Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study

A Controlled Trial Comparing One-Year Hemodynamics of Two Bovine Pericardial Valves

BACKGROUND

 This randomized controlled trial was designed to compare 1-year hemodynamic performances and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a recently introduced (the AVALUS group) and worldwide used (the CEPME group) bovine pericardial bioprostheses.

METHODS

 Patients were screened to enroll 70 patients in each group based on a noninferiority design. The primary endpoint of the trial was the mean pressure gradient across the aortic valve (AVMPG) at 1 year after surgery. One-year echocardiographic data were obtained from 92.1% (129 of 140 patients) of the study patients.

RESULTS

 There were no differences in baseline characteristics, including sex and body surface area (1.64 ± 0.18 vs. 1.65 ± 0.15 m2) between the groups. The AVMPG on 1-year echocardiography was 14.0 ± 4.3 and 13.9 ± 5.1 mmHg in the AVALUS and CEPME groups, respectively (the p-value for noninferiority was 0.0004). In the subgroup analyses for the respective size of the prostheses, AVMPG of the 19-mm prostheses was significantly lower in the AVALUS group than in the CEPME group (14.0 ± 4.3 vs. 20.0 ± 4.7 mmHg, p = 0.012), whereas those of the other sizes were not significantly different between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the effective orifice area (1.49 ± 0.40 vs. 1.53 ± 0.38 cm2, p = 0.500) or effective orifice area index (0.91 ± 0.22 vs 0.93 ± 0.23 cm2/m2, p = 0.570) in all the patients, or in the subgroup analysis for the 19-mm prosthesis. There were no differences in the 1-year clinical outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

 The 1-year hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the AVALUS group were noninferior to those of the CEPME group (NCT03796442).

Preliminary Report from a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bovine Pericardial Valves

BACKGROUND

A randomized controlled trial was designed to compare 1-year hemodynamic profiles and clinical outcomes after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a recently introduced (study group) and world-widely used (control group) bovine pericardial bioprostheses. This study evaluated early postoperative outcomes as a preliminary analysis.

METHODS

The primary end point of the trial was the mean pressure gradient across the aortic valve (AVMPG) at 1 year after surgery. Patients were screened to enroll 70 patients in each group based on a noninferiority design. Early postoperative hemodynamic and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics, including sex and body surface area (1.64 ± 0.18 vs. 1.65 ± 0.15 m2) between the two groups. The AVMPG on early postoperative echocardiography was 15.2 ± 4.6 mm Hg and 16.5 ± 6.2 mm Hg in the study and control groups, respectively (p = 0.177). Although AVMPG of the 19 mm prostheses was lower in the study group than in the control group (17.0 ± 6.3 mm Hg vs. 22.8 ± 6.6 mm Hg, p = 0.039), there were no significant differences in the effective orifice area in all patients (1.57 ± 0.41 cm2 vs. 1.53 ± 0.34 cm2, p = 0.568), and each valve size. The effective orifice area index was also similar between the two groups in overall (p = 0.352), and in each valve size. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes including operative mortality and postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative hemodynamic and clinical results after AVR using a recently introduced bovine pericardial valve were comparable with those using the control valve (NCT03796442).

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.

Structural valve deterioration of bioprosthesis in the aortic position: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most common open-heart surgical procedures. The durability of the tissue valve in the aortic position is crucial in AVR and transcatheter AVR. We reviewed structural valve deterioration using echocardiographic follow-up in three types of surgical aortic tissue valves.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted where hemodynamic deterioration was evaluated and compared using transthoracic echocardiography, including pressure gradients and effective orifice area. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to summarize the time to failure.

RESULTS

The study included 133 Trifecta, 156 Epic, and 321 Magna Ease valves. Seventy-six percent (1941/2551) of patients had to be excluded due to insufficient echo data. Through univariate analysis, 34% (216/610) of valves met deterioration criteria after 24 months. Unadjusted survival curves showed a significant difference between valves (p ≤ .001), with a longer mean time to deterioration for the Magna Ease versus Trifecta and Epic of 68.9 versus 50.1 and 38.2 months, respectively. A Cox proportional hazard analysis found worse hazard ratios of 1.69 (p ≤ .04) and 2.4 (p ≤ .01) for Trifecta versus Magna and Epic versus Trifecta, respectively.

CONCLUSION

All three valve types demonstrated structural valve deterioration on echocardiographic follow-up with significant differences in rate. The Magna Ease appeared to have the highest durability, and the Epic the lowest. Further investigation is warranted to confirm the results in a larger multicenter study.

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.

