Clinical Experience With the Freedom SOLO Stentless Aortic Valve in 277 Consecutive Patients

In Vitro Study of a Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis Made of Bacterial Cellulose

PURPOSE

The paper present findings from an in vitro experimental study of a stentless human aortic bioprosthesis (HAB) made of bacterial cellulose (BC). Three variants of the basic model were designed and tested to identify the valve prosthesis with the best performance parameters. The modified models were made of BC, and the basic model of pericardium.

METHODS

Each model (named V1, V2 and V3) was implanted into a 90 mm porcine aorta. Effective Orifice Area (EOA), rapid valve opening time (RVOT) and rapid valve closing time (RVCT) were determined. The flow resistance of each bioprosthesis model during the simulated heart systole, i.e. for the mean differential pressure (ΔP) at the time of full valve opening was measured. All experimental specimens were exposed to a mean blood pressure (MBP) of 90.5 ± 2.3 mmHg.

RESULTS

The V3 model demonstrated the best performance. The index defining the maximum opening of the bioprosthesis during systole for models V1, V2 and V3 was 2.67 ± 0.59, 2.04 ± 0.23 and 2.85 ± 0.59 cm2, respectively. The mean flow rate through the V3 valve was 5.7 ± 1, 6.9 ± 0.7 and 8.9 ± 1.4 l/min for stroke volume (SV) of 65, 90 and 110 mL, respectively. The phase of immediate opening and closure for models V1, V2 and V3 was 8, 7 and 5% of the cycle duration, respectively. The mean flow resistance of the models was: 4.07 ± 2.1, 4.28 ± 2.51 and 5.6 ± 2.32 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

The V3 model of the aortic valve prosthesis is the most effective. In vivo tests using BC as a structural material for this model are recommended. The response time of the V3 model to changed work conditions is comparable to that of a healthy human heart. The model functions as an aortic valve prosthesis in in vitro conditions.

Reduced Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Stentless Freedom SOLO Compared With Stented Perimount Magna Aortic Bioprostheses: A Propensity Score Weighted Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR), due to new-onset severe conduction system disorders, is required in approximately 7% of patients. This study investigated the need for PPI after AVR with conventional stented Perimount Magna compared with the Freedom SOLO (FS) stentless valve (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy), now LivaNova plc (London, UK) that uses a strictly supra-annular, subcoronary running suture implantation technique, sparing the vulnerable interleaflet triangles in the region of the septum membranaceum.

METHODS

A total of 413 consecutive patients (71.4±9.2 yrs, 178 [43.1%] female) underwent isolated AVR using the stented Perimount Magna (n=264) or the stentless FS (n=149) bioprosthesis. Propensity score weighted analysis was used to account for patient-specific and procedural-specific variables, and to identify the prosthesis-specific need for early postoperative PPI within 30 days of AVR.

RESULTS

Twenty (20) patients required PPI, which was associated with longer intensive care unit (2.1±1.7 vs 1.5±3.0 days, p<0.001) and overall hospital stays (13.8±5.2 vs 10.7±5.3 days, p<0.001) compared with no PPI. Propensity weighted logistic regression including cross-clamp times identified that use of the stented Perimount Magna was associated with increased need for PPI, as compared with the FS, with an odds ratio 5.8 (95% CI, 1.09-30.76; p=0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

After corrections for all plausible confounders, AVR with the stented Perimount valve was associated with an odds ratio of almost 6 for an increased early postoperative need for pacemaker implantation compared with the FS stentless valve. This finding can be explained by the conventional implantation technique, which is potentially associated with mechanical trauma to the conducting system.

Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Worsens Long-Term Survival: Insights From the FinnValve Registry

BACKGROUND

The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on long-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is controversial. We sought to investigate the incidence of PPM and its impact on survival and reinterventions in a Finnish nationwide cohort.

METHODS

In the context of the nationwide FinnValve registry, we identified 4097 patients who underwent SAVR with a stented bioprosthesis with or without myocardial revascularization. The indexed effective orifice areas (EOAs) of surgical bioprostheses were calculated using literature-derived EOAs. PPM was graded as moderate (EOA 0.65-0.85 cm²/m²) or severe (EOA ≤0.65 cm²/m²).

