Seven-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis

Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a novel tissue bioprosthesis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

While current data show a clear trend towards the use of bioprosthetic valves during aortic valve replacement (AVR), durability of bioprosthetic valves remains the most important concern. We conducted a 1st systematic review of all available evidence that analysed early and mid-term outcomes after AVR using the Inspiris RESILIA™ bioprosthesis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all relevant studies evaluating early and mid-term outcomes after AVR using the Inspiris RESILIA bioprosthesis and including at least 20 patients with no restriction on the publication date. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed to compare Inspiris RESILIA and PERIMOUNT Magna Ease bioprosthesis and to pool the early postoperative mortality and stroke rates.

RESULTS

A total of 416 studies were identified, of which 15 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 3202 patients with an average follow-up of up to 5.3 years. The average age of patients across the studies was 52.2-75.1 years. Isolated AVR was performed in 39.0-86.4% of patients. In-hospital or 30-day postoperative mortality was 0-2.8%. At the mid-term follow-up, freedom from all-cause mortality was up to 85.4%. Among studies with mid-term follow-up, trace/mild paravalvular leak was detected in 0-3.0%, while major paravalvular leak was found only in up to 2.0% of patients. No statistically significant differences in terms of mortality (P = 0.98, odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.36-2.83) and stroke (P = 0.98, odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.38-2.73) between the Inspiris RESILIA bioprosthesis and PERIMOUNT Magna Ease bioprosthesis were observed in the subgroup meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Mid-term data on the safety and haemodynamic performance of the novel aortic bioprosthesis are encouraging. Further comparative studies with other bioprostheses and longer follow-up are still required to endorse durability and safety of the novel bioprosthesis.

Savings associated with surgical aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA tissue valve based on seven-year COMMENCE trial results

BACKGROUND

Bioprostheses with RESILIA tissue demonstrate a reduction in calcification and improve health outcomes in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Prior economic analyses which relied on 5 years of evidence from the COMMENCE trial demonstrate financial savings for RESILIA tissue valves relative to mechanical valves after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Given the recent release of 7-year COMMENCE data, this economic evaluation updates the estimate for long-run savings of bioprosthetic valves with RESILIA.

METHODS

Simulation models estimated disease progression across two hypothetical SAVR cohorts (tissue vs. mechanical) of 10,000 patients each in the US. The primary comparison calculated the SAVR-related expenditures associated with each valve type ($US, 2023). Health outcome probabilities were based on the COMMENCE trial though year 7 and projected for an additional 8 years based on prior studies of tissue and mechanical SAVR. Costs for key outcomes (mortality, reoperation, bleeding, thromboembolism, endocarditis) and anticoagulant monitoring were sourced from the literature. Incidence rates of health outcomes associated with mechanical valves relied on relative risks of tissue valve versus mechanical valve patients.

RESULTS

Seven-year savings are $13,415 (95% CI = $10,472-$17,321) per patient when comparing RESILIA versus mechanical SAVR. Projected 15-year savings were $23,001 ($US, 2023; 95% CI = $17,802-$30,421). Most of the 15-year savings are primarily attributed to lower anti-coagulation monitoring costs ($21,073 in ACM savings over 15 years), but lower bleeding cost (savings: $2,294) and thromboembolism-related expenditures (savings: $852) also contribute. Reoperation and endocarditis expenditures were slightly larger in the RESILIA cohort. If reoperation relative risk reverts from 1.1 to 2.2 (the level in legacy tissue valves) after year 7, savings are $18,064. RESILIA SAVR also reduce costs relative to legacy tissue valves.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving RESILIA tissue valves are projected to have lower SAVR-related health expenditures relative to mechanical and legacy tissue valves.