Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018

Seven-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVE

As bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) extends to younger cohorts, tissue durability is of paramount importance. We report 7-year outcomes from an AVR bioprosthesis utilizing novel tissue.

METHODS

This was an international investigational device exemption trial for novel AVR with annual follow-up and a subset re-consented at 5 years for extended 10-year follow-up. Safety end points and echocardiographic measurements were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee and by a dedicated core laboratory, respectively.

RESULTS

Between January 2013 and March 2016, 689 patients underwent AVR with the study valve. Mean age was 66.9 ± 11.6 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 2.0% ± 1.8%, and 74.3% of patients were New York Heart Association functional class II and III. Five-year follow-up was completed by 512 patients, and 225 re-consented for extended follow-up. Follow-up duration was 5.3 ± 2.2 years (3665.6 patient-years), and 194 and 195 patients completed 6- and 7-year follow-ups, respectively. One-, 5-, and 7-year freedom from all-cause mortality was 97.7%, 89.4%, and 85.4%, respectively. Freedom from structural valve deterioration at 7 years was 99.3%. At 7 years, effective orifice area and mean gradients were 1.82 ± 0.57 cm2 (n = 153), and 9.4 ± 4.5 mm Hg (n = 157), respectively. At 7 years, predominantly none (96.8% [152 out of 157]) or trivial/trace (2.5% [4 out of 157]) paravalvular regurgitation and none (84.7% [133 out of 157]) or trivial/trace (11.5% [18 out of 157]) transvalvular regurgitation were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the longest surgical AVR follow-up with novel tissue in an investigational device exemption trial utilizing an independent clinical events committee and an echocardiography core laboratory. This tissue demonstrates excellent outcomes through 7 years and is the benchmark for future surgical and transcatheter prostheses.

Lifetime Management for Aortic Stenosis: Strategy and Decision-Making in the Current Era

Aortic stenosis, the most common valvular disease in the Western world, has traditionally been treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) but is increasingly treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Whereas patients older than 65 years are preferably treated with bioprosthetic tissue valves, there is considerable uncertainty in the choice between TAVR and SAVR. We present various considerations for optimizing the lifelong management of patients receiving bioprosthetic valves (SAVR or TAVR). To maximize life expectancy and to minimize cumulative lifetime risk, we suggest decision-making individualized for patient anatomy and overall (current and future) risk.

Severe aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement with Perimount in Western Denmark 2016-2022: a nationwide retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The healthcare registries in Denmark present a unique opportunity to gain novel insights into the outcomes associated with both transcatheter and surgical approaches to aortic valve replacement. Our objective is to enhance shared decision-making by comparing long-term mortality and clinical outcomes between treatments.

METHODS

This observational study included all patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing elective isolated transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Western Denmark between January 2016 and April 2022. Patient population and clinical data were identified from the Western Danish Heart Registry and the National Danish Patient Registry, respectively. A propensity score-matched population was generated. Outcomes were investigated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3.

RESULTS

A total of 2269 TAVI patients and 1094 SAVR patients where identified. The propensity score-matched population consisted of 468 TAVI patients (mean[SD]age, 75.0[5.3] years) and 468 SAVR patients (mean[SD] age, 75.1[4.6]years). The Kaplan-Meier estimate for the 5-year all-cause mortality was 29.8% in the TAVI group and 16.9% for in the SAVR group (P = 0.019). The risk of all stroke or transient ischaemic attack after five year was 15.1% in the TAVI group and 11.0% in the SAVR group (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the importance of evaluating all patient factors when choosing an aortic valve replacement method. Surgical aortic valve replacement was an excellent choice, especially for patients with New York Heart Association class I/II, ≥75 age, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, or longer life expectancy.

Mechanical or biological prosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients aged 45 to 74 years

OBJECTIVE

The selection of valve prostheses for patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement remains controversial. In this study, we compared the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with biological or mechanical aortic valve prostheses.

METHODS

We evaluated late results among 5762 patients aged 45 to 74 years who underwent biological or mechanical aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass from 1989 to 2019 at 4 medical centers. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare late survival; the age-dependent effect of prosthesis type on long-term survival was evaluated by an interaction term between age and prosthesis type. Incidences of stroke, major bleeding, and reoperation on the aortic valve after the index procedure were compared between prosthesis groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 61% (n = 3508) of patients received a bioprosthesis. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.7% (n = 58) in the bioprosthesis group and 1.5% (n = 34) in the mechanical group (P = .75). During a mean follow-up of 9.0 years, the adjusted risk of mortality was higher in the bioprosthesis group (hazard ratio, 1.30, P < .001). The long-term survival benefit associated with mechanical prosthesis persisted until 70 years of age. Bioprosthesis (vs mechanical prosthesis) was associated with a similar risk of stroke (P = .20), lower risk of major bleeding (P < .001), and higher risk of reoperation (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with bioprostheses, mechanical aortic valves are associated with a lower adjusted risk of long-term mortality in patients aged 70 years or less. Patients aged less than 70 years undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement should be informed of the potential survival benefit of mechanical valve substitutes.