Two-Year Clinical Follow-Up Assessment of the Novel Cingular Surgical Bovine Pericardial Valve

Objectives: To evaluate the 2-year clinical safety and hemodynamic outcomes of the Cingular bovine pericardial bioprosthesis. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial was conducted in patients who required aortic or mitral valve replacement. From March 2016 to October 2017, 197 patients were implanted with the Cingular bovine pericardial valve at five sites in China. The clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance were assessed through a 2-year follow-up. Clinical safety events were reviewed by an independent clinical events committee, and echocardiographic data were assessed by an independent core laboratory. Results: The mean age was 66.9 ± 4.9 years. The 2-year survival rate was 96.4%. A complete 2-year clinical follow-up was achieved in 189 of 190 survivors. No case of structural valve deterioration, major perivalvular leak, prosthetic valve endocarditis, or valve-related reoperation was seen. For the aortic valve, the mean pressure gradient observed was 12.5 ± 4.0 mm Hg, and the effective orifice area (EOA) was 2.0 ± 0.3 cm2. For the smaller size aortic valves, 19 mm and 21 mm, respective mean EOA values of 1.7 ± 0.2 cm2 and 1.8 ± 0.2 cm2 were found. The values for mean pressure gradient and mean EOA for mitral bioprostheses were 4.0 ± 1.4 mm Hg and 2.2 ± 0.3 cm2, respectively. There was no significant change between 1-year and 2-year hemodynamic performance. Conclusions: The Cingular bovine pericardial valve showed favorable clinical safety and hemodynamic outcomes over a 2-year follow-up. Further follow-up is required to validate the long-term durability.

Pericardial Versus Porcine Valves for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Two prototypes of material to constitute surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve (AV) are bovine pericardium and porcine valves. Earlier studies have consistently shown superior hemodynamic profiles in bovine pericardial valves, however, it is not clear whether such superior hemodynamic profiles can be translated into improved clinical outcomes. In patients undergoing isolated bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) (636 patients between January 2000 and May 2016), the use of bovine pericardial valves was associated with superior hemodynamic profiles and improved late survival as compared with porcine valves. Freedom from adverse valve-related complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Background and Objectives

There still are controversies on which type between bovine pericardial and porcine valves is superior in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study aims to compare clinical outcomes of AVR using between pericardial or porcine valves.

Methods

The study involved consecutive 636 patients underwent isolated AVR using stented bioprosthetic valves between January 2000 and May 2016. Of these, pericardial and porcine valves were implanted in 410 (pericardial group) and 226 patients (porcine group), respectively. Clinical outcomes including survival, structural valve deterioration (SVD) and trans-valvular pressure gradient were compared between the groups. To adjust for potential selection bias, inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted.

Results

The mean follow-up duration was 60.1±50.2 months. There were no significant differences in the rates of early mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; p=0.81) and SVD (0.3%/patient-year [PY] vs. 0.5%/PY; p=0.33) between groups. After adjustment using IPTW, however, landmark mortality analyses showed a significantly lower late (>8 years) mortality risk in pericardial group over porcine group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval, [CI] 0.41–0.90; p=0.01) while the risks of SVD were not significantly difference between groups (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.12–1.70; p=0.24). Mean pressure gradient across prosthetic AV was lower in the Pericardial group than the Porcine group at both immediate postoperative point and latest follow-up (p values <0.001).

Conclusions

In patients undergoing bioprosthetic surgical AVR, bovine pericardial valves showed superior results in terms of postoperative hemodynamic profiles and late survival rates over porcine valves.

Surgical aortic valve replacement and left ventricular remodeling: Survival and sex-related differences

OBJECTIVES

To analyze how left ventricular (LV) remodeling and hypertrophy geometry evolve after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in octogenarian patients, and identify potential sex-related differences and implications for long-term outcomes.

METHODS

In 170 patients with aortic stenosis ([AS], age 80 ± 4 years, 59% women), hypertrophy geometry and remodeling (LV index) were reanalyzed one year post-SAVR. The six-year outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Pre-SAVR, 65% of the women and 38.6% of the men (P < .001) showed adaptive remodeling. Concentric hypertrophy was prevalent in adaptive remodeling, and mixed and dilated hypertrophy were more prevalent in maladaptive remodeling. At one year, the remodeling patterns and sex distribution were similar to those observed pre-SAVR, but the LV index decreased in women and increased in men (P < .0001). Women with adaptive remodeling had a higher incidence of persistent concentric hypertrophy with higher LV filling pressures. Long-term survival was better in women and worse in men with adaptive remodeling (P = .039). Men with adaptive remodeling and men with concentric hypertrophy had the highest risk of cardiac death. This risk was similar between sexes for patients with maladaptive remodeling and dilated hypertrophy. Women with LV ejection fraction >55% had a lower risk of cardiac death than men.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term outcomes of SAVR differ between sexes in older patients with AS and adaptive LV remodeling. The LV index facilitates studying the pathways of adaptation to AS. The follow-up shifts help explain the sex differences in long-term outcomes post-SAVR. Concentric hypertrophy is associated with the highest risk of cardiac death in men.

