Aortic Valve Replacement With Carpentier-Edwards: Hemodynamic Outcomes for the 19-mm Valve

Sex Disparities in Hemodynamics and Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Contemporary Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Studies have reported worse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in women receiving early generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs). They have smaller aortic annuli, which could result in higher gradients and more patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) after TAVI. We investigated the interactions between contemporary THV hemodynamics and outcomes in women who underwent TAVI. We conducted a retrospective, observational study of patients who underwent contemporary TAVI from 2015 to 2020. We compared baseline characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and hemodynamics according to sex. We then dichotomized women according to aortic annular area (<430 or ≥430 mm²). Included were 869 patients who underwent TAVI with the SAPIEN 3 or CoreValve Evolut PRO/PRO+. Most patients with small annuli were female (82.5%). They had nonsignificantly higher mortality (30-day: 1.5% vs 0.6%, p = 0.313; 1-year: 4.1% vs 2.7%, p = 0.265). Those who received self-expanding THVs had lower gradients (8.0 mm Hg vs 13.8 mm Hg, p <0.001), resulting in less moderate PPM (21.2% vs 73.6%, p <0.001), similar severe PPM (19.5% vs 15.3%, p = 0.454), and higher rates of pacemaker implantation (14.4% vs 4.2%, p = 0.009). Women with small annuli who received a balloon-expandable THV had nonsignificantly higher mortality (30-day: 2.1% vs 0.8%, p = 0.631; 1-year: 6.3% vs 1.7%, p = 0.118). In conclusion, women who underwent contemporary TAVI had nonsignificantly higher mortality, which could be due to higher PPM rates. These findings were more pronounced in the subset of women with small annuli, in whom those who received self-expanding THVs demonstrated superior hemodynamics at the cost of increased rates of pacemaker implantation.

Impact of Small Valve Size on 1-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Women (from the WIN-TAVI Registry)

Although most patients with small aortic annulus are women, there is paucity of data on the prognostic impact of small aortic prosthesis in women who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the impact of small valve size on 1-year clinical outcomes after TAVI in women. The Women's INternational Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation is an all-women registry evaluating patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI. Based on the size of the aortic bioprosthesis implanted, women were stratified into small (≤23 mm) and nonsmall (>23 mm) valve. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for valve-related symptoms or heart failure or valve-related dysfunction at 1-year follow-up. Of 934 women who underwent TAVI, 388 (41.5%) received a small valve. Women with a small valve size had a lower body mass index, lower surgical risk scores, were less likely to suffer from atrial fibrillation, less often required postdilation and had a lower rate of residual aortic regurgitation grade ≥2. The occurrence of the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 efficacy endpoint was similar between women treated with small and nonsmall valve (16.0% vs 16.3%, p = 0.881; adjusted hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 2.00). Likewise, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of other secondary endpoints after multivariable adjustment. In conclusion, women with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI with the implantation of a small valve bioprosthesis had similar 1-year outcomes as those receiving a nonsmall bioprosthesis.

Long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a 19-mm bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is known to be associated with improved haemodynamics in patients with aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus. However, limited benchmark data are available regarding the long-term outcomes in patients treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We investigated the long-term outcomes of SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients who underwent SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis at our hospital between 2008 and 2012.

RESULTS

In a total of 132 patients, moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 36 (27.3%) and 7 patients (5.3%), respectively. The median follow-up period was 7.7 years. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 79.4% and 52.9%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates were 89.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Neither moderate nor severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with late mortality, major adverse valve-related events or heart failure. Follow-up echocardiographic data were obtained at a median interval of 4.8 years in 80% of patients who survived ≥6 months postoperatively. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed a significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased mean transvalvular/transprosthetic pressure gradients and a decreased mean left ventricular mass. At follow-up, we observed moderate or severe haemodynamic structural valve deterioration in 17 patients; however, structural valve deterioration did not affect late survival or freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates, or heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR using the 19-mm bioprosthesis was associated with satisfactory long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.

Late clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves

Background

The present study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of aortic valve replacement using Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (Perimount) or Perimount Magna (Magna) valves.

Methods

We enrolled 430 patients who underwent aortic valve replacements with Perimount (n=58) or Magna (n=372) valves [1998-2013]. Multivariable and inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) analyses were performed.

Results

Before IPTW analysis, the overall 8-year survival rate differed significantly between the groups [Perimount 90%±4% vs. Magna 76%±4%; P=0.02; hazard ratio (HR): 0.37 for the Perimount group; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17-0.83]. Multivariable analysis of the overall survival identified Perimount valve use as a protective factor (P=0.009; HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.14-0.75). Independent risk factors of overall survival were older age, male sex, higher preoperative left ventricular mass index, lower ejection fraction, lower aortic valve pressure gradient, and lower haemoglobin. After applying IPTW, overall survival was again found to be significantly longer in the Perimount group (P=0.04; HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.20-0.93). Event-free survival was also better in the Perimount group (P=0.006; HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.19-0.75). However, the Magna group had significantly lower aortic valve pressure gradients at one year and five years postoperative.

Conclusions

Although Magna use led to decreased aortic valve pressure gradients at follow-up, overall and event-free survival rates were significantly better with use of the Perimount valve. Additional and larger studies are needed to confirm these results.

Late clinical outcomes after mechanical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: old versus new prostheses

Background

The study aimed to evaluate the late clinical outcomes of new-generation mechanical valves for severe aortic stenosis (AS) compared with old mechanical valves.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from 254 patients with severe AS, who underwent primary mechanical aortic valve replacement from 1995 to 2013. Patients were classified into two groups: old-valve group (n=65: 33 ATS standard, 32 Medtronic-Hall) and new-valve group (n=189: 113 St. Jude Regent, 46 On-X, 30 Sorin Overline). Median patient age was 58 years (Q1-Q3: 52-61). With propensity score matching based on demographic information, 56 patients in the old-valve group were matched with 177 patients in the new-valve group. The median follow-up duration was 91 months (Q1-Q3: 48-138).

Results

Cardiac-related mortality and hemorrhagic events were significantly lower in the new-valve group (P=0.047 and P=0.032, respectively). The median international normalized ratio (INR) at follow-up was significantly higher in the old-valve group [2.23, Q1-Q3: 2.14-2.35 (old-valve group); 2.08, Q1-Q3: 1.92-2.23 (new-valve group), P<0.001]. The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was significantly higher in the old-valve group (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis of the total population revealed that PPM was a significant risk factor for cardiac-related events [hazard ratio (HR) =5.279, 95% CI, 1.886-14.561, P=0.002] and showed higher trend of increasing mortality (HR =3.082, P=0.076).

Conclusions

New mechanical prostheses showed a better hemodynamic performance and lower incidence of PPM. Anticoagulation strategy to lower the target INR in patients with new mechanical valves may improve late outcomes by reducing hemorrhagic events.