Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of the complete supraannular perimount magna bioprosthesis in the aortic position

Ten-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of third-generation biological prostheses in the aortic position

OBJECTIVES

PERIMOUNT Magna Ease (Carpentier-Edwards; PME) prostheses have been widely implanted during the past decade for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Although promising results at midterm follow-up were reported, long-term outcome has yet to be confirmed. On this study we aimed to evaluate long-term results in terms of structural valve degeneration (SVD), major clinical outcomes, long-term hemodynamic valve performance, and left ventricular remodeling.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2012, 689 consecutive patients underwent AVR with PME. Complete clinical 10-year follow-up was obtained. The degree of SVD was categorized on the basis of the latest guidelines. Echocardiographic data were analyzed at 1, 5, and 10 years. Competing risk analysis was performed for major events. Cumulative incidence of SVD, reoperation, and endocarditis were also assessed according to prosthetic sizes (19-21-23 mm vs 25-27-29 mm) and age (<65 vs 65-75 vs >75 years old).

RESULTS

The overall cumulative incidence reported for SVD ≥2 and reoperation were 3.6% and 1.9% at 10 years, respectively. An early left ventricular reverse remodeling was noted after implantation and confirmed at follow-up. Patients younger than 65 years showed higher cumulative incidence of SVD ≥2 at 10 years compared with patients aged 65 to 75 and older than 75 years (9.7% vs 2.6% vs 2.7%; P = .013), as well as of redo AVR (7.8% vs 3.3% vs 0.4%; P = .002). There was no difference in terms of SVD and redo AVR for different prosthetic size categories (P > .05). The risk of endocarditis was similar among age and size groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PME provides very good durability at long-term and could be considered one of the high performing third-generation bioprostheses for AVR.

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.

The Ross procedure is the optimal solution for young adults with unrepairable aortic valve disease

While aortic valve repair remains the ideal intervention to restore normal valvular function, the optimal aortic valve substitute for patients with a non-repairable aortic valve remains an ongoing subject for debate. In particular, younger patients with a non-repairable valve represent a unique challenge because of their active lifestyle and long life expectancy, which carries a higher cumulative risk of prosthesis-related complications. The Ross procedure, unlike prosthetic or homograft aortic valve replacement (AVR), provides an expected survival equivalent to that of the age and gender-matched general population. Contemporary data has shown that the Ross procedure can be performed safely in centers with expertise, and is associated with improved valvular durability, hemodynamics and quality of life.

Hemodynamic Performance of Pericardial Bioprostheses in the Aortic Position

Background

This study was conducted to evaluate the hemodynamic performance and the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using bovine pericardial valves (Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magana and Magna Ease).

Methods

In total, 216 patients (mean age, 70.0±10.5 years) who underwent AVR using stented bovine pericardial valves and had follow-up echocardiography between 3 months and 2 years (mean, 12.0±6.6 months) after surgery were enrolled. The implanted valve sizes were 19, 21, 23, and 25 mm in 32, 56, 99, and 29 patients, respectively.

Results

On follow-up echocardiography, the mean transvalvular pressure gradients for the 19-mm, 21-mm, 23-mm, and 25-mm valves were 13.3±4.4, 12.6±4.2, 10.5±3.9, and 10.2± 3.7 mm Hg, respectively. The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.25±0.26, 1.54±0.31, 1.81±0.41, and 1.87±0.33 cm², respectively. These values were smaller than those suggested by the manufacturer for the corresponding sizes. No patients had PPM, when based on the reference EOA. However, moderate (EOA index ≤0.85 cm²/m²) and severe (EOA index ≤0.65 cm²/m²) PPM was present in 56 patients (11.8%) and 9 patients (1.9%), respectively, when using the measured values.

Conclusion

Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna and Magna Ease bovine pericardial valves showed satisfactory hemodynamic performance with low rates of PPM, although the reference EOA could overestimate the true EOA for individual patients.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Increases Early and Late Mortality in Low Risk Aortic Valve Replacement