Comparison of porcine versus bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in the mitral position

BACKGROUND

There are no reports of midterm outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a 25-mm bioprosthesis in a large series of patients. This study aimed to examine perioperative and midterm outcomes of bioprosthetic valve choice, porcine or bovine pericardial, in the mitral position, focusing on 25-mm valves.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2018, 467 patients received a mitral bioprosthesis, with or without concomitant procedures. Of these, 111 (23.8%) were porcine, and 356 (76.2%) were bovine pericardial, and 219 patients (46.9%) received a 25-mm valve. A propensity-matched cohort of 192 patients was used for outcome analyses. The influence of the valve type on midterm survival and incidence of cardiac death was assessed. Similarly, subanalysis stratified by valve size was conducted.

RESULTS

In matched patients, there were no differences in midterm survival and incidence of cardiac death between the two groups (log-rank test; p = .268 and p = .097, respectively). There were no differences in midterm survival and incidence of cardiac death between the 25-mm valve and larger valve (log-rank test; p = .563 and p = .597, respectively). The Cox proportional-hazards model revealed that the valve type and 25-mm valve did not affect midterm survival (p = .487 and p = .375, respectively) and incidence of cardiac death (p = .678 and p = .562, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of a porcine or bovine pericardial bioprosthesis does not affect midterm survival and cardiac death. The 25-mm valves, whether bovine or porcine, could be an appropriate alternative when the patient's body size is small.

Blood flow energy loss: a predictor for the recovery of left ventricular function after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

It is difficult to estimate the improvement in left ventricular (LV) function after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present study aimed to evaluate whether energy loss (EL) can predict the postoperative LV function after AVR.

METHODS

Nine patients who underwent AVR with a bioprosthetic valve were enrolled in the present study. Porcine prostheses were used in 5 patients and bovine pericardial prostheses were used in 4 patients. The aortic flow pattern was visualized and EL and cardiac output (CO) were measured using 4-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging from the LV to the descending aorta; the EL/CO ratio in the extracted area was calculated as total EL/CO ratio.

RESULTS

With a porcine valve, a severe helical flow was observed in the ascending aorta during the holosystolic phase. In contrast, with a bovine pericardial valve, straight transvalvular aortic flow was observed in the early systolic phase and 2 large vortical flows occurred on both sides of the greater and lesser curvature of the ascending aorta after the mid-systolic period. The total EL/CO ratio was strongly correlated with LV ejection fraction improvement after AVR (r = 0.74, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The aortic flow pattern is different between the porcine valve and bovine pericardial valve. The total EL/CO ratio is a valuable tool for evaluating the postoperative LV ejection fraction improvement after AVR. Optimization of total EL/CO ratio would have potential to improve haemodynamic performances after AVR.

Porcine and bovine aortic valve comparison for surgical optimization: A fluid-structure interaction modeling study

BACKGROUND

Porcine aortic valve (PAV) and bovine aortic valve (BAV) are commonly used in aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgeries. A detailed comparison for their hemodynamic and structural stress/strain performances would help to better understand valve cardiac function and select valve type and size for AVR outcome optimizations.

METHODS

Eight fluid-structure interaction models were constructed to compare hemodynamic and stress/strain behaviors of PAV and BAV with 4 sizes (19, 21, 23, and 25 mm). Blood flow velocity, systolic cross-valve pressure gradient (SCVPG), geometric orifice area (GOA), flow shear stresses (FSS), and stress/strain were obtained for comparison.

RESULTS

Compared with PAV, BAV has better hemodynamic performance, with lower maximum flow velocity (7.17%) and pressure (9.82%), smaller pressure gradient (mean and peak SCVPG: 8.92% and 9.28%), larger GOA (9.56%) and lower FSS (6.61%). The averages of the mean and peak net pressure gradient values from 4 BAV models were 8.10% and 8.35% lower than that from PAV models. Larger valve sizes for both PAV and BAV had improved hemodynamic performance. Maximum flow velocity, pressure, mean SCVPG and maximum FSS from 25 mm BAV were 36.80%, 15.81%, 39.05% and 38.83% lower than those from 19 mm BAV. The GOA of PAV and BAV 25 mm Valve were 43.75% and 33.07% larger than 19 mm valves, respectively. BAV has lower stress on the leaflets than PAV.

