2021.Subjects and Methods:The patients underwent one of the two considered surgical techniques for AVR including traditional approach (n = 60) or the tested approach (suturing from the outside of the aorta) (n = 30).Statistical Analysis Used:For statistical analysis, results were presented as mean ± standard deviation for quantitative variables and were summarized by frequency (percentage) for categorical variables.Results:PVL and PPM were revealed in none of the participants undergoing the tested approach, while the pointed complications were found in 41.7% and 25.0% of patients underwent traditional approach, respectively, indicating a significant difference. There was no evidence of abnormal dimensionless valve index (DVI) in the patients undergoing sutures from outside the aorta, whereas the rate of DVI abnormality in the patients undergoing traditional procedures was shown to be 18.3%. The mean aortic valve gradient was significantly higher in the group scheduling for the traditional surgical method.Conclusions:Applying new suturing method as suturing from the outside of the aorta, due to the selection of appropriate valve size, the risk for adverse consequences including PPM, PVL, or DVI can be significantly reduced.