The concept of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) has gained much attention since first described 40 years ago. Previous studies have shown conflicting evidence regarding increased early and late morbidity and mortality with PPM after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PPM on short- and long-term mortality in low-risk patients after isolated AVR. A retrospective, single-center study involving 1707 consecutive patients ≤80 years of age with preserved left ventricular systolic function who underwent elective, primary isolated AVR operations from 2008 to 2018. Patients were stratified into 2 groups according to the presence of PPM (n = 96), defined as effective orifice area index <0.85 cm²/m² body surface area, and no-PPM (n = 1611). The effect of PPM on mortality was evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. 30-day mortality was 0.8% (4.2% in PPM group vs 0.6 in no-PPM group; P = 0.005). PPM occurred more in female gender, obese and older patients. PPM was highly associated with long-term all-cause mortality (median 4 years [Q1-Q3 2-7]; HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.27-2.55, P = 0.002), and remained strongly and independently associated after adjustment for other risk factors (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.10-2.34, P = 0.014). In propensity score-matched analysis, the adjusted mortality risk was higher in PPM group (HR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.22-3.39, P = 0.006) compared to no-PPM group. In a single-centre observational study, PPM increased early mortality and was independently associated with long-term all-cause mortality after low-risk, primary isolated AVR operations. Strategies to avoid PPM should be explored and implemented.

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.

A mechanistic investigation of the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve's hemodynamic performance

OBJECTIVE

Rapid deployment surgical aortic valve replacement has emerged as an alternative to the contemporary sutured valve technique. A difference in transvalvular pressure has been observed clinically between RD-SAVR and contemporary SAVR. A mechanistic inquiry into the impact of the rapid deployment valve inflow frame design on the left ventricular outflow tract and valve hemodynamics is needed.

METHODS

A 23 mm EDWARDS INTUITY Elite rapid deployment valve and a control contemporary, sutured valve, a 23 mm Magna Ease valve, were implanted in an explanted human heart by an experienced cardiac surgeon. Per convention, the rapid deployment valve was implanted with three non-pledgeted, simple guiding sutures, while fifteen pledgeted, mattress sutures were used to implant the contemporary surgical valve. In vitro flow models were created from micro-computed tomography scans of the implanted valves and surrounding cardiac anatomy. Particle image velocimetry and hydrodynamic characterization experiments were conducted in the vicinity of the valves in a validated pulsatile flow loop system.

RESULTS

The rapid deployment and control valves were found to have mean transvalvular pressure gradients of 7.92 ± 0.37 and 10.13 ± 0.48 mmHg, respectively. The inflow frame of the rapid deployment valve formed a larger, more circular, left ventricular outflow tract compared to the control valve. Furthermore, it was found that the presence of the control valve's sub-annular pledgets compromised its velocity distribution and consequently its pressure gradient.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid deployment valve's intra-annular inflow frame provides for a larger, left ventricular outflow tract, thus reducing the transvalvular pressure gradient and improving overall hemodynamic performance.

Limitations in the Assessment of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

Background Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) may affect survival but data are conflicting. It is assessed by relating effective orifice area (EOA) to body surface area (EOAi). EOA is patient-specific as the result of flow-velocity times area at the individual patient's outflow tract levels (LVOTA) divided by trans-prosthetic flow velocity. However, some studies use projected EOAs (i.e., valve size associated EOAs from other patient populations) to assess how PPM affects outcome.

Methods We analyzed 76 studies addressing hemodynamic outcome and/or mortality after bioprosthetic AVR.

Results In 48 studies, projected or measured EOA for calculation of EOAi and PPM assessment was used (of which 25 demonstrated an effect on survival). We identified 28 additional studies providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients after AVR. Despite EOA being a patient-specific parameter, 77% of studies assessing a PPM impact on survival used projected EOAs. The 28 studies are providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients in patients after AVR showed a highly significant, linear relationship between EOA and Bernoulli's gradient. Considering this relationship, it is surprising that relating EOA to body surface area (BSA) (EOAi) is standard but relating pressure gradients to BSA is not.

Conclusion We conclude that the majority of studies assessing PPM have used false assumptions because EOA is a patient-specific parameter and cannot be transferred to other patients. In addition, the use of EOAi to assess PPM may not be appropriate and could explain the inconsistent relation between PPM and survival in previous studies.

Magna Ease versus Trifecta Early Hemodynamics

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the early echocardiographic outcomes of aortic valve replacement using the two most commonly implanted stented bioprostheses.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until 2017 for studies comparing Magna or Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA USA) versus Trifecta (St Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN USA) aortic bioprosthetic valves. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome of mean gradient on echocardiography and secondary outcomes of effective orifice area, indexed effective orifice area, and in-hospital mortality.

