Comparison of Early Results of Mechanical Valve and Sutureless Biological Valve Replacement in Patients with Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis

Aim: In this study, it is aimed to compare the early results of sutureless bioprosthetic aortic valve and mechanical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Material and Methods: Between January 2015 and September 2018, 34 (18 males, 16 females) patients who underwent sutureless bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (Edwards, Intuity) and 50 (29 males, 21 females) mechanical aortic valve replacement (Medtronic, ATS) were included in the study. It is aimed to compare the demographic data and postoperative 1st month data of patients. Results: In patients with mechanical valve insertion, ejection fraction (EF) was 60 (38-69), New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification was 3 (2-4), EuroSCORE was 3 (0-7) and mean gradient was 56 (40-75) mmHg, while in patients with sutureless valve EF was determined as 52 (33-68), NYHA as 4 (2-4), EuroSCORE as 5 (0-7) and mean gradient as 60 (40-95) mmHg. In patients who underwent mechanical aortic valve replacement, 9 patients underwent coronary bypass, 7 patients underwent mitral valve replacement and 2 patients underwent tricuspid ring annuloplasty, simultaneously. In patients who underwent sutureless valve replacement, 8 patients underwent coronary bypass, 1 patient underwent mitral valve replacement and 1 patient underwent mitral repair. In both groups, a patient died within the first 30 days postoperatively. Conclusion: Advanced age and the presence of comorbidities increase the mortality and morbidity in operations due to aortic stenosis. Sutureless aortic valve replacement can be safely used in high-risk patients with low mortality and morbidity, excellent hemodynamics and short implantation time