Device profile of the Inspiris Resilia valve for aortic valve replacement: overview of its safety and efficacy

Management of bicuspid aortic valve disease in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation era

In an era of rapidly expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the management of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is far less well established than in those with trileaflet anatomy. Results of isolated surgical aortic valve replacement are excellent in suitable patients, and surgery also allows treatment of concomitant pathology of the aortic root and ascending aorta that is frequently encountered in this cohort. Conversely, TAVI provides an excellent alternative in older patients who may be unsuitable for surgery, although outcomes in BAV disease have only been reported in relatively small non-randomised series. Here, we discuss the pertinent literature on this topic and outline contemporary interventional treatment options in this challenging setting.

Lifetime Management for Aortic Stenosis: Strategy and Decision-Making in the Current Era

Aortic stenosis, the most common valvular disease in the Western world, has traditionally been treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) but is increasingly treated by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Whereas patients older than 65 years are preferably treated with bioprosthetic tissue valves, there is considerable uncertainty in the choice between TAVR and SAVR. We present various considerations for optimizing the lifelong management of patients receiving bioprosthetic valves (SAVR or TAVR). To maximize life expectancy and to minimize cumulative lifetime risk, we suggest decision-making individualized for patient anatomy and overall (current and future) risk.

Recent Advances in the Modification and Improvement of Bioprosthetic Heart Valves

Valvular heart disease (VHD) has become a burden and a growing public health problem in humans, causing significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. An increasing number of patients with severe VHD need to undergo heart valve replacement surgery, and artificial heart valves are in high demand. However, allogeneic valves from donors are lacking and cannot meet clinical practice needs. A mechanical heart valve can activate the coagulation pathway after contact with blood after implantation in the cardiovascular system, leading to thrombosis. Therefore, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are still a promising way to solve this problem. However, there are still challenges in the use of BHVs. For example, their longevity is still unsatisfactory due to the defects, such as thrombosis, structural valve degeneration, calcification, insufficient re-endothelialization, and the inflammatory response. Therefore, strategies and methods are needed to effectively improve the biocompatibility and longevity of BHVs. This review describes the recent research advances in BHVs and strategies to improve their biocompatibility and longevity.

Early Outcomes of Pulmonary Valve Replacement With the Edwards Inspiris Resilia Pericardial Bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Controversy regarding the optimal pulmonary valve substitute remains, with no approved surgical valve for pulmonary valve replacement (PVR). Furthermore, unfavorable anatomy often precludes transcatheter PVR in patients with congenital heart disease. We therefore sought to evaluate the feasibility of the Edwards Inspiris pericardial aortic bioprosthesis in the pulmonary position in pediatric and adult patients requiring PVR.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent PVR from February 2019 to February 2021 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative adverse events included paravalvular or transvalvular leak, endocarditis, explant, thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, valve-related bleeding, hemolysis, and structural valve degeneration. Progression of valve gradients was assessed from discharge to 30 days and one year.

RESULTS

Of 24 patients with median age of 26 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 17-33; range: 4-60 years), 22 (91.7%) patients had previously undergone tetralogy of Fallot repair and 2 (8.3%) patients had undergone double-outlet right ventricle repair in the neonatal period or infancy. All patients had at least mild right ventricular (RV) dilatation (median RV end-diastolic volume index 161.4, IQR: 152.3-183.5 mL/m2) and at least moderate pulmonary insufficiency (95.8%) or stenosis (8.3%). Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 71 (IQR: 63-101) min and 66 (IQR: 60-114) min, respectively. At a median postoperative follow-up of 2.5 years (IQR: 1.4-2.6; range: 1.0-3.0 years), there were no mortalities, valve-related reoperations, or adverse events. Postoperative valve gradients and the severity of pulmonary regurgitation did not change significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

At short-term follow-up, the bioprosthesis in this study demonstrated excellent safety and effectiveness for PVR. Further studies with longer follow-up are warranted.

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

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

Use of the Inspiris valve in the native right ventricular outflow tract is associated with early prosthetic regurgitation

OBJECTIVE

The Inspiris Resilia prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences) has been increasingly used in the pulmonic position with limited performance data. We sought to investigate its durability as a surgical pulmonary valve replacement (PVR).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent PVR or conduit replacement with an Inspiris or non-Inspiris valve/conduit from 2018 to 2022. The primary end point was freedom from a composite of at least moderate pulmonary regurgitation, pulmonary stenosis, or valve/conduit reintervention. Secondary end points were individual components of the composite outcome. To account for baseline differences, propensity matching identified 70 patient pairs.