CONCLUSIONS

BAV had better hemodynamic performance and lower leaflets stress than PAV. More patient studies are needed to validate our findings.

Glutaraldehyde and 2,3-butanediol treatment of bovine pericardium for aortic valve bioprosthesis in sheep: a preliminary study

Background

Bovine pericardium can be used for cardiovascular repair surgeries, but challenges involving biocompatibility and durability remain. This study aimed to carry out pre-clinical testing of aortic valve replacement using an aortic valve prosthesis made of bovine pericardium modified with glutaraldehyde (GA) and 2,3-butanediol (BD).

Methods

The mechanical, plasma protein adsorption, platelet adhesion, collagenase digestion, and ninhydrin properties of the material (control vs. GA vs. GA + BD) were tested. All 3 tissues were implanted in rats and observed after 8 weeks under microscopy with alizarin red staining for calcification. Aortic valves made from the fully-treated material were implanted in sheep. A commercial bioprosthesis was used as control. Effectiveness and safety indicators were observed at 180 days after implantation.

Results

Compared with the control group, the GA + BD material showed higher elongation at breaking and tensile load (both P<0.05), lower plasma protein adsorption, lower platelet adhesion, lower collagenase digestion, lower ninhydrin value, and higher cross-linking (all P<0.05). After implantation in rat models, the GA + BD material showed little or no dissolution; there was no obvious calcification; and it was surrounded by a small amount of fibrosis, with peripheral capillary proliferation. After implantation in sheep models, the aortic valve leaflets of the experimental animals freely opened and closed, their surface was smooth, and no abnormal echo was observed. The echocardiographic results and hemodynamic were comparable between the two groups. All safety parameters were normal.

Conclusions

Modification of bovine pericardium with GA and BD results in a biomaterial with favorable properties for use as an aortic valve prosthesis.

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.

Single-Center Outcomes with Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

 Rapid-deployment valves can reduce procedural times and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery. In our institution, more than 500 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR).

METHODS

 A total of 510 patients underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2017, of whom 270 patients underwent isolated AVR and 240 underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The cumulative follow-up time was 1,444 patient-years, the median follow-up time 2.8 years, respectively RESULTS:  An early all-cause mortality of 3.5% (n = 18) was seen with a cumulative survival of 91.9 ± 2.2% after 12 months. Mean cross-clamp times were 37 ± 19 minutes for isolated AVR and 93 ± 29 minutes for AVR with concomitant procedures. The rate of new pacemaker implantation was 7.8% (n = 40). No case of structural degeneration occurred in the follow-up. Three (0.6%) cases of endocarditis were registered.

CONCLUSIONS

 Rapid deployment AVR can be performed safely with low complication rates and good hemodynamic results. Therefore, the relevance in aortic valve surgery can be stressed.

Long-term outcomes of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has become a prominent area of research as the medical community evaluate its place amongst other aortic valve interventions. The main advantages of SURD-AVR established to date are the reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, as well as facilitating minimally invasive surgery in high-risk surgical patients. This current systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, is the first focusing on long-term outcomes regarding safety, efficacy and durability of SURD-AVR from available current literature.

Methods

A literature search via six electronic databases was performed from their inception to November 2019. Inclusion criteria for this systematic review included survival and postoperative echocardiographic outcomes greater than five years in patients who underwent SURD-AVR with either Perceval or Intuity valves. Studies were identified and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Long-term survival outcomes were aggregated using digitized Kaplan-Meier curves where available.

Results

After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, four studies were identified for review. All four studies were observational and in total reported data for 1,998 patients. Almost half (42.4%) of patients underwent SURD-AVR via full sternotomy, with almost one third (30.1%) also undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures. Aggregate overall survival rates at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up were 94.9%, 91.2%, 89.0%, and 84.2%, respectively. Incidence of strokes (4.8%), severe paravalvular leaks (PVLs) (1.5%) and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (8.2%) at up to 5-year follow-up were acceptable. At 5-year follow-up hemodynamic outcomes were also acceptable for mean pressure gradient (MPG) (range, 8.8-13.6 mmHg), peak pressure gradient (PPG) (range, 18.9-21.1 mmHg) and effective orifice area (EOA) (range, 1.5-1.8 cm²).

Conclusions

Evaluation of the evidence reporting long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR suggests that it is a safe procedure for AVR with low rates of complications. Long-term outcomes presented in this review show that not only does SURD-AVR have acceptable survival rates, but also good hemodynamic performance at 5-year follow-up.

Clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of Dafodil™ aortic and mitral pericardial bioprosthesis: 1-year results from Dafodil-1 first-in-human trial

BACKGROUND

Bioprosthesis has been increasingly implanted for the treatment of transvalvular disease across the world. A new Dafodil™ pericardial bioprosthesis (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., India) recently approved by Conformité Européenne (CE) is a tri-leaflet, stented, bovine valve. The purpose of Dafodil-1 first-in-human trial was to evaluate clinical safety and performance (including hemodynamic parameters) of the Dafodil pericardial bioprosthesis in patients who underwent aortic or mitral valve replacement.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter clinical trial enrolled 60 patients (Aortic: 30 patients; Mitral: 30 patients) from seven sites across India. Safety endpoints were early (≤30 days) and late (> 30 days) mortality and valve-related morbidity. The performance endpoints were hemodynamic performance, improvement in NYHA functional class, and change in the quality of life using SF-12v1 health survey.

RESULTS

From July 2017 to July 2018, 60 patients underwent implantation of the Dafodil pericardial bioprosthesis. Post-operatively, NYHA functional class significantly improved in all the patients (Aortic: 90% NYHA class-I and 10% NYHA class-II; Mitral: 96.55% NYHA class-I and 3.45% NYHA class-II; P < 0.001). There was no death in aortic valve replacement patients till 12-month. In mitral valve replacement patients, early mortalities occurred in three patients, and late mortality occurred in one patient; none of these were valve-related. Freedom from all-cause mortality reported was 93.33% at 12-month. Mean aortic pressure gradient decreased from 52.71 ± 24.47 mmHg [with 0.89 ± 0.70 cm² effective orifice area (EOA)] pre-operatively to 14.49 ± 6.58 mmHg (EOA: 1.85 ± 0.27 cm²) at 12-month. Overall, the mitral mean pressure gradient and EOA were 4.41 ± 1.69 mmHg and 2.67 ± 0.48 cm², respectively, at 12-month. Significant improvement (P < 0.05) in the patients' quality of life was reported at all follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical safety and performance of the Dafodil pericardial bioprosthesis were favourable at 12-month. Moreover, a study with a larger patient population and longer follow-up is warranted to further assess the device.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dafodil-1 trial has been prospectively registered on 10/07/2017 under Clinical Trial Registry-India (http://www.ctri.nic.in). (Registration number: CTRI/2017/07/009008).

One-year outcome with a bovine pericardial valve

Objectives

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel surgical bovine pericardial valve for aortic and mitral valve replacements.

Methods

Between March 2016 and October 2017, 197 patients (mean age, 66.9 ± 4.9 years; 40.6% were women) underwent aortic valve replacement and mitral valve replacement and were implanted with the Cingular bovine pericardial valve (Shanghai Cingular Biotech Corporation, Shanghai, China) in a prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial in China. A total of 161 aortic and 49 mitral prostheses were implanted. Patients were followed up to 1 year. The primary end point was the 1-year overall rate of valve-related complications, including thromboembolic event, valve thrombosis, major hemorrhage event, major perivalvular leak, and prosthetic valve endocarditis.

Results

The 1-year overall rate of valve-related complications was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, 0.1%-3.7%). The 1-year survival was 96.4%. The mean gradient and effective orifice area for aortic prostheses at 1 year postoperatively were 12.8 ± 4.4 mm Hg and 1.9 ± 0.3 cm², respectively. Particularly, the mean gradients and effective orifice area for 19 mm and 21 mm sizes of aortic prostheses at 1 year were 17.0 ± 3.8 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.2 cm², 13.1 ± 4.0 mm Hg and 1.8 ± 0.1 cm², respectively. Patient–prosthesis mismatch occurred in only 1.3% patients for aortic valve implantation at 1 month. No structural valve deterioration and no endocarditis occurred.

Conclusions

The Cingular bovine pericardial valve was safe and effective for surgical aortic and mitral valve replacement. The 1-year rate of valve-related complications was very low. Early hemodynamic performance was excellent even for the small aortic root.

