Ayman Raweh
Heart Center Dortmund, Germany
Title: BioValsalva or biointegral: Which biological aortic valved conduit has a better hemodynamic performance?
Biography
Biography: Ayman Raweh
Abstract
The aortic valved prosthesis is a reliable solution to repair the aneurysm in aortic root and ascending aorta with involved aortic valve. The introduction of biological valved conduits brought important benefits to a large group of patients suffering from the anticoagulation therapy. Two of the most commonly used pre-sewn stentless biological conduits are BioValsalva™ and BioIntegral BioConduit™. As a result of the lack of comparative studies between the different biological valved conduits, there was a need to review the midterm haemodynamic performance of these two conduits. Between July 2008 and June 2014, a total of 55 patients underwent aortic root replacement using a BioValsalva conduit (n=27) or a BioIntegral conduit (n=28). The median echocardiographic follow-up for the BioValsalva group was 44.0 months compared with 8.4 months for the BioIntegral group. The echocardiographic followup for the BioIntegral group was shorter because of the later introduction of BioIntegral prosthesis to the market. It was hypothesised that the BioIntegral prosthesis with no sewing ring will provide benefits in valve haemodynamics; however, these potential benefits were not observed when compared with the BioValsalva prosthesis in our echocardiographic follow-up. The effective orifice area in the BioValsalva group was 1.85 cm² compared with 1.80 cm² in the BioIntegral group (p=0.24). The mean pressure gradient in the BioValsalva group was 11.0 mm Hg compared with 11.5 in the BioIntegral group (p=0.82). In conclusion, we did not observe a significant difference in the outcome between the two biological valved conduits, and both of them had excellent outcomes.