Industry-Generated Charts for the Selection of Stented Aortic Valve Prostheses: Clinical Tool or Marketing Ploy?

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.

Magna ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients

OBJECTIVES

The Magna Ease aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) is a third-generation bioprosthetic valve developed as a modification of the well-studied Perimount and Magna valve designs. This study's objective is to evaluate a large, single-centre experience with Magna Ease aortic valve replacement (AVR) focusing on clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance.

METHODS

All patients undergoing AVR between 8/2010 and 10/2018 at our institution implanted with the Magna Ease valve were included except those undergoing ventricular assist device or congenital aortic surgery. Primary outcomes were overall survival and freedom from reoperation. Mean transprosthetic gradient (mTPG) and structural valve deterioration (SVD) served as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally 1126 consecutive implantations of Magna Ease valves were included. Concomitant procedures were performed in 56.5% (n = 636). No severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was present at implantation. Overall survival at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years and 9 years was 97.2%, 95.0%, 86.1% and 78.2%, respectively, with improved survival for isolated AVR. Total of 2.4% (n = 27) of patients required reoperation with 0.3% (n = 4) for SVD. Echocardiographic follow-up data revealed low mTPG throughout the study period. SVD occurred in 28.7% of patients at a mean of 3.9 years post implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Magna Ease AVR maintained low mean transprosthetic gradients throughout mid-term evaluation and was associated with excellent overall survival and freedom from reoperation at nine years post implantation.

Impact of valve size, predicted effective and indexed effective orifice area after aortic valve replacement

INTRODUCTION

The impact of manufacturer labeled prosthesis size and predicted effective orifice area (EOA) on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement is not clear although indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) has been associated with worse survival.

METHODS

Data was retrospectively collected from Jan 2000-Dec 2019 for prosthesis type, model, and size for isolated aortic valve replacements. Stratified survival was compared between groups and subgroups for labeled valve size, EOA and predicted patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM).

RESULTS

A total of 3444 patients were included. Moderate and severe PPM was 15.6% and 1.6%, respectively. Cumulative lifetime hazard was worse for biological valves (mortality: biological 77.7% vs. mechanical 64.8%, p = .001). Moderate prosthetic aortic stenosis (AS), (EOA = 1-1.5 cm² ) was 12.1% and severe prosthetic AS (EOA ≤ 1 cm² ) was 0.8%, respectively. Survival was 10.5 ± 0.4 years with moderate to severe prosthetic AS (EOA≤1.5 cm² ) versus 12.6 ± 0.2 years with mild to no prosthetic AS (EOA>1.5 cm² ), p = .001. Worse survival in the presence of moderate-severe prosthetic AS was seen with biological valves (9.7 ± 0.4 years vs. 11.2 ± 0.2 years, p = .001 for EOA≤1.5, >1.5 cm² , respectively). Moderate to severe PPM was associated with worse survival (11.1 ± 0.4 years for iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm² /m² vs. 12.5 ± 0.2 years with iEOA > 0.85 cm² /m² , p = .001). Moderate to severe PPM predicted worse long term survival (hazard ratio: 3.56; 95% confidence interval: 1.37-9.25; p = .009).

CONCLUSION

Predicted prosthetic moderate to severe AS and moderate to severe PPM adversely affect long term survival. Smaller valves are associated with reduced survival.

Essential information on surgical heart valve characteristics for optimal valve prosthesis selection: Expert consensus document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force

Comprehensive information on the characteristics of surgical heart valves (SHVs) is essential for optimal valve selection. Such information is also important in assessing SHV function after valve replacement. Despite the existing regulatory framework for SHV sizing and labelling, this information is challenging to obtain in a uniform manner for various SHVs. To ensure that clinicians are adequately informed, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) set up a Task Force comprised of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, engineers, regulatory bodies, representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and major valve manufacturers. Previously, the EACTS-STS-AATS Valve Labelling Task Force identified the most important problems around SHV sizing and labelling. This Expert Consensus Document formulates recommendations for providing SHV physical dimensions, intended implant position and hemodynamic performance in a transparent, uniform manner. Furthermore, the Task Force advocates for the introduction and use of a standardized chart to assess the probability of prosthesis-patient mismatch and calls valve manufacturers to provide essential information required for SHV choice on standardized Valve Charts, uniformly for all SHV models.