Mid-term outcomes and hemodynamic performance of the St Jude Medical Epic aortic bioprosthesis for severe aortic stenosis

The St. Jude Medical Epic Supra valve is a porcine bioprosthesis designed for complete supraannular implantation. No report has shown the hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Epic Supra valve for severe aortic stenosis in a Japanese cohort. We retrospectively evaluated 65 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement using the Epic Supra valve for aortic stenosis at our department between May, 2011 and October, 2016. The mean follow-up period was 68.7 ± 32.7 months, and the follow-up rate was 89.2%. The mean age was 76.8 ± 5.3 years. The 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 96.9%, 79.4%, and 60.3%, respectively. The rates of freedom from valve-related events were 96.6% and 81.9% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. Four patients were diagnosed with structural valve deterioration (SVD), and reintervention was performed in two patients. The rates of freedom from SVD were 98.2% and 83.3% at 5 and 8 years, respectively, and the mean time to diagnosis of SVD was 72.5 ± 25.3 months. The mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 16.8 ± 6.0 mmHg postoperatively, 17.5 ± 9.4 mmHg at 5 years, and 21.2 ± 12.4 mmHg at 8 years (p = 0.08). The effective orifice area index (EOAI) was 0.95 ± 0.2 cm2/m2 immediately after surgery, 0.96 ± 0.27 cm2/m2 at 5 years, and 0.84 ± 0.2 cm2/m2 at 8 years (p = 0.10). An increase in MPG and decrease in EOAI were also observed, which may be associated with SVD. Follow-up after 5 years is important to determine if there is an increase.

Comparative Long-Term Clinical Performance of Mechanical Aortic Valve Prostheses

Importance

Aggregated data and long-term follow-up in national health data registers offer the opportunity to compare the performance of mechanical aortic prostheses within the same population.

Objective

To investigate the clinical performance of mechanical aortic valve prostheses.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide cohort study included all 5224 patients who underwent primary mechanical aortic valve replacement in Sweden between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed between May and September 2023.

Exposures

Surgical aortic valve replacement with the On-X, Carbomedics, Bicarbon, Standard, Regent, Open Pivot, Masters, or Advantage valve models.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were reintervention, heart failure, major bleeding, stroke, and embolic events. Regression standardization was used to account for baseline differences.

Results

Overall, 5224 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.8 [11.7] years; 3908 men [74.8%]) were included. Total follow-up time was 43 982 person-years (mean [SD], 8.4 [4.6] years; maximum, 17.2 years). After regression standardization, there was a significant difference in 10-year mortality between the Carbomedics model group (17%; 95% CI, 15%-18%), Regent model group (17%; 95% CI, 13%-20%), and Standard model group (17%; 95% CI, 14%-19%) compared with the Bicarbon model group (27%; 95% CI, 21%-34%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of mechanical valve surgical aortic replacement outcomes in Sweden, the rate of all-cause mortality was higher in the Bicarbon group than in the Carbomedics, Regent, and Standard model groups. These findings warrant further research on the long-term clinical performance of the Bicarbon valve.

Late clinical and echocardiographic results with the Magna Ease© pericardial aortic bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The population of candidates to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is evolving. The Perimount Magna Ease© bioprosthesis has been introduced relatively recently in the practice. We aimed at evaluating its long-term results.

METHODS

This article describes a single-centre cohort of 1016 consecutive SAVRs with the Magna Ease© valve (2008-2014), consisting of an all-comers population. We performed a prospective collection of in-hospital data, systematic clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. Valve-related events were as follows: structural valve deterioration (SVD; according to modified definition criteria), nonstructural valve dysfunction, patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM).