RESULTS

A total of 227 patients (median age: 19.3 years [interquartile range, 11.8-34.4]) underwent PVR or conduit replacement (Inspiris: n = 120 [52.9%], non-Inspiris: n = 107 [47.1%]). Median follow-up was 26.6 months [interquartile range, 12.4-41.1]. Among matched patients, 2-year freedom from valve failure was lower in the Inspiris group (53.5 ± 9.3% vs 78.5 ± 5.9%, P = .03), as was freedom from at least moderate pulmonary regurgitation (54.2 ± 9.6% vs 86.4 ± 4.9%, P < .01). There was no difference in 2-year freedom from at least moderate pulmonary stenosis (P = .61) or reintervention (P = .92). Inspiris durability was poorer when implanted in the native right ventricular outflow tract compared with as a conduit, with 18-month freedom from valve failure of 59.0 ± 9.5% versus 85.9 ± 9.5% (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Early durability of the Inspiris valve is poor when implanted in the native right ventricular outflow tract; its unique design may be incompatible with the compliant pulmonary root. Modified implantation techniques or alternative prostheses should be considered.

Cardiac Surgeons Highlight the Need for Innovation Stewardship: Noteworthy in 2022

Modern cardiac surgery has rapidly evolved to treat complex cardiovascular disease. This past year boasted noteworthy advances in xenotransplantation, prosthetic cardiac valves, and endovascular thoracic aortic repair. Newer devices often offer incremental design changes while demanding significant cost increases that leave surgeons to decide if the benefit to patients justifies the increased cost. As innovations are introduced, surgeons must continuously aim to harmonize short- and long-term benefits with financial costs). We must also ensure quality patient outcomes while embracing innovations that will advance equitable cardiovascular care.

Perimount MAGNA Ease vs. INSPIRIS Resilia Valve: A PS-Matched Analysis of the Hemodynamic Performances in Patients below 70 Years of Age

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, the Perimount Magna Ease (PME) bioprosthesis has been implanted worldwide for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Recently, the INSPIRIS Resilia (IR) valve has been introduced as the newest generation of pericardial bioprostheses. However, few data have been reported about patients ≤70 years, and no comparisons in terms of hemodynamic performance between these two bioprostheses have been ever reported.

METHODS

Patients aged <70 years undergoing AVR were considered for comparison between PME (n = 238) and IR (n = 192). Propensity score (PS) matching was performed by logistic regression with adjustment for eight key baseline variables. The two prostheses were compared in terms of hemodynamic performances up to 3 years postoperatively. Sub-analysis according to prosthetic size-category was accomplished.

RESULTS

A total of 122 pairs with similar baseline characteristics were obtained from the PS-matching. The two prostheses showed comparable hemodynamic performances at one year (Gmean: 11.3 ± 3.5 mmHg vs. 11.9 ± 5.4 mmHg; p = 0.8) and at 3 years postoperatively (Gmean: 12.2 ± 7.9 mmHg vs. 12.8 ± 5.2 mmHg for; p = 0.3). The sub-analysis of size-category confirmed no statistical differences concerning the hemodynamic performances for each annulus size.

CONCLUSIONS

This first PS-matched analysis demonstrated that the newly developed IR valve achieves the same safety and efficacy of the PME valve during mid-term follow-up in patients aged <70 years.

Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

AIMS

To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with failed bioprostheses.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of non-randomized studies published by September 30, 2021.

RESULTS

Ten studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 3345 patients (1676 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 1669 patients underwent redo SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 44 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.93, P = 0.017], with an HR reversal after 197 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.22-1.93; P < 0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (1143 pairs), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 55 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.89, P < 0.001], with a reversal HR after 212 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.22-2.03; P < 0.001). The Cox regression model showed a statistically significant association of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with all-cause mortality during follow-up for ViV-TAVI (HR 1.03 per percentage increase in the study- and treatment arm-level proportion of PPM, 95% 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVI is associated with a strong protective effect immediately after the procedure in comparison with redo SAVR, however, this initial advantage reverses over time and redo SAVR seems to be a protective factor for all-cause mortality after 6 months. Considering that these results are the fruit of pooling data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution and trials are warranted.