Results

There were two randomized controlled trial, three matched, and six unmatched retrospective observational studies with 2119 patients [median reported follow-up = 6 months (interquartile range = 6 to 12)]. The Magna/Magna Ease valve was associated with higher early mean gradient (mean difference = 4.09, 95% confidence interval = 3.48 to 4.69, P < 0.0001) and smaller effective orifice area (mean difference = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = −0.38 to −0.22, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality between Magna/Magna Ease and Trifecta (relative risk = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 2.50, P = 1.0).

Conclusions

Trifecta may offer a small hemodynamic advantage compared with the Magna/Magna Ease valve with no differences in early mortality. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether these differences persist and translate into differences in clinical outcomes.

Significant intra-valvular pressure loss across EPIC SUPRA and perimount magna supra-annular designed aortic bioprostheses in patients with normal aortic size

Doppler-derived trans-prosthetic gradients are higher and the estimated effective valve area is smaller than the catheter-derived and directly measured hemodynamic values, mostly due to pressure recovery phenomenon. Pressure recovery to a varying extent is common to all prosthetic heart valves including bioprostheses. Pressure recovery-related differences are usually small except in patients with bileaflet metallic prosthesis, wherein high-pressure local jets across central orifice have been documented since long back and also in patients with narrow aortic root. We describe two patients with normally functioning stented aortic bioprostheses with supra-annular design (EPIC SUPRA and PERIMOUNT MAGNA), wherein very high trans-prosthetic gradients and critically reduced estimated effective valve orifice areas in presence of normal aortic size were consistently recorded over long periods of follow-up. The valve leaflets, however had normal excursion, were thin, opened with a triangular or oblong shape and had expected geometric valve area (1.7 and 1.6 cm² respectively) measured by 3D trans-oesophageal echocardiographic planimetry. Pressure recovery upstream the valves accounted for 20% and 12% of total pressure gradients respectively. Dominant site for pressure drop was intra-valvular (75–85%). Such a phenomenon has not been reported in vivo for these two valve designs.

Aortic valve replacement with sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses

Aortic valve stenosis is the most common valve disease in the western world. Over the past few years the number of aortic valve replacement (AVR) interventions has increased with outcomes that have been improved despite increasing age of patients and increasing burden of comorbidities. However, despite such excellent results and its well-established position, conventional AVR has undergone great development over the previous two decades. Such progress, by way of less invasive incisions and use of new technologies, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation and sutureless valve prostheses, is intended to reduce the traumatic impact of the surgical procedure, thus fulfilling lower risk patients' expectations on the one hand, and extending the operability toward increasingly high-risk patients on the other. Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valves are biological, pericardial prostheses that anchor within the aortic annulus with no more than three sutures. The sutureless prostheses, by avoiding the passage and the tying of the sutures, significantly reduce operative times and may improve outcomes. However, there is still a paucity of robust, evidence-based data on the role and performance of sutureless AVR. Therefore, strongest long-term data, randomized studies and registry data are required to adequately assess the durability and long-term outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement.

Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement using Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT bioprosthesis series in elderly patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the outcomes of Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT (CEP), Magna and Magna Ease valves in Japanese elderly patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 136 patients (mean age 76.61 ± 5.5 years old) who had undergone isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using CEP, Magna, and Magna Ease valves at a single institution, from January 2001 to December 2013. We compared the valves according to their survival rates, freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and durability and hemodynamic performance by echocardiographic data.

RESULTS

The thirty-day mortality after isolated SAVR in all the valve groups was "zero". The differences among the three groups in terms of survival rates, freedom from MACCE at 2 years, durability and hemodynamic performance of the valves by echocardiographic data was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

All CEP, Magna and Magna Ease valves seemed to be similarly useful in Japanese elderly patients with severe AS. Our data did not clearly support the superiority of one valve over another. A longer follow-up period might be necessary to compare the durability and hemodynamic performance of these valves with more certainty.

Effect of aortic pericardial valve choice on outcomes and left ventricular mass regression in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the effect of 2 contemporary pericardial valves on left ventricular mass regression and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

