Impact of Different Valve-in-Valve Positions on Functional Results of the New Generation of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valve

OBJECTIVES

 Very precise positioning of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) inside the degenerated SAV is a crucial factor for valve-in-valve (ViV) procedure to achieve optimal hemodynamic results. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the impact of implantation depth on functional results after ViV procedures in a standardized in vitro setting.

METHODS

 THV (SAPIEN 3 Ultra 23-mm size) and three SAV models (Magna Ease, Trifecta, and Hancock II-all 21-mm size) were tested at different circulatory conditions in five different positions of the THV (2-6 mm) inside the SAV. Mean pressure gradient (MPG), effective orifice area (EOA), geometric orifice area (GOAmax), and pinwheeling index (PWImean) were analyzed.

RESULTS

 EOA and MPG of the THV did not differ significantly regarding the position inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II (p > 0.05). However, EOA differed significantly, depending on the position of the THV inside Trifecta (2 vs. 5 mm; p = 0.021 and 2 vs. 6 mm; p < 0.001). The THV presented the highest EOA (2.047 cm2) and the lowest MPG (5.387 mm Hg) inside the Magna Ease, whereas the lowest EOA (1.335 cm2) and the highest MPG (11.876 mm Hg) were shown inside the Hancock II. Additionally, the highest GOAmax and the lowest PWImean of the THV were noticed inside the Magna Ease. The THV showed lower GOAmax and higher PWImean inside the Trifecta when placed in a deeper position.

CONCLUSION

 Deep implantation of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Trifecta correlates with impaired functional results. In contrast, the implantation position of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra inside the Magna Ease and the Hancock II did not have a significant effect on functional results.

Progression of the ascending aorta diameter after surgical or transcatheter bicuspid aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

Ascending aorta (AA) dilatation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) is related both to genetic and haemodynamic factors. The aim of this study is to compare late progression of AA dilatation in bicuspid AV patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

METHODS

Data of 189 consecutive patients who underwent AV replacement for severe bicuspid AV stenosis were prospectively collected. Patients who underwent SAVR were compared to patients who underwent TAVI. Indication to the procedure was validated by the institutional Heart Team. Aortic diameters were evaluated by transthoracic echocardiogram. Differences between preoperative and long-term follow-up AA diameters were compared in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and December 2021, 143 (76%) patients underwent SAVR and 46 (24%) patients underwent TAVI. At 4.6 (standard deviation 1.7) years follow-up, patients in the TAVI group showed significantly lower survival (P = 0.00013) and event-free survival (P < 0.0001). AA diameter progression was lower in surgical compared to transcatheter patients, 0.95 (0.60, 1.30) vs 1.65 (0.67, 2.63) mm, P = 0.02. AA diameter progression indexed for body surface area and height was lower in the surgical group: 0.72 (0.38, 1.05) vs 1.05 (0.39, 1.71) mm/m2, P = 0.02, and 0.59 (0.36, 0.81) vs 1.11 (0.44, 1.78) mm/m, P = 0.001, respectively. At multivariable linear regression analysis transcatheter procedure, baseline aortic diameter and paravalvular leak were significantly associated with increased postoperative AA dilatation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bicuspid AV patients who underwent SAVR, showed significantly less long-term AA diameter progression than patients who underwent transcatheter procedure.

Late clinical and echocardiographic results with the Magna Ease© pericardial aortic bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The population of candidates to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is evolving. The Perimount Magna Ease© bioprosthesis has been introduced relatively recently in the practice. We aimed at evaluating its long-term results.

METHODS

This article describes a single-centre cohort of 1016 consecutive SAVRs with the Magna Ease© valve (2008-2014), consisting of an all-comers population. We performed a prospective collection of in-hospital data, systematic clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. Valve-related events were as follows: structural valve deterioration (SVD; according to modified definition criteria), nonstructural valve dysfunction, patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM).

