St. Jude Medical Toronto biologic aortic root prosthesis: Early FDA phase II IDE study results

Current Therapeutic Options in Aortic Stenosis

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease requiring valve replacement. Valve replacement therapies have undergone progressive evolution since the 1960s. Over the last 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has radically transformed the care of aortic stenosis, such that it is now the treatment of choice for many, particularly elderly, patients. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, indications for intervention, and current therapeutic options for aortic stenosis.

Midterm outcomes of subcoronary stentless porcine valve versus stented aortic valve replacement

INTRODUCTION

Stentless porcine xenografts are versatile bioprosthetic valves with the advantage of improved hemodynamics that mimic the function of the native aortic valve. However, these bioprostheses are challenging to implant in the subcoronary position.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent a bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) were included from our institutional database. Cox regression analysis was preformed to determine significant predictors for mid term mortality as well as all cause, cardiac, and heart failure readmission.

RESULTS

Patients in the subcoronary stentless group were older and more likely to be female and were likely to have a higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk of mortality. Survival was superior in the stented AVR cohort at 30-days (96.4% vs 90.5%; P < .001), 1-year (90.5% vs 71.6%; P < .001), and 5-year (74.5% vs 56.9%; P < .001) follow up. Acute kidney injury (16.22% vs 5.22%; P < .001) and blood product transfusion (70.27% vs 44.0%; P < .001) were higher in the stentless group. Multivariable analysis revealed subcoronary stentless implantation as a significant independent risk factor for mortality (hazards ratio: 1.92 [1.35,2.72]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Stentless porcine xenograft implantation with the Freestyle bioprosthetic in the subcoronary position can be successfully performed in select patients, but its use is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality affecting midterm outcomes. Individual patient selection and surgeon experience are important to ensure favorable outcomes.

Mini Bentall operation: technical considerations

Bentall operation via median sternotomy has been largely shown to be safe and long-term efficacious and currently represents the "gold standard" intervention in patients presenting with aortic valve and root disease. However, over the last years, minimally invasive techniques have gained wider clinical application in cardiac surgery. In particular, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through ministernotomy has shown excellent outcomes and becomes the first choice approach in numerous experienced centers. Based on these favorable results, ministernotomy approach has also been proposed for complex cardiac procedures such as aortic root replacement and arch surgery. Herein, we present our technique for minimally invasive Bentall operation using a ministernotomy approach.

Outcomes of aortic root replacement after previous aortic root replacement: the "true" redo root

BACKGROUND

Aortic reoperations are technically challenging. This study evaluated outcomes after "true" redo root replacement (previous full root replacement) stratified by cause of prosthesis failure.

METHODS

Data were compared for 793 patients who underwent a first-time sternotomy (de novo group) and 120 patients who had previously undergone full aortic root replacement (redo group), of which 76 underwent reoperation due to structural valve deterioration (degenerative group), and 44 due to endocarditis (infection group).

RESULTS

Overall mortality was 4% (n = 28) in the de novo group and 5% (n = 6) in the redo group (p = 0.43) (degenerative group, 3%, infection group, 9%; p = 0.19). The infection group had an increased incidence of renal failure, sternal infection, prolonged ventilation, reoperation for bleeding, multisystem failure, and sepsis, and an increased hospital length of stay. The degenerative group and the de novo group had a similar risk of perioperative death and major complications. The 5-year survival was 86.3% ± 1.3% for the de novo group and 77.3% ± 4.6% for the redo group (p ≤ 0.01; degenerative, 86.3% ± 5%; infection, 65.3% ± 7.7%; p < 0.01; p = 0.98 for de novo vs degenerative). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that reoperation for degenerative failure did not increase the risk of perioperative or late death.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo aortic root replacement can be performed with low perioperative morbidity and death. The presence of infection increases the risk of complications and worsens survival. However, redo root replacement for degenerative failure can be performed with similar short-term complication risk and midterm survival as de novo root replacement.