Hemodynamic Performance and Outcomes of Mosaic Valve for Aortic Stenosis with Decreased Left Ventricular Function: Results from J-MOVE Study

We evaluated impact of a small-sized Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis on hemodynamic performance and outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a Japan multicenter cohort. Of 1,202 patients enrolled, 105 (8.7%) who had LVEF < 50% and AS underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). Fifty-two patients received Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis ≤ 21 mm (S-AVR), and 53 received a bioprosthesis ≥ 23 mm (L-AVR). The median follow-up period was 3.1 [1.2, 5.1] years. At 5 years, LVEF significantly improved from median 41.2 [33.8, 45.9]% to 64.2 [49.8, 72.5]% in S-AVR (p < 0.001) and from median 43.2 [37.3, 46.8]% to 61.2 [47.2, 68.0]% in L-AVR (p < 0.001). The left ventricular mass index significantly decreased from median 158.4 [122.2, 194.9] to 110.0 [83.6, 129.4] gm/m in S-AVR (p < 0.001) and from median 169.8 [132.2, 203.6] to 109.6 [101.8, 132.4] gm/m in L-AVR (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between S-AVR and L-AVR groups regarding freedom from cardiac death (93.1 ± 3.9% vs. 96.2 ± 3.8%; p = 0.119) and valve-related death (97.6 ± 2.4% vs. 100.0 ± 0.0%; p = 0.953). Clinical outcomes and improved hemodynamic performance were similar in both groups.

Hemodynamics and reverse remodeling associated with Mosaic, Perimount and Trifecta aortic bioprostheses

Introduction: The implantation rate of aortic bioprostheses is increasing. Their durability has improved to some extent over the years and they allow for future transcatheter valve-in-valve deployment. In the lack of long term follow up, their hemodynamic profile, i.e. transvalvular mean pressure gradient and effective orifice area indexed, and the associated left ventricular reverse remodeling indexed are useful surrogates for clinical outcomes. Areas covered: A systematic review of the literature was conducted by searching Medline, Cochrane, Scielo, Embase databases, and grey literature until July 2018 for articles that perform comparisons among the three most popular aortic bioprostheses. Six randomized and 12 non-randomized studies were included with 565 patients receiving a Mosaic, 1334 a Perimount and 557 a Trifecta valve. These articles are heterogeneous but they allow the meta-analytic comparison of the abovementioned outcomes. Expert opinion: Compared to the Perimount valve, the Mosaic is hemodynamically inferior, while the Trifecta is superior. Despite these statistically significant differences, the left ventricular mass regression indexed, that is indicative of reverse remodeling, was comparable in all groups. All patients were similarly benefited. The predilection among these valves is fueled by their hemodynamic profile but not supported by the comparable reverse remodeling.

A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare rates of redo surgery for the Medtronic Mosaic 305 A Porcine Prosthesis and the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis 2900.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective observational study. We included all 1018 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Mosaic (n = 216) or Perimount (n = 809) bioprosthesis between October 2000 and August 2008. The total follow-up was 1508 patient-years for the Mosaic valve and 5813 for the Perimount valve. The maximal follow-up and interquartile range were 14.8 and 7.0 years for the Mosaic valve and 15.1 and 5.6 years for the Perimount valve, respectively. A propensity score-weighted version of the Cox model, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate regression model was used.

RESULTS

Despite no statistical difference in the number of non-structural valve deterioration cases between valves, redo surgery occurred earlier in 10 (4.6%) Mosaic than for 17 (2.1%) Perimount valves (P = 0.02) and was required for structural valve deterioration in 5 (2.3%) Mosaic valves when compared with 7 (0.9%; P = 0.04) Perimount valves. Four of 5 Mosaic failures occurred before 5 years, whereas all Perimount failures occurred after 5 years. Redo surgery for non-structural valve deterioration occurred in 3 patients with Mosaic valves (1.4%) and no patients with Perimount valves. Surgery for the remaining patients with Perimount valves was due to infection or aortic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Early redo surgery for structural valve degeneration was uncommon but occurred earlier for the Mosaic porcine than the Perimount bovine pericardial replacement aortic valve.

Intermediate Outcomes after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in Multiple Valve Surgery

BACKGROUND

Multiple valve surgery is associated with significant higher operative risks. Reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times in multiple valve surgery may potentially be beneficial as they can be considered independent risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality following cardiac surgery. We report first intermediate outcomes of the Edwards Intuity valve system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, United States) in combined procedures METHODS:  Fifty-eight patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with concomitant mitral valve surgery between January 2014 and November 2017 in our institution. The valve was assessed echocardiographically after 12 months. The median follow-up was 1.7 years with a cumulative follow-up time of 115.3 patient years.

RESULTS

The mean age was 73.5 ± 6.2 years and the mean logistic Euroscore was 11.6 ± 3.1%. Concomitant mitral valve repair was performed in 43 cases (74.1%), and mitral valve replacement in 15 cases (19.0%). The mean cross-clamp time was 93 ± 21 minutes along with a mean bypass time of 118 ± 24 minutes. All-cause mortality after 30 days was 8.6%. Overall actuarial survival at 1 year was 87.2 ± 4.5% and after 2 years 82.8 ± 5.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in multiple valve surgery can be performed safely with good intermediate outcomes in elderly, high-risk patients.