Essential Information on Surgical Heart Valve Characteristics for Optimal Valve Prosthesis Selection: Expert Consensus Document From the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force

Comprehensive information on the characteristics of surgical heart valves (SHVs) is essential for optimal valve selection. Such information is also important in assessing SHV function after valve replacement. Despite the existing regulatory framework for SHV sizing and labelling, this information is challenging to obtain in a uniform manner for various SHVs. To ensure that clinicians are adequately informed, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) set up a Task Force comprised of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, engineers, regulatory bodies, representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and major valve manufacturers. Previously, the EACTS-STS-AATS Valve Labelling Task Force identified the most important problems around SHV sizing and labelling. This Expert Consensus Document formulates recommendations for providing SHV physical dimensions, intended implant position and hemodynamic performance in a transparent, uniform manner. Furthermore, the Task Force advocates for the introduction and use of a standardized chart to assess the probability of prosthesis-patient mismatch and calls valve manufacturers to provide essential information required for SHV choice on standardized Valve Charts, uniformly for all SHV models.

Essential information on surgical heart valve characteristics for optimal valve prosthesis selection: expert consensus document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)–The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)–American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force

Comprehensive information on the characteristics of surgical heart valves (SHVs) is essential for optimal valve selection. Such information is also important in assessing SHV function after valve replacement. Despite the existing regulatory framework for SHV sizing and labelling, this information is challenging to obtain in a uniform manner for various SHVs. To ensure that clinicians are adequately informed, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) set up a Task Force comprised of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, engineers, regulatory bodies, representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and major valve manufacturers. Previously, the EACTS–STS–AATS Valve Labelling Task Force identified the most important problems around SHV sizing and labelling. This Expert Consensus Document formulates recommendations for providing SHV physical dimensions, intended implant position and haemodynamic performance in a transparent, uniform manner. Furthermore, the Task Force advocates for the introduction and use of a standardized chart to assess the probability of prosthesis–patient mismatch and calls valve manufacturers to provide essential information required for SHV choice on standardized Valve Charts, uniformly for all SHV models.

Enlargement of the narrow aortic root: Fear of what?

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) associated with aortic valve replacement, especially of aortic stenosis, is a common problem. Severe PPM is known to increase perioperative morbidity and mortality and to negatively affect late survival. Surgical enlargement of the narrow aortic root enlargement (ARE) is now increasingly accepted as a method of facilitating implantation of a larger valve prosthesis, hence decreasing the risk of PPM. There are diagnostic methods and tables that help to predict the risk of this complication and assist in the planning of the surgery. Still, many surgeons are afraid or reluctant to perform ARE because of potential technical complications of a procedure perceived to increase the complexity of the surgery. However, these procedures have been proven safe and effective, and are at the reach of almost any cardiac surgeon, including less experienced ones. In addition, there are modifications to the techniques that make them even simpler and more reproducible.

Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM): a long-term perspective

The concept/phenomenon of valve prosthesis/patient mismatch (VP-PM), described in 1978, has stood the test of time. From that time to 2011, VP-PM has received a great deal of attention but studies have come to varying conclusions. This is largely because of the determination of prosthetic heart valve area [called effective orifice area index (EOAi)] by projection rather than by actual measurement, variable criteria to assess severity of EOAi and the timing of determination of EOAi. All prosthetic heart valves have some degree of VP-PM which must be placed in a proper clinical perspective. This can be done by determining its effects on function and outcomes. For mortality one needs to focus especially on severe/critical degree of VP-PM and determine the cause of death was due to VP-PM. For the period "beyond 2011" a road map is suggested that will have uniformity of assessment of VP-PM and a focusing on the important goals of VP-PM.

Impact of New York Heart Association classification, advanced age and patient-prosthesis mismatch on outcomes in aortic valve replacement surgery

OBJECTIVES More elderly patients (>80 years of age) are being referred for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without CABG. Current risk stratification models may not accurately predict the preoperative risk in these patients. We sought to determine which perioperative variables were relevant in determining short-term (30-day to in-hospital) outcomes in our intuition's series of consecutive AVR and AVR+CABG surgeries. We constructed a novel variable, patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) in the presence of diminished functional status (NYHA) classification, and studied its role as a predictor of mortality risk. METHODS From 2006 to 2010, 509 patients undergoing AVR or AVR+CABG were evaluated. We created four groups based on the age and procedure (AVR >80, AVR+CABG >80, AVR <80 and AVR+CABG <80). PPM was defined as a calculated effective orifice area index value of ≤ 0.85, and it was calculated from manufacturer-generated charts. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes were assessed using the Chi-square and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS Overall observed 30-day mortality for all groups was lower (n = 8, 1.6%) than the STS-predicted mortality. Reoperation and PPM+NYHA class III-IV were associated with short-term mortality, but age >80 years was not. Octogenarians referred for surgery often had advanced heart failure. CONCLUSIONS Overall, short-term outcomes after AVR with or without CABG were excellent and lower than predicted by the STS model. The low risk of AVR with CABG supports the consideration for earlier surgical referral and intervention for patients with a high likelihood of aortic stenosis progression before the onset of advanced heart failure ensues, regardless of the age. This should help further decrease the already very low mortality observed in these series. Efforts to avoid PPM in the setting of advanced heart failure may improve short-term results in this subset of patients.