Patients were followed postoperatively in a dedicated valve clinic. A propensity score was derived for each patient and used to adjust all analyses. Longitudinal analysis was performed using a repeated measures growth curve model. Survival analysis was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Since February 2011, 258 patients with AS and left ventricular hypertrophy underwent AVR with the Trifecta (TR) (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minn) or Perimount Magna Ease (ME) (Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, Calif) bioprosthesis. There were longer bypass and crossclamp times and the indexed left ventricular outflow tract was smaller in the TR group. For the TR and ME, respectively, peak (14.4 ± 5.1 mm Hg vs 20.9 ± 7.2 mm Hg; P < .001) and mean (7.3 ± 2.7 mm Hg vs 10.9 ± 4.3 mm Hg; P < .001) gradients were significantly smaller postoperatively in the TR group. There was greater total mass regression (44.3 g/m²; 95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3-52.3 vs 29.5; 95% CI, 20.4-38.5 g/m²; P = .020) and mass regression over time in the TR group compared with the ME group (P = .016). Freedom from readmission, congestive heart failure, and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, readmission, and congestive heart failure at 2.5 years was significantly improved in the TR group (composite outcome in TR and ME groups, respectively, 90.2; 95% CI, 81.9-94.9 and 78.2; 95% CI, 67.1-86.0; P = .013) CONCLUSIONS: TR use was associated with significantly increased left ventricular mass regression and improved intermediate-term clinical outcome in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy undergoing AVR for AS, compared with use of the ME.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement

The increasing incidence of aortic stenosis and greater co-morbidities and risk profiles of the contemporary patient population has driven the development of minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) techniques to reduce surgical trauma. Recent technological developments have led to an alternative minimally invasive option which avoids the placement and tying of sutures, known as "sutureless" or rapid deployment aortic valves. Potential advantages for sutureless aortic prostheses include reducing cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) duration, facilitating minimally invasive surgery and complex cardiac interventions, whilst maintaining satisfactory hemodynamic outcomes and low paravalvular leak rates. However, given its recent developments, the majority of evidence regarding sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) is limited to observational studies and there is a paucity of adequately-powered randomized studies. Recently, the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG) has formulated to conduct the Sutureless Projects, set to be the largest international collaborative group to investigate this technology. This keynote lecture will overview the use, the potential advantages, the caveats, and current evidence of sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR).

The TRIBECA study: (TRI)fecta (B)ioprosthesis (E)valuation versus (C)arpentier Magna-Ease in (A)ortic position

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the Trifecta bioprosthetic aortic valve produces postoperative haemodynamic results comparable with or better than those of the Magna Ease aortic valve bioprosthesis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had undergone aortic valve replacement with Trifecta or Magna Ease prostheses at eight European institutions between January 2011 and May 2013, and analysed early postoperative haemodynamic performance by means of echocardiography.

RESULTS

A total of 791 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (469 Magna Ease, 322 Trifecta). Haemodynamic variables were evaluated on discharge and during the follow-up (minimum 6 months, maximum 12 months). The mean gradient and the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) were as follows: 10 mmHg [interquartile range (IQR): 8-13] and 1.10 cm(2)/m(2) (IQR: 0.95-1.27) for Trifecta; 16 mmHg (IQR: 11-22) and 0.96 cm(2)/m(2) (IQR: 0.77-1.13) for Magna Ease (P < 0.001). These significant differences were maintained across all valve sizes. Similar statistically significant differences were found when patients were matched and/or stratified for preoperative characteristics: body-surface area, ejection fraction, mean gradients and valve size. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (IEOA: <0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) was detected in 2 patients (0.6%) with Trifecta and 40 patients (8.5%) with Magna Ease (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The haemodynamic performance of the Trifecta bioprosthesis was superior to that of the Magna Ease valve across all conventional prosthesis sizes, with almost no incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. The long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether these significant haemodynamic differences will persist, and influence clinical outcomes.

Echocardiographic Assessment of Heart Valve Prostheses

Patients submitted to valve replacement with mechanical or biological prosthesis, may present symptoms related either to valvular malfunction or ventricular dysfunction from other causes. Because a clinical examination is not sufficient to evaluate a prosthetic valve, several diagnostic methods have been proposed to assess the functional status of a prosthetic valve. This review provides an overview of echocardiographic and Doppler techniques useful in evaluation of prosthetic heart valves. Compared to native valves, echocardiographic evaluation of prosthetic valves is certainly more complex, both for the examination and the interpretation. Echocardiography also allows discriminating between intra- and/or peri-prosthetic regurgitation, present in the majority of mechanical valves. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) requires different angles of the probe with unconventional views. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the method of choice in presence of technical difficulties. Three-dimensional (3D)-TEE seems to be superior to 2D-TEE, especially in the assessment of paravalvular leak regurgitation (PVL) that it provides improved localization and analysis of the PVL size and shape.

Rigorous patient-prosthesis matching of Perimount Magna aortic bioprosthesis

Background

Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch, defined as effective orifice area index ≤0.65 cm2 m−2, has demonstrated poor long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. Reported rates of severe mismatch involving the Perimount Magna aortic bioprosthesis range from 4% to 20% in patients with a small annulus.

