Clin Res Cardiol 96:Suppl 2 (2007)

P373 - Is the PERIMOUNT 2900 Bioprosthesis better than the EPIC Bioprosthesis?
S. Christiansen1, M. Schmid1, R. Autschbach1
1Klinik für Thorax-, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Aachen;
Objective: To evaluate the mid-term hemodynamic performance of the EPIC (SJM) and the PERIMOUNT 2900 (CE) Bioprostheses.
Methods: From January 2002 to June 2003 81 patients underwent an aortic valve replacement using both bioprostheses (PERIMOUNT 2900: 37 patients, EPIC: 44 patients). The mean diameter of the implanted prostheses was 24 mm in both groups. The follow-up examinations were done 10 months later with a transthoracic echocardiography.
Results: The orifice area of the PERIMOUNT 2900 Bioprosthesis was significantly greater than the orifice area of the EPIC prosthesis (1.42 +/- 0.44 cm2 versus 1.11 +/- 0.42 cm2, p = 0.004). Also the mean and the maximum pressure gradients were significantly lower for the PERIMOUNT 2900 bioprosthesis (11.1 +/- 4.2 versus 14.8 +/- 6.4 mmHg, p = 0.004 and 20.4 +/- 7.1 versus 27.3 +/- 10.9 mmHg, p = 0.002). Corresponding with these results the stroke-work-loss was significantly higher for the EPIC than for the PERIMOUNT 2900 bioprosthesis (8.49 +/- 3.5 versus 6.95 +/- 2.0 %, p = 0.025). These differences were more pronounced for smaller prostheses than for greater ones.
Conclusions: Regarding these results the PERIMOUNT 2900 bioprosthesis appears to have the better hemodynamic mid-term performance compared with the EPIC bioprosthesis. If these differences are relevant for the patient`s long-term survival must be examined with studies with a longer follow-up.