Bioengineering Strategies for Polymeric Scaffold for Tissue Engineering an Aortic Heart Valve: An Update

The occurrence of dysfunctional aortic valves is increasing every year, and current replacement heart valves, although having been shown to be clinically successful, are only short-term solutions and suffer from many agonizing long-term drawbacks. The tissue engineering of heart valves is recognized as one of the most promising answers for aortic valve disease therapy, but overcoming current shortcomings will require multidisciplinary efforts. The use of a polymeric scaffold to guide the growth of the tissue is the most common approach to generate a new tissue for an aortic heart valve. However, optimizing the design of the scaffold, in terms of biocompatibility, surface morphology for cell attachments and the correct rate of degradation is critical in creating a viable tissue-engineered aortic heart valve. This paper highlights the bioengineering strategies that need to be followed to construct a polymeric scaffold of sufficient mechanical integrity, with superior surface morphologies, that is capable of mimicking the valve dynamics in vivo. The current challenges and future directions of research for creating tissue-engineered aortic heart valves are also discussed.

Comparing aortic root replacements: porcine bioroots versus pericardial versus mechanical composite roots: hemodynamic and ventricular remodeling at greater than one-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Stentless porcine bioroots and pericardial composite roots were developed as prostheses that avoid the anticoagulation necessary for mechanical composite roots. Data on the hemodynamics of all root replacements are lacking and questions remain regarding comparative performance.

METHODS

This study evaluated patients receiving a stentless porcine bioroot, a pericardial, or a mechanical composite root at a single institution from January 2000 to December 2008. All patients underwent preoperative, postoperative and greater than 1-year echocardiograms. All root replacements were performed for aortic insufficiency or aneurysm. Median follow-up was 3.3 years (1 to 8 years).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, aortic valve peak gradient, mean gradient, left ventricular end diastolic diameter, and left ventricular end systolic diameter. Postoperative peak and mean gradients in mechanical composite roots were significantly higher than stentless porcine bioroots. At greater than 1 year, stentless porcine bioroots had significantly lower peak and mean gradients than both mechanical composite roots and pericardial composite roots. The end diastolic diameter was also significantly smaller in stentless porcine bioroots at greater than 1 year than mechanical composite roots.

CONCLUSIONS

All prostheses resulted in favorable hemodynamic and ventricular remodeling. Stentless porcine bioroots had the lowest gradients at greater than 1 year of all root replacements, with significantly better ventricular remodeling when compared with mechanical composite roots. Pericardial roots also had favorable hemodynamics and ventricular remodeling, suggesting that they are a viable alternative.

Postimplantation morphologic changes of glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine aortic roots and risk of aneurysm and rupture

OBJECTIVE

Rupture of glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine aortic roots has been reported, but the mechanism and incidence of this complication is unknown. This study evaluates the clinical outcomes and the risk of dilation and rupture of porcine aortic roots after implantation.

METHODS

Commercially available porcine aortic roots were used for aortic root replacement in 308 patients (Freestyle bioprosthesis [Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn] in 251 patients and Toronto Root [St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minn] in 57 patients) whose mean age was 62 +/- 13 years. The main indication for aortic root replacement was dilation of the native aortic root. Clinical follow-up was complete at a mean of 5.3 +/- 2.5 years. Valve function and aortic root diameter were assessed by means of echocardiography.

RESULTS

There were 10 (3.2%) operative and 39 (12.6%) late deaths. At 8 years, patients' survival was 79.0% +/- 3.1%, freedom from reoperation was 95.3% +/- 1.7%, and freedom from severe aortic insufficiency was 93.8% +/- 2.7%. The diameter of the aortic sinuses increased from 31.9 +/- 4.3 to 34.1 +/- 4.8 mm (P < .0001), and it exceeded 40 mm in 10% of the patients. Linear regression analysis revealed that the duration of follow-up (P < .0001) and the size of the valve implanted (P < .0001) were associated with risk of sinus dilation. There was only 1 early rupture of the noncoronary aortic sinus and 2 late aneurysms that required repeat operations. Histologic examination of explanted aneurysmal porcine roots revealed marked changes in the xenograft arterial wall, with abundant mononuclear cells suggestive of immunologic reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild dilation of porcine aortic roots after aortic root replacement is common, but aneurysm formation and rupture are rare during the first decade of follow-up. Annual surveillance with echocardiography is recommended.