Methods

Between June 2008 and August 2011, 251 patients (mean age 70.5 ± 10.2 years; mean body surface area 1.55 ± 0.19 m2) underwent aortic valve replacement with a Perimount Magna bioprosthesis, with or without concomitant procedures. We performed our procedure with rigorous patient-prosthesis matching to implant a valve appropriately sized to each patient, and carried out annular enlargement when a 19-mm valve did not fit. The bioprosthetic performance was evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography predischarge and at 1 and 2 years after surgery.

Results

Overall hospital mortality was 1.6%. Only 5 (2.0%) patients required annular enlargement. The mean follow-up period was 19.1 ± 10.7 months with a 98.4% completion rate. Predischarge data showed a mean effective orifice area index of 1.21 ± 0.20 cm2 m−2. Moderate mismatch, defined as effective orifice area index ≤0.85 cm2 m−2, developed in 4 (1.6%) patients. None developed severe mismatch. Data at 1 and 2 years showed only two cases of moderate mismatch; neither was severe.

Conclusions

Rigorous patient-prosthesis matching maximized the performance of the Perimount Magna, and no severe mismatch resulted in this Japanese population of aortic valve replacement patients.

Multidetector CT predictors of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is a predictor of mortality after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether accurate 3-dimensional annular sizing with multidetector CT (MDCT) is predictive of PPM after transcatheter AVR (TAVR).

METHODS

One hundred twenty-eight patients underwent MDCT then TAVR. Moderate PPM was defined as an indexed effective orifice area ≤0.85 cm²/m² and severe ≤0.65 cm²/m². MDCT annular measurements (area, short and long axis) were compared with the size of the selected transcatheter heart valve (THV) to obtain (1) the difference between prosthesis size and CT-measured mean annular diameter and (2) the percentage of undersizing or oversizing (calculated as 100 × [MDCT annular area--THV nominal area]/THV nominal area). In addition, the MDCT annular area was indexed to body surface area. These measures were evaluated as potential PPM predictors.

RESULTS

We found that 42.2% of patients had moderate PPM and 9.4% had severe PPM. Procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were similar between patients with or without PPM. THV undersizing of the mean aortic annulus diameter was not predictive of PPM (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.07; P = .16; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.58). THV undersizing of annular area was not predictive of PPM (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80-1.16; P = .69; AUC, 0.52). Indexed MDCT annular area was, however, predictive of PPM (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.59; P < .001; AUC, 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

PPM is frequent after TAVR. Appropriate annular oversizing does not reduce the rate or severity of PPM. Patient annulus size mismatch, identified by indexed MDCT annular area, is a significant predictor of PPM.

Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM): a long-term perspective

The concept/phenomenon of valve prosthesis/patient mismatch (VP-PM), described in 1978, has stood the test of time. From that time to 2011, VP-PM has received a great deal of attention but studies have come to varying conclusions. This is largely because of the determination of prosthetic heart valve area [called effective orifice area index (EOAi)] by projection rather than by actual measurement, variable criteria to assess severity of EOAi and the timing of determination of EOAi. All prosthetic heart valves have some degree of VP-PM which must be placed in a proper clinical perspective. This can be done by determining its effects on function and outcomes. For mortality one needs to focus especially on severe/critical degree of VP-PM and determine the cause of death was due to VP-PM. For the period "beyond 2011" a road map is suggested that will have uniformity of assessment of VP-PM and a focusing on the important goals of VP-PM.

Primary echocardiographic results of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the primary echocardiographic results of aortic valve replacement using 21- and 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna bioprosthesis aortic xenografts in patients with small aortic annulus.

METHODS

Twenty patients (mean body surface area 1.63 ± 0.16 m(2)) underwent aortic valve replacement between June 2008 and December 2009. Eight and 12 patients received 21- and 19-mm Magna bioprostheses, respectively. After 12 months, hemodynamic data were obtained by echocardiography to estimate the prosthesis-patient mismatch.

RESULTS

At follow-up, significant decreases in peak and mean left ventricular aortic pressure gradients were observed in the 12 patients with aortic stenosis (P < 0.05). Regression of the left ventricular mass was observed in all the patients (P < 0.05). The mean measured effective orifice area (EOA) and EOA index (EOAI) were 1.61 ± 0.28 cm(2) and 0.99 ± 0.16 cm(2)/m(2), respectively. Prosthesis-patient mismatch (EOAI ≤0.85) was documented in three patients.

