{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045280960174577195, 'fraction_numerical': 0.028914348063284235, 'mean_word_length': 4.767295597484277, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Standard versus hemodynamic plus 19-mm St Jude Medical aortic valves.

OBJECTIVE
We reviewed our experience with aortic valve replacement using 19-mm St Jude Medical prostheses (St Jude Medical, Inc, St Paul, Minn) in 119 patients, among which 68 (group A) had a Standard model and 51 (group B) had a Hemodynamic Plus model.


METHODS
Comparison between the 2 models included analysis of early and late mortality and all valve-related complications. Postoperative echocardiography was performed to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of both prosthetic models. Laboratory tests were performed to evaluate the amount of red blood cell damage caused by the transprosthetic turbulent flow.


RESULTS
Average body surface area was 1.66 +/- 0.14 m(2) in group A and 1.65 +/- 0.16 m(2) in group B (P =.72). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of preoperative variables (sex, cardiac rhythm, body surface area, preoperative gradients, and New York Heart Association class). Five-year follow-up was 100% complete. Although group A patients had significantly higher postoperative peak and mean gradients (P =.0001) and a lower effective orifice area (P =.0001), no statistical differences were found in terms of late (5-year) survival (P =.6) and postoperative complications (P =.09). Moreover, postoperative left ventricular mass was found to be similar in the 2 groups (P =.18). Hematologic evaluation did not show any significant difference between the 2 groups as to incidence of hemolysis.


CONCLUSIONS
Aortic valve replacement with 19-mm aortic prostheses in patients with a body surface area of less than 1.7 m(2) allows good results. Although Hemodynamic Plus models have better hemodynamic results, no significant difference was found in terms of clinical results and clinical hemolysis.