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.

Rapid Deployment Aortic Valves Deliver Superior Hemodynamic Performance In Vitro

OBJECTIVE

Clinical studies have demonstrated excellent hemodynamic performance of rapid deployment aortic valves; however, few studies have directly compared the performance of these valves with conventional bioprosthetic valves. Thus, the hemodynamic function of the EDWARDS INTUITY valve (rapid deployment valve) was compared with the Edwards Magna Ease valve in vitro (Edwards Lifesciences Corp, Irvine, CA USA).

METHODS

Elastomeric material was used to create an aortic root model that included a left ventricular outflow tract and aortic annulus. The model was based on reconstructions from 3-dimensional multislice computed tomography images in patients with aortic stenosis; the aortic root was scaled to a 21-mm effective annulus diameter. EDWARDS INTUITY valves (21-mm diameter) were deployed by stent frame expansion within the aortic root; Edwards Magna Ease valves (21-mm diameter) were sutured to the annulus. The left ventricular outflow tract area index (left ventricular outflow tract area/baseline area) and ellipticity or noncircularity as indexed by Dmax/Dmin were measured under a video microscope after valve placement. Hemodynamic data were collected under pulsatile flow with saline (70 beats per minute, 5 L/min, 100 mm Hg aortic pressure).

RESULTS

Compared with the Edwards Magna Ease valve (n = 4), the EDWARDS INTUITY valve (n = 4) had a greater effective orifice area (1.56 ± 0.01 vs 1.85 ± 0.06 cm, P < 0.001) and a lower transvalvular pressure gradient (23.4 ± 0.51 vs 16.8 ± 1.3 mm Hg, P < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that 93% of the variation in the effective orifice area and transvalvular pressure gradient was due to variation in the left ventricular outflow tract area index and ellipticity index.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically relevant aortic root model was developed to evaluate aortic valve performance. The superior performance of the EDWARDS INTUITY valve seemed to be related to both a greater inflow area and a more circular left ventricular outflow tract.

Mechanical versus Tissue Aortic Prosthesis in Sexagenarians: Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes

Background

The question of which type of prosthetic aortic valve leads to the best outcomes in patients in their 60s remains controversial. We examined the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement in sexagenarians according to the type of prosthesis.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 270 patients in their 60s who underwent first-time aortic valve replacement from 1995 to 2011. Early and late mortality, major adverse valve-related events, anticoagulation-related events, and hemodynamic outcomes were assessed. The mean follow-up duration was 58.7±44.0 months.

Results

Of the 270 patients, 93 had a mechanical prosthesis (mechanical group), and 177 had a bioprosthesis (tissue group). The tissue group had a higher mean age and prevalence of preoperative stroke than the mechanical group. The groups had no differences in the aortic valve mean pressure gradient (AVMPG) or the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) at 5 years after surgery. In a sub-analysis limited to prostheses in the supra-annular position, the AVMPG was higher in the tissue group, but the LVMI was still not significantly different. There was no early mortality. The 10-year survival rate was 83% in the mechanical group and 90% in the tissue group. The type of aortic prosthesis did not influence overall mortality, cardiac mortality, or major adverse valve-related events. Anticoagulation-related events were more common in the mechanical group than in the tissue group (p=0.034; hazard ratio, 4.100; 95% confidence interval, 1.111–15.132).

Conclusion

The type of aortic prosthesis was not associated with hemodynamic or clinical outcomes, except for anticoagulation-related events.

Biological aortic valve replacement: advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented valve substitutes. A review

Controversy still surrounds the optimal biological valve substitute for aortic valve replacement. In light of the current literature, we review advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented aortic bio-prostheses. Recent meta-analyses, prospective randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies comparing the most frequently used stentless and stented aortic bio-prostheses were analyzed. In the present review, the types and implantation techniques of the bio-prosthesis that are seldom taken into account by most studies and reviews were integrated in the interpretation of the relevant reports. For stentless aortic root bio-prostheses, full-root vs. sub-coronary implantation offered better early transvalvular gradients, effective orifice area and left ventricular mass regression as well as late freedom from structural valve deterioration in retrospective studies. Early mortality and morbidity did not differ between the stentless and stented aortic bio-prostheses. Early transvalvular gradients, effective orifice area and regression of left ventricular hypertrophy were significantly better for stentless, especially as full-root, compared to stented bio-prostheses. The long-term valve-related survival for stentless aortic root and Toronto SPV bio-prosthesis was as good as that for stented pericardial aortic bio-prostheses. For full-root configuration this survival advantage was statistically significant. There seems to be not one but different ideal biological valve substitutes for different subgroups of patients. In patients with small aortic root or exposed to prosthesis-patient mismatch full-root implantation of stentless bio-prostheses may better meet functional needs of individual patients. Longer follow-ups on newer generation of stented bio-prostheses are needed for comparison of their hemodynamic performance with stentless counterparts especially in full-root configuration.