Hemodynamic follow-up after valve-in-valve TAVR for failed aortic bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

"valve-in-valve" TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is established and provides good initial clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Lacking long-term durability data baffle the expand to lower risk patients. For those purposes, the present study adds a hemodynamic 3-years follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 77 patients underwent VIV-TAVR for failing aortic bioprosthesis during a 7-years period. Predominant mode of failure was stenosis in 87.0%. Patients had a mean age of 79.4 ± 5.8 years and a logistic EuroSCORE of 30.8 ± 15.7%. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-PROM averaged 5.79 ± 2.63%. Clinical results and hemodynamic outcomes are reported for 30-days, 1-, 2-, and 3-years. Completeness of follow-up was 100% with 44 patients at risk after 3-years. Follow-up ranged up to 7.1 years.

RESULTS

Majority of the surgical valves were stented (94.8%) with a mean labeled size of 23.1 ± 2.3 mm and true-ID of 20.4 ± 2.6 mm. A true-ID ≤21 mm had 58.4% of the patients. Self-expanding valves were implanted in 68.8% (mean labeled size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm) and balloon-expanded in 31.2% (mean size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm). No patient died intraoperatively. Hospital mortality was 1.3% and three-years survival 57.1%. All patients experienced an initial significant dPmean-reduction to 16.8 ± 7.1 mmHg. After 3-years mean dPmean raised to 26.0 ± 12.2 mmHg. This observation was independent from true-ID or type of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-prosthesis. Patients with a true-ID ≤21 mm had a higher initial (18.3 ± 5.3 vs. 14.9 ± 7.1 mmHg; p = .005) and dPmean after 1-year (29.2 ± 8.2 vs. 13.0 ± 6.7 mmHg; p = .004). There were no significant differences in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

VIV-TAVR is safe and effective in the early period. In surgical valves with a true-ID ≤21 mm inferior hemodynamic and survival outcomes must be expected. Nonetheless, also patients with larger true-IDs showed steadily increasing transvalvular gradients. This raises concern about durability.

Clinical performance of a novel bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve in a German high-volume center

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is increasingly adopted in younger patients. We aimed to analyze mid-term follow-up data after SAVR to assess the performance of the prosthesis.

METHODS

Data were collected from a single-center series of 154 patients, who underwent SAVR with a bioprosthetic heart valve with the RESILIA tissue at our Heart Centre in Siegburg. All procedural and midterm patient outcomes were documented.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 56.8 ± 9.9 years, 35.7% were female, and the mean logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) was 3.4 ± 3.6%. Diabetes (12.3%), atrial fibrillation (10.4%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (5.8%) were common comorbidities. The mean surgery duration was 163.8 ± 73.4 min, with the 23 mm (34.4%) and 25 mm (33.8%) heart valves being most frequently implanted. At 3-year follow-up, mean pressure gradient was 13.9 ± 5.9 mmHg, peak gradient was 23.6 ± 7.7 mmHg, and effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.9 ± 0.4 cm². No patient died during the operation, 3 (2.1%) patients within 30 days, and 4 (2.7%) thereafter with an overall mortality of n = 7. Of the surviving patients, 97.8% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I/II and none had structural valve deterioration (SVD).

CONCLUSION

Results of our single-center study indicate favorable procedural outcomes. The safety outcomes confirm preliminary earlier results of this novel bioprosthesis but include more patients and a longer midterm follow-up.

Updates on the Latest Surgical Approach of the Aortic Stenosis

Over the last twenty years, we marked significant progresses in the field of tissue engineering and the development of new aortic valve structural and delivery systems. These continuous iterations on the field, have completely changed the surgical indications and approaches for AVR. Nowadays, therapeutic decisions are endorsed by international guidelines; however, new technical advances need a new integrated approach. The clinical scenarios issued from the interaction between the Guidelines and the newest approaches and technologies are regularly on debate by the Heart Team. We will present some of our most encountered situations and the pattern of our therapeutic decisions. To easily navigate through Guidelines and clinical scenarios, we reported in this review a simplified and easy to use Clinical decision-making algorithm that may be a valuable tool in our daily practice.