RESULTS

The incidence of PPM was 46.0%. PPM was moderate in 38.8% (n = 1579) patients and severe in 7.2% (n = 297) patients. Time-trend analysis showed that the proportion of PPM decreased significantly from 74% in 2009 to 18% in 2017 (P < .01). Severe PPM was associated with increased 5-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.76; P = .02). Severe PPM was not associated with an increased risk of repeat AVR (adjusted HR, 5.90; 95% CI, 0.95-36.5; P = .06). In a subanalysis of patients greater than or equal to 70 years of age, in comparison with no PPM, any PPM (adjusted HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; P = .01) and severe PPM (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; P < 0.01) were associated with increased risk of 5-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe PPM after SAVR had a negative impact on survival. This study demonstrated that the effects of PPM should not be overlooked in elderly undergoing SAVR.

Hemodynamic and clinical performance of Solo stentless bioprosthetic aortic valves

OBJECTIVE

To report the hemodynamic profile and short- and medium-term outcomes of Freedom Solo and Solo Smart stentless aortic valves implanted at our center.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2015, all patients undergoing aortic valve replacement using Solo stentless valves at our center were enrolled. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was carried out six months postoperatively. Survival and major events, including structural valve deterioration and non-structural valve dysfunction, endocarditis, reoperation and stroke, were assessed through medical records or telephone interview with the referring cardiologist up to November 2015 (mean and maximum follow-up 39±22 and 78 months, respectively).

RESULTS

Patients' (n=345) mean age was 72±8 years, 52% were female and median euroSCORE II was 2.7 (1.5-4.7). There was no intraoperative mortality and in-hospital mortality was 2.6%. Postoperatively, mean transvalvular gradient was 11.9±4.5 mmHg and effective orifice area was 1.9±0.5 cm². Patient-prosthesis mismatch occurred in 14% but was severe in only one patient. Cumulative survival at six years was 72%. Six patients were reoperated: three due to endocarditis, two for structural prosthesis deterioration and one because of periprosthetic fistula. Five patients suffered stroke, three had medically-treated endocarditis and one had structural valve deterioration but was not considered suitable for reoperation. None of the remainder had structural valve deterioration or non-structural valve dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Solo stentless aortic valves are safe to implant, with promising clinical outcomes in short- and medium-term assessment. Moreover, they show an excellent hemodynamic performance: low transvalvular gradients, large effective orifice areas and low incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch.

Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: A case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis

Background

Current retrospective evidence suggests similar clinical and superior hemodynamic outcomes of the Sorin Freedom Solo stentless aortic valve (SFS) (LivaNova PLC, London, UK) compared to the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented aortic valve (CEP) (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, California, USA). To date, no reports exist describing case-matched long-term outcomes and analysis for treatment of native valve endocarditis (NVE).

Methods

From 2004 through 2014, 77 consecutive patients (study group, 59.7% male, 68.9 ± 12.5 years, logEuroSCORE II 7.6 ± 12.3%) received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the SFS. A control group of patients after SAVR with the CEP was retrieved from our database and matched to the study group regarding 15 parameters including preoperative endocarditis. Acute perioperative outcomes and follow-up data (mean follow-up time 48.7±29.8 months, 95% complete) were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

No differences in early mortality occurred during 30-day follow up (3/77; 3.9% vs. 4/77; 5.2%; p = 0.699). Echocardiographic findings revealed lower postprocedural transvalvular pressure gradients (max. 17.0 ± 8.2 vs. 24.5 ± 9.2 mmHg, p< 0.001/ mean pressure of 8.4 ± 4.1 vs. 13.1 ± 5.9 mmHg, p< 0.001) in the SFS group. Structural valve degeneration (SVD) (5.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.04) and valve explantation due to SVD or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) (9.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.04) was more frequent in the SFS group. All-cause mortality during follow-up was 20.8% vs. 14.3% (p = 0.397). When patients were divided into subgroups of NVE and respective utilized bioprosthesis, the SFS presented impaired outcomes regarding mortality in NVE cases (p = 0.031).

Conclusions

The hemodynamic superiority of the SFS was confirmed in this comparison. However, clinical outcomes in terms of SVD and PVE rates, as well as survival after NVE, were inferior in this study. Therefore, we are reluctant to recommend utilization of the SFS for treatment of NVE.