RESULTS

Age at SAVR was 73.4 ± 9.5 years; calcified aortic stenosis was the indication to surgery in 59.6%. A total of 974 patients entered the follow-up; 564 were alive at the last follow-up (median duration: 9.8 years) (up to 13.4 years). New York Heart Association class was I or II in 92.1%. Overall survival at 10 years was 56.8 ± 1.8%. Freedom from SVD at 10 was 96.5 ± 0.8% (Kaplan-Meier) and 97.4 ± 0.6% (competing risks) (28 SVD events after 6.9 ± 3.3 years). There were 15 reinterventions for SVD (redo-SAVR and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)); 10-year freedom from reintervention was 97.8 ± 0.6%. Moderate and severe PPM occurred in 26.8% and 5.4%, respectively, without association with late mortality (P = 0.12 for moderate and P = 0.70 for severe PPM). Freedom from valve-related mortality was 97.8 ± 0.5% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this follow-up of the Magna Ease bioprosthesis for SAVR, data indicate good late outcomes (30-day outcomes are excluded). Continued follow-up is required to further support its use in patients with life expectancy >10-12 years.

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After Aortic Valve Replacement With Bovine Versus Porcine Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

Whether a bovine or porcine aortic valve bioprosthesis carries a higher risk of endocarditis after aortic valve replacement is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of prosthetic endocarditis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a bovine versus porcine bioprosthesis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with a bovine or porcine bioprosthesis in Sweden from 1997 to 2018. Regression standardization was used to account for intergroup differences. The primary outcome was prosthetic valve endocarditis, and the secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and early prosthetic valve endocarditis. During a maximum follow-up time of 22 years, we included 21 022 patients, 16 603 with a bovine valve prosthesis and 4419 with a porcine valve prosthesis. The mean age was 73 years, and 61% of the patients were men. In total, 910 patients were hospitalized for infective endocarditis: 690 (4.2%) in the bovine group and 220 (5.0%) in the porcine group. The adjusted cumulative incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis at 15 years was 9.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-14.4%) in the bovine group and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.4%-5.6%) in the porcine group. The absolute risk difference between the groups at 15 years was 6.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-12.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of endocarditis was higher in patients who received a bovine compared with a porcine valve prosthesis after surgical aortic valve replacement. This association should be considered in patients undergoing both surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Long-term risk of reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the predominant mode of valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the long-term need for valvular reintervention after TAVR remains unknown.

METHODS

Using data from the Medicare Fee for Service 100% dataset, all patients receiving TAVR between July 2011 and December 2020 were identified. Patients were categorized as receiving a valve reintervention (either surgical or transcatheter) or not using the appropriate International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS). A competing risk regression model was used to estimate the cumulative probability of valve reintervention.

RESULTS

Of 230,644 TAVR patients were identified, of whom 1,880 received a reintervention. Patients receiving a reintervention were younger and more likely to be male. At 10 years, the crude rate of reintervention was 0.59% within a surviving cohort of 341 patients. After adjusting for the competing risk of death and other covariates, the adjusted cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years after TAVR was 1.63%. When the rate of reinterventions was compared between early (2011-2016) and later (2017-2020) time periods, the risk-adjusted rate of reintervention at 4 years had decreased over time (0.85% vs 0.51%).

CONCLUSION

The 10-year risk of valve reintervention after TAVR is low and appears to be decreasing over time. Further research is necessary to determine the driving factors contributing to valve reintervention in the current era.

Left ventricular mass and valve performance after surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a single-center experience from Japan

Background

There are few reports on the postoperative left ventricular mass (LVM), aortic valve area (AVA), and pressure gradient (PG) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Japan. We aimed to compare the postoperative LVM, AVA, stroke volume (SV), PG, and long-term outcomes between patients undergoing SAVR and TAVR procedures from single center in Japan.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. We included 107 patients who underwent simple SAVR between January 2012 and May 2022 (SAVR group, n=107) and 274 who underwent TAVR between January 2016 and May 2022 (TAVR group, n=274). The overall mean follow-up periods was 28.8±25.9 months (median: 24 months; range, 0.03-117 months).

Results

The aortic valve mean PG (mmHg) was significantly smaller in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group (P<0.001). The AVA index (cm2/m2) was significantly larger in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group (P<0.001). The SV index (mL/m2) was significantly smaller in the SAVR group than in the TAVR group (P=0.02). The LVM index (LVMI) (g/m2) was significantly smaller in the SAVR group than in the TAVR group (P<0.001). The incidence of mild or higher postoperative paravalvular leak (PVL) and pacemaker implantation were significantly higher in the TAVR group. The 5-year postoperative mortality, re-hospitalization, and major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (MACCEs) were significantly better in the SAVR group.

Conclusions

The postoperative aortic valve PG, AVA, and SV were better in the TAVR group; however, LVM regression and postoperative outcomes were better in the SAVR group.

