Reintervention After Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparison of 3 Aortic Bioprostheses

Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now utilised as a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across the whole spectrum of surgical risk. Long-term durability of the bioprosthetic valves has become a key goal of TAVI as this procedure is now considered for younger and lower-risk populations. The purpose of this article is to present a state-of-the-art overview on the definition, aetiology, risk factors, mechanisms, diagnosis, clinical impact, and management of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and failure (BVF) following TAVI with a comparative perspective versus SAVR. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is the main factor limiting the durability of the bioprosthetic valves used for TAVI or SAVR, but non-structural BVD, such as prosthesis-patient mismatch and paravalvular regurgitation, as well as valve thrombosis or endocarditis may also lead to BVF. The incidence of BVF related to SVD or other causes is low (<5%) at midterm (5- to 8-year) follow-up and compares favourably with that of SAVR. The long-term follow-up data of randomised trials conducted with the first generations of transcatheter heart valves also suggest similar valve durability in TAVI versus SAVR at 10 years, but these trials suffer from major survivorship bias, and the long-term durability of TAVI will need to be confirmed by the analysis of the low-risk TAVI versus SAVR trials at 10 years.

Mid-term outcomes and hemodynamic performance of the St Jude Medical Epic aortic bioprosthesis for severe aortic stenosis

The St. Jude Medical Epic Supra valve is a porcine bioprosthesis designed for complete supraannular implantation. No report has shown the hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Epic Supra valve for severe aortic stenosis in a Japanese cohort. We retrospectively evaluated 65 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement using the Epic Supra valve for aortic stenosis at our department between May, 2011 and October, 2016. The mean follow-up period was 68.7 ± 32.7 months, and the follow-up rate was 89.2%. The mean age was 76.8 ± 5.3 years. The 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 96.9%, 79.4%, and 60.3%, respectively. The rates of freedom from valve-related events were 96.6% and 81.9% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. Four patients were diagnosed with structural valve deterioration (SVD), and reintervention was performed in two patients. The rates of freedom from SVD were 98.2% and 83.3% at 5 and 8 years, respectively, and the mean time to diagnosis of SVD was 72.5 ± 25.3 months. The mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 16.8 ± 6.0 mmHg postoperatively, 17.5 ± 9.4 mmHg at 5 years, and 21.2 ± 12.4 mmHg at 8 years (p = 0.08). The effective orifice area index (EOAI) was 0.95 ± 0.2 cm2/m2 immediately after surgery, 0.96 ± 0.27 cm2/m2 at 5 years, and 0.84 ± 0.2 cm2/m2 at 8 years (p = 0.10). An increase in MPG and decrease in EOAI were also observed, which may be associated with SVD. Follow-up after 5 years is important to determine if there is an increase.

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After Aortic Valve Replacement: Differences Between Biological and Mechanical Prostheses

AIMS

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is the most severe form of infective endocarditis associated with a high mortality rate. Whether PVE affects biological and mechanical aortic valves to the same extent remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of re-intervention because of PVE between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves.

METHODS

Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or combined AVR in a single cardiac surgery centre between January 1998 and December 2019 were analysed. All patients who underwent re-intervention because of PVE were identified. The primary endpoint was the rate of explants. Freedom from re-intervention and variables associated with re-intervention were analysed using Cox regression analysis including correction for competing risk.

RESULTS

During the study period, 5,983 aortic valve prostheses were implanted, including 3,620 biological (60.5%) and 2,363 mechanical (39.5%) prostheses. The overall mean follow-up period was 7.3±5.3 years (median, 6.5; IQR 2.9-11.2 years). The rate of re-intervention for PVE in the biological group was 1.5% (n=54) compared with 1.7% (n=40) in the mechanical group (p=0.541). Cox regression analysis revealed that younger age (HR 0.960, 95% CI 0.942-0.979; p<0.001), male sex (HR 2.362, 95% CI 1.384-4.033; p=0.002), higher creatinine (HR 1.002, 95% CI 0.999-1.004; p=0.057), and biological valve prosthesis (HR 2.073, 95% CI 1.258-3.414; p=0.004) were associated with re-intervention for PVE. After correction for competing risk of death, biological valve prosthesis was significantly associated with a higher rate of re-intervention for PVE (HR 2.011, 95% CI 1.177-3.437; p=0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this single-centre, observational, retrospective cohort study, AVR using biological prosthesis is associated with re-intervention for PVE compared to mechanical prosthesis. Further investigations are needed to verify these findings.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement in subgroups of people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis in the UK