CONCLUSION

The primary echocardiographic findings suggested that the hemodynamic performance of the 19- and 21-mm Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna bioprostheses was satisfactory in the patients with a small aortic annulus.

Clinical outcomes and hemodynamics of the 19-mm Perimount Magna bioprosthesis in an aortic position: comparison with the 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic Ultra Valve

BACKGROUND

When aortic valve replacement is performed in patients with a small aortic annulus, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is of concern because it can affect postoperative clinical outcomes. Although larger bioprosthetic valves have been well studied, the hemodynamics of 19-mm bioprostheses have been reported in only a small number of patients. The effectiveness as well as the impact of PPM on outcomes are thus still unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Postoperative clinical and hemodynamic variables were compared in 67 patients with a 19-mm Carpentier Edwards Perimount Magna bioprosthesis and in 10 patients with a 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic Ultra valve. Mean follow-up time was 13 months. There was no in-hospital mortality. Echocardiography 6.5±4.0 months after surgery showed significant decreases in the mean left ventricular (LV)-aortic pressure gradient, and decreases in the mean LV mass index. Reduction in LV mass index did not differ between the valve groups, despite a higher pressure gradient in the Mosaic group. Although PPM was detected in 21 patients in the Magna group, it did not affect regression of the LV mass index during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the 19-mm Magna bioprosthesis appears to provide satisfactory clinical results. LV-aortic pressure gradient was lower in the Magna group. The present data suggest that PPM is not related to reduction in the LV mass index.

New design bioprosthesis: early outcome of Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna in the small annular aortic position

The Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT (CEP) Magna (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) is a newly developed bioprosthesis with an improved cuff design that allows its implantation into the smaller aortic annulus. We evaluated the hemodynamic performance of the CEP Magna for smaller aortic annulus cases. Patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis receiving a Magna 19 mm (n = 13), were compared with a standard CEP (n = 19). In the 19-mm series, the real annular size was significantly smaller in the Magna than the standard (21.1 ± 0.8 vs. 19.8 ± 0.8 mm, p = 0.007). The Magna was significantly superior with respect to effective orifice area index (EOAI) at postoperative 3 months; however, no significant difference was seen in other factors (peak pressure gradient, left ventricular mass index, ejection fraction). At postoperative 3 months, despite the lack of statistical significance, the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was lower with the Magna. Using the same label size, the Magna can be implanted in a smaller aortic annulus with performance comparable with or better than hemodynamic performance with the standard CEP. The Magna is a useful prosthesis for the small aortic annular patient.

Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method?

BACKGROUND

To predict the occurrence of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR), the surgeon needs to estimate the postoperative effective orifice area index (EOAI).

AIM

To compare different methods of predicting VP-PM.

METHODS

The effective orifice area (EOA) of 383 patients who had undergone AVR between July 2000 and January 2005 with various aortic valve prostheses was obtained echocardiographically 6 months after the operation. We tested the efficacy of (1) EOAI calculated from the echo data obtained in our own laboratory, (2) indexed geometric orifice area, (3) EOAI estimated from charts provided by prosthesis manufacturers (which are based either on in vitro or on echo data) and (4) EOAI estimated from reference echo data published in the literature to predict VP-PM.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity to predict VP-PM were 53% and 83% (method 1), 80% and 53% (charts based on echo data, parts of method 3) and 71% and 67% (method 4) using reference data derived from echocardiographic examinations. The sensitivity of method 2 and of charts based on in vitro data (parts of method 3) to predict VP-PM was 0-17%. The incidence of severe VP-PM could be reduced from 8.7% to 0.8% after the introduction of the systematic estimation of the EOAI at the time of operation (p = 0.003, method 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The best method of predicting VP-PM is the use of mean (SD) EOAs derived from echocardiographic examinations, whereas the use of in vitro data or the geometric orifice area is unreliable. After the surgeon's anticipation of VP-PM prior to AVR, the incidence of VP-PM could be reduced.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is present when the effective orifice area of the inserted prosthetic valve is too small in relation to body size. Its main haemodynamic consequence is to generate higher than expected gradients through normally functioning prosthetic valves. This review updates the present knowledge about the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes. PPM is common (20-70% of aortic valve replacements) and has been shown to be associated with worse haemodynamic function, less regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, more cardiac events, and lower survival. Moreover, as opposed to most other risk factors, PPM can largely be prevented by using a prospective strategy at the time of operation.