Durability of Biological Valves Implanted in Aortic or Mitral Positions: A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Biologic prostheses are being increasingly used for aortic and mitral valve replacement (AVR and MVR). This study evaluated the long-term durability of bioprosthetic valves in the mitral and aortic positions, as no well-designed population-based studies have addressed this issue before.

METHODS

Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we compared biologic valve durability in the mitral and aortic positions in patients hospitalized between 2001 and 2017, with reoperation as the primary outcome. Both between-subject and within-subject designs were used, and the propensity score matching cohort (1:1 ratio) was created for the former.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 10,308 patients, 5462 of whom received AVR, 3901 received MVR, and 945 received double valve replacement. Both AVR and MVR cohorts had 2259 patients after matching. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 1 day to 17.9 years), the reoperation rate in the MVR cohort (3.5%) was higher than that in the AVR cohort (2.6%) (hazard ratio 1.41; 95% CI, 1.01-1.98). A higher risk of all-cause death was observed in the MVR cohort (36.5%) than in the AVR cohort (32.6%) (hazard ratio 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.34). Among patients receiving double valve replacement with the same prosthesis type, valves implanted in the aortic position were considerably less likely to require reimplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bioprosthetic valve placement in the aortic position is associated with superior outcomes in terms of durability, long-term mortality, and perioperative morbidity. Developing novel interventions and enhancing valve durability would expand bioprosthesis use for valve replacement.

Cardiac Surgery 2022 Reviewed

PubMed displayed almost 37,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2022." As before, we used the PRISMA approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. We focused on coronary and conventional valve surgery, their overlap with interventional alternatives, and briefly assessed surgery for aorta or terminal heart failure. In the field of coronary artery disease (CAD), key manuscripts addressed prognostic implications of invasive treatment options, classically compared modern interventions (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), and addressed technical aspects of CABG. The general direction in 2022 confirms the superiority of CABG over PCI in patients with anatomically complex chronic CAD and supports an infarct-preventative effect as underlying mechanism. In addition, the relevance of proper surgical technique to achieve durable graft patency and the need for optimal medical treatment in CABG patients was impressively illustrated. In structural heart disease, the comparisons of interventional and surgical techniques have been characterized by prognostic and mechanistic investigations underscoring the need for durable treatment effects and reductions of valve-related complications. Early surgery for most valve pathologies appears to provide significant survival advantages, and two publications on the Ross operation prototypically illustrate an inverse association between long-term survival and valve-related complications. For surgical treatment of heart failure, the first xenotransplantation was certainly dominant, and in the aortic surgery field, innovations in arch surgery prevailed. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical Valves vs Perimount Bioprostheses in 50- to 69-Year-Old Patients

Background

Evidence is mixed regarding the most appropriate type of valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients 50 to 69 years. American and European guidelines differ.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term all-cause mortality and complication rates after AVR in patients aged 50 to 69 years according to implantation of a Perimount bioprosthetic valve or a mechanical valve.

Methods

In this nationwide observational cohort study, all patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent primary surgical AVR in Sweden 2003 to 2018 using a Perimount bioprosthesis or mechanical valve were identified from the SWEDEHEART register. Primary outcome; all-cause mortality, secondary outcomes; major bleeding, aortic valve reintervention, heart failure hospitalization, and stroke. National health-data registers were used to ascertain outcomes. Regression standardization addressed confounding.

Results

A total of 6,907 patients aged 50 to 69 years were included (Perimount group, n = 3,831 and mechanical valve group, n = 3,076) and 74% were men. The use of bioprostheses increased during the study period. At 15 years of follow-up, the estimated cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 37% (95% CI: 35%-40%) vs 45% (95% CI: 42%-48%) in the mechanical and Perimount groups, respectively (survival difference -7.9% [95% CI: -11% to -4.6%]). Patients with mechanical valves had a lower risk of aortic valve reintervention but a higher risk for bleeding. Survival difference at 15 years in ages 50 to 59 years was -15% (95% CI: -8.4% to -21%).

Conclusions

In patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent surgical AVR, survival was better in those who received mechanical compared to Perimount bioprosthetic valves. While valve choice should be guided by individual patient factors and patient preference rather than by chronological age, the substantial survival advantage observed in patients with mechanical valves in ages 50 to 59 years must be recognized.