OBJECTIVE

Exploratory analysis to conceptualize and evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness and economic drivers of using a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical heart valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis (AS) from a National Health Service (NHS) UK perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed using a partitioned survival model. Parameter inputs were obtained from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to explore the uncertainty around the parameters.

RESULTS

The novel tissue valve was potentially associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.01 per person. Potential cost savings were greatest for those aged 55-64 (£408) versus those aged 65+(£53). DSA indicated the results to be most dependent on relative differences in general mortality, procedure costs, and reoperation rates. PSA estimated around 75% of the iterations to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY for those aged 55-64, and 57% for those aged 65+.

CONCLUSIONS

The exploratory analysis suggests that the novel tissue valve could be a cost-effective intervention for people over the age of 55 with AS who are suitable for SAVR in the UK.

Developing Hemodynamic Valve Deterioration and Mortality in Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

As life span increases, in patients having a bioprosthetic valve, the development of hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) is an important concern. We evaluated the association of developing HVD to survival in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

The individuals undergoing isolated SAVR and serial echocardiography exams (interval >30 d) were included in this study. HVD was defined as mean pressure gradient ≥ 20 mmHg, mean pressure gradient ≥10 mmHg higher than in the baseline exam, or more than moderate regurgitation on Doppler echocardiography (moderate and severe grade). A time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model was used for this study.

RESULTS

A total of 631 patients were included. The mean age was 71.8 ± 6.1 y old (female: 53.6%). HVD was found in 259 patients (41%) during echocardiographic follow-up (mean 3.3 ± 3.0 y). Patient-prosthetic mismatch was found in 174 patients. One hundred and twenty-six patients died during follow-up (median 62.1 mo, interquartile range 31.1-96.8). The development of HVD was an independent risk factor for death during follow-up (P = 0.038, hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidential interval: 1.02-2.08).

CONCLUSIONS

HVD was common after bioprosthetic SAVR during mid-term follow-up. Developing HVD, including moderate and severe grades, was associated with a poor survival rate compared with patients without HVD.

Excess Reintervention With Mitroflow Prosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement: Ten-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Current bioprostheses are considered to have improved durability and better hemodynamic performance compared with previous designs, but there are limited comparative data on late outcomes.

METHODS

From 2009 through 2011, 300 adults with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) were randomly assigned to receive Edwards Magna, St Jude Epic, or Sorin Mitroflow bioprostheses (n = 100, n = 101, n = 99, respectively). Overall survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods, whereas competing risk analysis was used for all time-to-event outcomes. Serial echocardiographic data were fitted with longitudinal models stratified by implant valve size.

RESULTS

During median follow-up of 9.8 years (interquartile range, 8.7-10.2), 10-year survival was 50% for the Magna group, 42% for the Epic group, and 41% for the Mitroflow group (P = .415). Cumulative risk of stroke was 9% at 10 years, and rates were comparable for the three groups. Indexed aortic valve area and mean gradients were similar among the three groups receiving 19 mm and 21 mm valves, but in larger (23 mm or more) prostheses, gradients were lower (P < .001) and indexed aortic valve areas were higher in the Magna group (P < .001). The 10-year risk of endocarditis differed by group (P = .033), with higher incidence in the Mitroflow vs the Magna group (7% vs 0%, P = .019). Late risk of reinterventions in the Mitroflow group was 22%, compared with 0% in the Magna group (P < .001) and 5% in the Epic group (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

The Magna valve had the lowest gradients and largest indexed aortic valve area with larger implant sizes. The Mitroflow bioprosthesis is associated with an increased rate of reintervention and possible increased risk of infection compared with Magna and Epic valves.