Evaluation and management of aortic valve and root disease

Aortic valve disease manifests in the form of stenosis, regurgitation, or some combination, yielding either excessive afterload and/or excessive preload on the left ventricle. Aortic root disease may affect valvular function, causing regurgitation; may simply be coexistent with stenotic aortic valvular disease; or may exist despite normal aortic valve function. Indications for intervening on aortic valve or root disease are determined by the presence of symptoms, by the pathology's impact on left ventricular function, or by the inherent risk of aortic catastrophe (dissection, disruption, or sudden death). Aortic valvular and root diseases are primarily treated by surgical replacement of the pathologic structures. Mechanical aortic valve replacement has long-term durability but requires continuous anticoagulation. Bioprostheses do not require anticoagulation but have more limited durability. Valve-sparing aortic root replacement and aortic valve repair offer the potential for indefinite durability without the need for anticoagulation but are technically more difficult to perform and require more stringent selection criteria based on determining the reparability of an aortic valve. Emerging percutaneous valve technologies offer new hope for patients who are not candidates for aortic valve surgery, but the applicability and durability of percutaneous aortic valves are not yet known. Timely and appropriate intervention in aortic valve and root disease can result in the restoration of a normal life span for patients with aortic valvular and/or root disease.

Is the Ross procedure as good as we thought it would be?

For patients requiring intervention because of progressive disease of the aortic valve, the perfect palliation will provide a valve that produces normal dynamics of flow, will not require anti-coagulation, will grow with the patient, and have long term durability. Current surgical interventions include aortic valvoplasty, or replacement with either a mechanical or tissue prosthesis. Options for tissue valves include insertion of a pulmonary autograft in the Ross procedure, a cadaveric homograft, or porcine or bovine xenograft valves. The optimal option is still debated.

Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Aortic Root Replacement with St. Jude Mechanical Conduits and Aortic Allografts

BACKGROUND

Few studies have directly evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing aortic root replacement with St. Jude mechanical conduits or aortic allografts (ALLO), yet both approaches have been advocated. The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed description of outcomes in a large series of aortic root replacements performed with either St. Jude mechanical conduits or aortic allografts.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 172 consecutive adult patients undergoing aortic root replacement with either St. Jude mechanical conduits (n = 73) or aortic allografts (n = 99) from January 1990 to December 2002. Maximal follow-up was 15 years, and median follow-up was 5 years.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar with regard to median age, preoperative ejection fraction, and New York Heart Association class. The aortic allograft patient group had a higher proportion (p < 0.05) of women (43% versus 18%), prior sternotomies (52% versus 26%), preoperative renal failure (9% versus 1%), and cerebrovascular disease (16% versus 4%). Operative indications for the aortic allograft group were more frequently endocarditis (29% versus 3%; p < 0.0001) and prosthetic valve dysfunction (13% versus 1%; p < 0.01), and less frequently annuloaortic ectasia (34% versus 60%; p < 0.001) or aortic dissection (3% versus 26%; p < 0.0001). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or other valve surgery was performed in 30% of patients in both groups. Incidence of early postoperative complications, including bleeding, stroke, renal failure, and respiratory failure, was similar in both groups. Thirty-day mortality was 5.5% in the St. Jude mechanical conduit group and 8.1% in the aortic allograft group (p = 0.4). Unadjusted actuarial survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 90%, 81%, 67%, and 86%, 70%, 67%, for the St. Jude mechanical conduit and aortic allograft groups, respectively (p = 0.09). Event-free survival at 1 and 5 years was similar for both groups (p = 0.4). By multivariate analysis, New York Heart Association class III or IV, emergently performed aortic root replacement, and postoperative respiratory failure, but not valve conduit type (p = 0.3), were independent predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic root replacement can be safely performed with either allograft or mechanical conduits, even in the setting of acute dissection, redo sternotomy, or endocarditis.