Aortic valve replacement in small patients

OBJECTIVES

Asians are smaller than Europeans and North Americans, but aortic valve replacement (AVR) in small patients has not been examined. We aimed to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of AVR between small and non-small patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively divided 173 patients who underwent AVR into small (S, n = 95) and non-small (NS, n = 78) groups according to body surface area (≤1.6 in men, ≤1.5 in women) and analyzed differences in baseline characteristics, procedural and post-procedural variables, and survival.

RESULTS

Mean age differed significantly between the S and NS groups (71.9 ± 11.2 vs. 66.2 ± 9.8 years), as did the proportion of women (60.0% vs. 24.4%). Implanted valves (19.6 ± 1.6 mm vs. 20.7 ± 1.7 mm) were significantly smaller and more bioprosthetic valves (57.9% vs. 41.0%) were used in the S group. Effective orifice area index and the rate of moderate and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch were not significantly different. No significant intergroup differences were found in hospitalization duration, 30-day mortality, survival rates, or valve related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Small patients were older and the proportion of women was higher. The implanted aortic valves were smaller and more were biological prostheses. However, mortality rate did not differ and short- and mid-term outcomes were safe and favorable.

Current Clinical Evidence on Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Sutureless Aortic Bioprostheses

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the Western world. It is caused primarily by age-related degeneration and progressive calcification typically detected in patients 65 years and older. In patients presenting with symptoms of heart failure, the average survival rate is only 2 years without appropriate treatment. Approximately one half of all patients die within the first 2 to 3 years of symptom onset. In addition, the age of the patients presenting for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is increased along with the demographic changes. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database shows that the number of patients older than 80 years has increased from 12% to 24% during the past 20 years. At the same time, the percentage of candidates requiring AVR as well as concomitant coronary bypass surgery has increased from 5% to 25%. Surgical AVR continues to be the criterion standard for treatment of aortic stenosis, improving survival and quality of life. Recent advances in prosthetic valve technology, such as transcatheter AVR, have expanded the indication for AVR to the extreme high-risk population, and the most recent surgical innovation, rapid deployment AVR, provides an additional tool to the surgeons’ armamentarium.

Early outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment aortic valve

OBJECTIVE

Minimal access aortic valve replacement is associated with favorable clinical outcomes; however, several meta-analyses have reported significantly longer crossclamp times compared with a full sternotomy. We examined the procedural and early safety outcomes after isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement by surgical approach in patients enrolled in the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial.

METHODS

The Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve trial was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, with successful implants in 287 patients with aortic valve stenosis who underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement using the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif). Patients were evaluated perioperatively for procedural times and technical success rates; at discharge, for hospital length of stay; and, at 30 days, for early adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (n = 71), upper hemisternotomy (n = 77), or right anterior thoracotomy (n = 10). Mean age at baseline was 75.7 ± 7.2 years. Mean aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) were similar for full sternotomy and upper hemisternotomy, 43.5 ± 32.5/71.6 ± 41.8 and 43.1 ± 13.1/69.6 ± 19.1, respectively, and significantly longer for right anterior thoracotomy, 88.3 ± 18.6/122.2 ± 22.1 (P < .000). Early adverse event rates were similar, and in-hospital mortality rates were low regardless of surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that isolated rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through an upper hemisternotomy can lead to shorter crossclamp times than has been reported historically in the literature. This may facilitate minimal access aortic valve replacement by eliminating the issue of prolonged crossclamp times. Further, low in-hospital mortality and new permanent pacemaker implant rates were observed regardless of surgical approach.

Emerging Trends in Heart Valve Engineering: Part IV. Computational Modeling and Experimental Studies

In this final portion of an extensive review of heart valve engineering, we focus on the computational methods and experimental studies related to heart valves. The discussion begins with a thorough review of computational modeling and the governing equations of fluid and structural interaction. We then move onto multiscale and disease specific modeling. Finally, advanced methods related to in vitro testing of the heart valves are reviewed. This section of the review series is intended to illustrate application of computational methods and experimental studies and their interrelation for studying heart valves.