Externally mounted versus internally mounted leaflet aortic bovine pericardial bioprosthesis: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies reported higher-than-expected rates of early structural valve degeneration (SVD) and/or reoperation of externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis compared with others. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of bioprostheses with externally versus internally mounted leaflet design in patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through November 2021 to identify comparative studies investigating outcomes following SAVR with either externally or internally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis. Outcomes of interest were reoperation for SVD or any cause and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 15 observational studies that enrolled a total of 23,539 patients who underwent SAVR using externally mounted (n = 9338; 39.7%) or internally mounted leaflet (n = 14,201; 60.3%) bioprostheses. Externally mounted valves consisted of the Trifecta (Abbott, St Paul, MN) (n = 6146) and the Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, UK) (n = 3192), and all internally mounted valves were the Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Externally mounted valves compared with the Perimount were associated with higher reoperation rates for SVD [hazard ratio (HR) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67-4.72; P < 0.001] and any cause (HR 9.36, 95% CI 3.70-23.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, externally mounted valves demonstrated higher all-cause mortalities (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study summarizing updated evidence revealed higher reoperation rates and all-cause mortalities in patients with externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprostheses compared with those with internally mounted design. Choosing the right SAVR valve type is critical part of lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018

IMPORTANCE

The performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves is usually assessed in single valve models or head-to-head comparisons. National databases or registries offer the opportunity to investigate all available valve models in the population and allows for a comparative assessment of their performance.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the long-term rates of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization associated with commonly used bioprosthetic aortic valves and to identify valve model groups with deviation in clinical performance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based, nationwide cohort study included all adult patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery or ascending aortic surgery) in Sweden between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Patients were identified from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Patients with concomitant valve surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and previous transcatheter valve replacement were excluded. Follow-up was complete for all participants. Data were analyzed from March 9, 2020, to October 12, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Primary surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perimount, Mosaic/Hancock, Biocor/Epic, Mitroflow/Crown, Soprano, and Trifecta valve models.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of reintervention, defined as a subsequent aortic valve operation or transcatheter valve replacement. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Regression standardization and flexible parametric survival models were used to account for intergroup differences. Mean follow-up time was 7.1 years, and maximum follow-up time was 16.0 years.

RESULTS

A total of 16 983 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [8.5] years; 10 685 men [62.9%]) were included in the analysis. The Perimount valve model group had the lowest and the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group had the highest cumulative incidence of reintervention. The estimated cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 3.6% (95% CI, 3.1%-4.2%) in the Perimount valve model group and 12.2% (95% CI, 9.8%-15.1%) in the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group. The estimated incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 9.3% (95% CI, 7.3%-11.3%) in the Soprano valve model group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study showed that the Perimount valve was the most commonly used and had the lowest incidence of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization, whereas the Mitroflow/Crown valve had the highest rates. These findings highlight the need for clinical vigilance in patients who receive either a Soprano or Mitroflow/Crown aortic bioprosthesis.

Mid-term clinical and haemodynamic results after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and haemodynamic results after implantation of the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing Trifecta aortic valve replacement between 01 January 2012 and 31 December 2017 at the Ghent University Hospital. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of valve- and procedure-related complications and mortality. The haemodynamic performance was analysed by longitudinal Doppler echocardiography.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 182 patients was 77 [standard deviation (SD): 5.5] years; 54.9% were women. The mean follow-up was 39.8 (SD: 24.3) months. Overall survival at 1 and 5 years was 86% (SD: 3%) and 68% (SD: 4%), respectively, and overall freedom from structural valve deterioration was 100% and 98% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. There was no valve thrombosis nor early endocarditis. Urgent surgery was the only risk factor for early mortality in the multivariable analysis [P = 0.009, odds ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.5]. Preoperative atrial fibrillation was the most important predictor of late mortality (P = 0.001, hazard ratio 3.68, 95% CI 1.65-8.21). The average peak gradients were stable from discharge up to 1 and 5 years postoperatively [15 (SD: 6) and 17 (SD: 8) mmHg].

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the excellent clinical performance of the Trifecta valve, particularly in an elderly age group. Through the 7-year follow-up period, low transvalvular gradients persisted, and only a few patients needed reoperation. Although structural valve degeneration occurred rarely, it was unrelated to valve size or age at implantation; therefore, further long-term follow-up remains mandatory.

