Composite freestyle stentless xenograft with Dacron graft extension for ascending aortic replacement

Combined Transcatheter Replacement of Aortic Root and Mitral Valve in an Acute Preclinical Study

The study aimed to evaluate the early feasibility of endovascular replacement of ascending aorta, aortic root (including aortic valve, AV), and mitral valve (MV) in one procedure with two self-expandable prostheses. Aortic valved-fenestrated-bifurcated (AVFB) and MV endografts of 10 healthy pigs (60-65kg) were customized and delivered through transapical and transseptal approach, respectively. Both endografts were successfully deployed in nine pigs (90%). Eight survived over 24 h, and the acute success rate was 80%. There was no significant increase in the mean trans-aortic, trans-mitral, and trans-LVOT pressure gradients after the operation. No coronary artery or LVOT obstruction and other electrocardiographic abnormality occurred. The transvalvular and paravalvular leak rates were low for both valves. Endovascular replacement of ascending aorta, AV, and MV in one procedure might be feasible. Combined transcatheter replacement of aortic root and mitral valve in one procedure.

Long Term Outcomes Following Freestyle Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis Implantation: An Australian Experience

BACKGROUND

The Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis (FSB) has been demonstrated to be a durable prosthesis in the aortic position. We present data following Freestyle implantation for up to 10 years post-operatively and compare this with previously published results.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of 237 patients following FSB implantation occurred at five Australian hospitals. Follow-up data included clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

The cohort was 81.4% male with age 63.2±13.0 years and was followed for a mean of 2.4±2.3 years (range 0-10.9 years, total 569 patient-years). The FSB was implanted as a full aortic root replacement in 87.8% patients. The 30-day all cause mortality was 4.2% (2.0% for elective surgery). Cumulative survival at one, five and 10 years was 91.7±1.9%, 82.8±3.8% and 56.5±10.5%, respectively. Freedom from re-intervention at one, five and 10 years was 99.5±0.5%, 91.6±3.7% and 72.3±10.5%, respectively. At latest echocardiographic review (mean 2.3±2.1 years post-operatively), 92.6% had trivial or no aortic regurgitation. Predictors of post-operative mortality included active endocarditis, acute aortic dissection and peripheral vascular disease.

CONCLUSIONS

We report acceptable short and long term outcomes following FSB implantation in a cohort of comparatively younger patients with thoracic aortic disease. The durability of this bioprosthesis in the younger population remains to be confirmed.

In-vivo assessment of the morphology and hemodynamic functions of the BioValsalva™ composite valve-conduit graft using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computational modelling technology

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of any new cardiac valvular prosthesis should go beyond the classical morbidity and mortality rates and involve hemodynamic assessment. As a proof of concept, the objective of this study was to characterise for the first time the hemodynamics and the blood flow profiles at the aortic root in patients implanted with BioValsalva™ composite valve-conduit using comprehensive MRI and computer technologies.

METHODS

Four male patients implanted with BioValsalva™ and 2 age-matched normal controls (NC) underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Phase-contrast imaging with velocity-mapping in 3 orthogonal directions was performed at the level of the aortic root and descending thoracic aorta. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations were performed for all the subjects with patient-specific flow information derived from phase-contrast MR data.

RESULTS

The maximum and mean flow rates throughout the cardiac cycle at the aortic root level were very comparable between NC and BioValsalva™ patients (541 ± 199 vs. 567 ± 75 ml/s) and (95 ± 46 vs. 96 ± 10 ml/s), respectively. The maximum velocity (cm/s) was higher in patients (314 ± 49 vs. 223 ± 20; P = 0.06) due to relatively smaller effective orifice area (EOA), 2.99 ± 0.47 vs. 4.40 ± 0.24 cm2 (P = 0.06), however, the BioValsalva™ EOA was comparable to other reported prosthesis. The cross-sectional area and maximum diameter at the root were comparable between the two groups. BioValsalva™ conduit was stiffer than the native aortic wall, compliance (mm2 • mmHg(-1) • 10(-3)) values were (12.6 ± 4.2 vs 25.3 ± 0.4.; P = 0.06). The maximum time-averaged wall shear stress (Pa), at the ascending aorta was equivalent between the two groups, 17.17 ± 2.7 (NC) vs. 17.33 ± 4.7 (BioValsalva™ ). Flow streamlines at the root and ascending aorta were also similar between the two groups apart from a degree of helical flow that occurs at the outer curvature at the angle developed near the suture line.

CONCLUSIONS

BioValsalva™ composite valve-conduit prosthesis is potentially comparable to native aortic root in structural design and in many hemodynamic parameters, although it is stiffer. Surgeons should pay more attention to the surgical technique to maximise the reestablishment of normal smooth aortic curvature geometry to prevent unfavourable flow characteristics.