Perceval valve intermediate outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis at 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

New technologies for the treatment of Aortic Stenosis are evolving to minimize risk and treat an increasingly comorbid population. The Sutureless Perceval Valve is one such alternative. Whilst short-term data is promising, limited mid-term outcomes exist, until now. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of 5 databases was performed. Articles included evaluated echocardiographic and mortality outcomes beyond 5 years in patients who had undergone Perceval Valve AVR. Two reviewers extracted and reviewed the articles. Weighted estimates were performed for all post-operative and mid-term data. Aggregated Kaplan Meier curves were reconstructed from digitised images to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies were identified, with a total number of 3196 patients analysed. 30-day mortality was 2.5%. Aggregated survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years was 93.4%, 89.4%, 84.9%, 82% and 79.5% respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation (7.9%), severe paravalvular leak (1.6%), structural valve deterioration (1.5%), stroke (4.4%), endocarditis (1.6%) and valve explant (2.3%) were acceptable at up to mid-term follow up. Haemodynamics were also acceptable at up mid-term with mean-valve gradient (range 9-13.6 mmHg), peak-valve gradient (17.8-22.3 mmHg) and effective orifice area (1.5-1.8 cm2) across all valve sizes. Cardiopulmonary bypass (78 min) and Aortic cross clamp times (52 min) were also favourable.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first meta-analysis to date evaluating mid-term outcomes in the Perceval Valve in isolation and demonstrates good 5-year mortality, haemodynamic and morbidity outcomes.

KEY QUESTION

What are the mid-term outcomes at up to 5 years follow up in Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement?

KEY FINDINGS

Perceval Valve AVR achieves 80% freedom from mortality at 5 years with low valve gradients and minimal morbidity.

KEY OUTCOMES

Perceval Valve Aortic Valve Replacement has acceptable mid-term mortality, durability and haemodynamic outcomes.

Effect of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is common following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of PPM on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and reintervention following bioprosthetic SAVR.

METHODS

This observational nationwide cohort study from SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) and other national registers included all patients who underwent primary bioprosthetic SAVR in Sweden from 2003 to 2018. PPM was defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and aortic valve reintervention. Regression standardization was used to account for intergroup differences and to estimate cumulative incidence differences.

RESULTS

We included 16,423 patients (no PPM: 7,377 [45%]; moderate PPM: 8,502 [52%]; and severe PPM: 544 [3%]). After regression standardization, the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality at 10 years was 43% (95% CI: 24%-44%) in the no PPM group compared with 45% (95% CI: 43%-46%) and 48% (95% CI: 44%-51%) in the moderate and severe PPM groups, respectively. The survival difference at 10 years was 4.6% (95% CI: 0.7%-8.5%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.1%-3.3%) in no vs severe PPM and no vs moderate PPM, respectively. The difference in heart failure hospitalization at 10 years was 6.0% (95% CI: 2.2%-9.7%) in severe vs no PPM. There was no difference in aortic valve reintervention in patients with or without PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing grades of PPM were associated with long-term mortality, and severe PPM was associated with increased heart failure. Moderate PPM was common, but the clinical significance may be negligible because the absolute risk differences in clinical outcomes were small.

Perimount MAGNA Ease vs. INSPIRIS Resilia Valve: A PS-Matched Analysis of the Hemodynamic Performances in Patients below 70 Years of Age

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, the Perimount Magna Ease (PME) bioprosthesis has been implanted worldwide for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Recently, the INSPIRIS Resilia (IR) valve has been introduced as the newest generation of pericardial bioprostheses. However, few data have been reported about patients ≤70 years, and no comparisons in terms of hemodynamic performance between these two bioprostheses have been ever reported.

METHODS

Patients aged <70 years undergoing AVR were considered for comparison between PME (n = 238) and IR (n = 192). Propensity score (PS) matching was performed by logistic regression with adjustment for eight key baseline variables. The two prostheses were compared in terms of hemodynamic performances up to 3 years postoperatively. Sub-analysis according to prosthetic size-category was accomplished.

RESULTS

A total of 122 pairs with similar baseline characteristics were obtained from the PS-matching. The two prostheses showed comparable hemodynamic performances at one year (Gmean: 11.3 ± 3.5 mmHg vs. 11.9 ± 5.4 mmHg; p = 0.8) and at 3 years postoperatively (Gmean: 12.2 ± 7.9 mmHg vs. 12.8 ± 5.2 mmHg for; p = 0.3). The sub-analysis of size-category confirmed no statistical differences concerning the hemodynamic performances for each annulus size.

CONCLUSIONS

This first PS-matched analysis demonstrated that the newly developed IR valve achieves the same safety and efficacy of the PME valve during mid-term follow-up in patients aged <70 years.