Trifecta versus perimount bioprosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement; systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggested higher rates of early structural valve degeneration or reintervention for the Trifecta valve compared to other valves. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and the Perimount valves in patients who underwent a surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

All randomized control trials and observational studies which investigated the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and Perimount valves were identified with PubMed and EMBASE. The endpoints were the rates of reintervention and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) for reintervention and all-cause mortality were combined with the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our search identified 6 eligible observational studies which enrolled a total of 11,135 patients who underwent SAVR with either the Trifecta valve (n = 4932) or Perimount (n = 6203). Pooled analyses demonstrated that the reintervention rates were significantly higher with the Trifecta valve compared with Perimount valves (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 3.16 [1.83-5.46]; p < .0001; I² = 40%). In contrast, all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (HR [95% CI] = 1.09 [0.75-1.58]; p = .32, I² = 12%).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that AVR with the Trifecta valve was associated with higher rates of reintervention compared for that with the Perimount valve. Although further long-term randomized trials are warranted, surgeons need to be cautious when choosing a bioprosthetic valve for patients undergoing SAVR.

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.

Reintervention rates following bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement-a Danish Nationwide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Updated European guidelines recommend annual echocardiographic evaluation after bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (bio-SAVR). Given the increased demand on health care resources, only clinically relevant controls can be prioritized. We therefore aimed to explore reintervention rates following bio-SAVR.

METHODS

From the nationwide Danish Register of Surgical Procedures, we identified all patients ≥40 years with isolated bio-SAVR ± concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) during 2000-2016. In 90-day reintervention-free survivors, we assessed aortic valve reintervention rates (primary outcome) and all-cause mortality rates (secondary outcome) at 1, 3 and 5 years with total follow-up until 31 December 2017 and further estimated annual theoretical echocardiographic control visits.

RESULTS

In 10 518 patients with bio-SAVR (+CABG 39.7%), we observed low reintervention rates at 1, 3 and 5 years, but with high rates of all-cause mortality; i.e. 5-year reintervention rate of 3.7/1000 person-years (≤1.5%) and 5-year mortality rate of 21.7/1000 person-years. Accounting for the competing risk of death, 5-year rates were inversely related to age group and remained relatively low across all age categories but increased gradually in the long term. A significant proportion of reinterventions were presumed due to infectious endocarditis (48% at 3 years, 37% at 5 years). With annual transthoracic echocardiography, the theoretical ratio of echocardiographies per reintervention in the first 5 years was 248, and 425 when endocarditis events were excluded.

CONCLUSION

Reintervention rates within the first 5 years following bio-SAVR were relatively rare, and with a substantial number due to endocarditis.

Aortic valve neocuspidization with autologous pericardium in adult patients: UK experience and meta-analytic comparison with other aortic valve substitutes

OBJECTIVES

We sought to provide further evidence on the safety and efficacy of aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) using autologous pericardium in adult patients with aortic valve disease by reporting clinical and echocardiographic results from the first UK experience and performing a meta-analytic comparison with other biological valve substitutes.

METHODS

We reported clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of 55 patients (mean age 58 ± 15 years) undergoing AVNeo with autologous pericardium in 2 UK centres from 2018 to 2020. These results were included in a meta-analytic comparison between series on AVNeo (7 studies, 1205 patients, mean weighted follow-up 3.6 years) versus Trifecta (10 studies, 8705 patients, 3.8 years), Magna Ease (3 studies, 3137 patients, 4.1 years), Freedom Solo (4 studies, 1869 patients, 4.4 years), Freestyle (4 studies, 4307 patients, 7 years), Mitroflow (4 studies, 4760 patients, 4.1 years) and autograft aortic valve (7 papers, 3839 patients, 9.1 years).

