It's not just the CROWN that makes the king, results in aortic position

Abstract

Introduction

The use of biological valves in the aortic position has become more liberal in recent years due to improvements in prostheses and the possibility of performing valve-in-valve procedures, thus avoiding anticoagulation.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 246 adults in whom the Crown PRT^TM biological valve was used in the aortic position, including elective and emergency cases, isolated and combined surgeries (CS). We also evaluated mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up.

Results

In this study, CS involved 94 patients (38%), while 39 patients (16%) underwent urgent or emergency procedures, which included cases of aortic dissection and endocarditis. Approximately 69% of the patients received a valve more significant than 21 mm. A minimally invasive surgical approach was employed in 42 patients (17%). The in-hospital mortality for the entire patient population was 3.6% (n = 9), with isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) accounting for 3.3% (n = 5) and CS for another 4.3% (n = 4). The mortality for isolated AVR and CS in elective situations was n = 2 (1.3%) and n = 1 (1.1%), respectively. During the follow-up period, only seven patients required reoperation, with two patients (0.8%) experiencing structural valve deterioration and five other patients (2.1%) requiring reoperation due to prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Conclusion

The use of the Crown valve in the aortic position appears to be safe regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality. Further studies are necessary to assess its applicability in younger patients and predict its performance in the event of a valve-in-valve procedure.