[A comparative study of the follow-up and hemodynamics in vivo of 21 mm Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular and perimount bioprostheses].

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Analysis and comparison of the clinical performance and hemodynamics in vivo of 21 mm Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular (CESA) and Perimount (CEPM) aortic bioprostheses.

METHODS: A follow-up study was made of 40 patients implanted a 21 mm CESA (n = 21) or CEPM (n = 19) prosthesis between October 1992 and September 1997. All eligible survivors (14 CESA, 12 CEPM) were assessed echocardiographically.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences between models in the effective orifice area (1.6 cm2 for CESA, 1.44 cm2 for CEPM), peak flow rate (rest: 2.5 m/s for CESA, 2.3 m/s for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 3.4 m/s for CESA, 3.3 m/s for CEPM), mean flow rate (rest: 1.7 m/s for CESA, 1.6 m/s for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 2.5 m/s for CESA, 2.2 m/s for CEPM), peak gradient (rest: 28.3 mmHg for CESA, 21.6 mmHg for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 48.4 mmHg for CESA, 41.6 mmHg for CEPM), and mean gradient (rest: 15.8 mmHg for CESA, 12.0 mmHg for CEPM; post-dobutamine: 28.5 mmHg for CESA, 22.5 mmHg for CEPM).

CONCLUSION: In our experience, these two prosthetic models have similar hemodynamic characteristics in small aortic annuli.