RESULTS

In the present series no patients required intraoperative conversion. After mean follow-up of 12.5 ± 0.9 months, 3 patients presented with endocarditis and 1 required reintervention. The remaining patients had absent or mild aortic valve insufficiency with very low peak and mean transvalvular gradients (16 ± 3.7 and 9 ± 2.2 mmHg, respectively). Meta-analytic estimates showed non-significant difference between AVNeo and all but Magna Ease valves with regards to structural valve degeneration, reintervention and endocarditis. When compared Magna Ease valve, AVNeo and other valve substitutes showed an excess of valve-related events.

CONCLUSIONS

AVNeo is safe, associated with excellent haemodynamic profile. Its midterm risk of valve-related events is comparable to most biological valve substitutes. Magna Ease is potentially the best biological choice as far as risk of reintervention is concerned.

Direct Flow Medical vs. Edwards Sapien 3 Prosthesis: A Propensity Matched Comparison on Intermediate Safety and Mortality

Aims: To compare intermediate performance and mortality rates in patients, who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with two different types of prostheses: Edwards Sapien 3 (ES3) and Direct Flow Medical (DFM).

Methods and Results: 42 consecutive patients implanted with a DFM prosthesis for severe aortic stenosis were matched 1:1 with an equal number of patients, who received an ES3 during the same period. Primary endpoint was mortality. MACE, as a composite of all-cause death, stroke, and re-do-procedure (valve-in-valve), was defined as secondary endpoint. Moreover, we compared NYHA class, NT-proBNP-levels and the extent of restenosis. Patients were followed for 2 years. DFM patients showed echocardiographic elevated mean pressure gradients compared to ES3 patients before discharge (11.2 mmHg ± 5.3 vs. 3.5 mmHg ± 2.7; p < 0.001) and upon 6-months follow-up (20.3 mmHg ± 8.8 vs. 12.3 mmHg ± 4.4; p < 0.001). ES3 candidates showed superior NYHA class at follow-up (p = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significantly worse survival in patients receiving a DFM prosthesis compared to ES3 (Breslow p = 0.020). MACE occurred more often in DFM patients compared to ES3 (Breslow p = 0.006).

Conclusions: Patients receiving DFM valve prostheses showed worse survival and higher rates in MACE compared to ES3. Prosthesis performance regarding mean pressure gradients and patients' NYHA class also favored ES3.

Fifty years of the pericardial valve: Long-term results in the aortic position

It is now 50 years since the development of the first pericardial valve in 1971. In this time significant progress has been made in refining valve design aimed at improving the longevity of the prostheses. This article reviews the current literature regarding the longevity of pericardial heart valves in the aortic position. Side by side comparisons of freedom from structural valve degeneration are made for the valves most commonly used in clinical practice today, including stented, stentless, and sutureless valves. Strategies to reduce structural valve degeneration are also discussed including methods of tissue fixation and anti-calcification, ways to minimise mechanical stress on the valve, and the role of patient prosthesis mismatch.

The First 100 Cases of Two Innovations Combined: Video-Assisted Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy Using a Novel Aortic Prosthesis

Introduction

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) is less traumatic than via other surgical routes; using a novel aortic valve may confer long-term resistance against valve deterioration, and thus be useful in younger, more active patients. Here we aim to validate using the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve with minimally invasive RAMT.

Methods

Between April 2017 and June 2019, 100 patients underwent video-assisted minimally invasive AVR by RAMT, using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. Cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was through femoral vessels. Clinical data were prospectively entered into our institutional database.

Results

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping times were 79 ± 38 and 41 ± 17 min. Surgical access was successful in 100% of cases. There were no cases of intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular events, rethoracotomy for bleeding, valve-related reoperation, right internal mammary artery injury, or conversion to sternotomy. Intensive care and hospital stays were 2 ± 1 and 6 ± 3 days, respectively. One patient had a pacemaker fitted. Postoperative dialysis was necessary in one patient. Trace to mild aortic valve regurgitation occurred in two patients. No structural valve deterioration (SVD) and paravalvular leak were seen. At 1-year follow-up mean effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.8 ± 0.1 cm², peak gradient was 22.1 ± 3.1 mmHg, and mean gradient was 11.5 ± 2.3 mmHg.

Conclusion

Our preliminary experience suggests that RAMT for AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve is safe, effective, and reproducible. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and durability of this new valve.