RESULTS

Age at SAVR was 73.4 ± 9.5 years; calcified aortic stenosis was the indication to surgery in 59.6%. A total of 974 patients entered the follow-up; 564 were alive at the last follow-up (median duration: 9.8 years) (up to 13.4 years). New York Heart Association class was I or II in 92.1%. Overall survival at 10 years was 56.8 ± 1.8%. Freedom from SVD at 10 was 96.5 ± 0.8% (Kaplan-Meier) and 97.4 ± 0.6% (competing risks) (28 SVD events after 6.9 ± 3.3 years). There were 15 reinterventions for SVD (redo-SAVR and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)); 10-year freedom from reintervention was 97.8 ± 0.6%. Moderate and severe PPM occurred in 26.8% and 5.4%, respectively, without association with late mortality (P = 0.12 for moderate and P = 0.70 for severe PPM). Freedom from valve-related mortality was 97.8 ± 0.5% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this follow-up of the Magna Ease bioprosthesis for SAVR, data indicate good late outcomes (30-day outcomes are excluded). Continued follow-up is required to further support its use in patients with life expectancy >10-12 years.

Clinical Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Mechanical or Biological Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may impair functional capacity and survival after aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PPM on long-term survival and quality of life after mechanical and biological aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

This study included 595 consecutive patients who had undergone isolated aortic valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to prosthesis type. The baseline and operative characteristics, survival rates, complications, and quality of life of the groups with and without PPM were compared for up to 6 years. The PPM calculation was performed using the effective orifice area value provided by the manufacturer divided by the patient's body surface area.

RESULTS

The moderate to severe PPM rates were 69.8% and 3.7% after biological and mechanical prosthesis implantation, respectively. Mean survival for patients in the biological group who had PPM was statistically significantly shorter (50.2 months [95% CI, 45.2-55.3]) than for patients in the biological group without PPM (60.1 months [95% CI, 55.7-64.4]; P = .04). In the mechanical prosthesis group, there was no difference in mean survival between the subgroup with PPM (66.6 months [95% CI, 58.3-74.9]) and the subgroup without PPM (64.9 months [95% CI, 62.6-67.2]; P = .50). A quality-of-life questionnaire's scores did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Mismatch is common after biological valve implantation and statistically significantly affects long-term survival and quality of life. If the risk of PPM after implantation of a biological prosthesis is suspected, adopting strategies to avoid PPM at the time of surgery is warranted.

Mid-term clinical and echocardiographic results of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve: a retrospective comparison to the Magna Ease

OBJECTIVES

The INSPIRIS aortic valve combines the RESILIA proprietary tissue preservation process and an expandable stent frame to benefit future transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures. As the INSPIRIS valve became commercially available in 2017, mid-term outcome reports are scarce. We aimed to evaluate mid-term safety and echocardiographic performance of the INSPIRIS valve in comparison to its predecessor, the Carpentier Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (ME).

METHODS

This study was a retrospective single-centre study. Clinical results included early postoperative outcomes, mid-term mortality and readmission for cardiovascular cause or stroke. Echocardiographic follow-up (FU) was performed at discharge and 1-3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Clinical end point analyses were accomplished with a propensity score matching analysis and FU echocardiographic data comparisons using pairwise analyses and linear mixed-effect models.

RESULTS

We included 953 patients who received an INSPIRIS (n = 488) or ME (n = 463) bioprosthesis between January 2018 and July 2021. In the matched population (n = 217 per group), no significant difference in short-term outcomes was observed, survival was similar at 30 months (INSPIRIS: 94% vs ME: 91%, P = 0.89), but freedom from readmission was higher in the INSPIRIS group (94% vs 86%, P = 0.014). INSPIRIS valves had a lower gradient at discharge (∼10 vs 14 mmHg, P < 0.001), 1-3 months (∼10 vs 12 mmHg, P < 0.001) and 24 months (∼11 vs 17 mmHg, P < 0.001) in paired analyses and significantly lower evolution of mean transvalvular gradients compared to ME.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest comparative evaluation of the INSPIRIS to the ME valves, which demonstrated safe clinical outcomes and favourable haemodynamic performance at 2 years. Long-term FU is underway.

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.

Impact of high-pressure balloon aortic valvuloplasty on the hydrodynamic result after a transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of functional improvement of a transcatheter heart valve (THV) for valve-in-valve after bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) of three small surgical aortic valve bioprostheses (SAVBP) using high-pressure balloon aortic valvuloplasty (HP-BAV) under standardized ex-vivo-conditions.

METHODS

A THV 26 mm (Evolut R) and SAVBP 21 mm (Perimount Magna Ease, Trifecta, and Epic supra [n = 4] were used. Mean pressure gradient (MPG), effective orifice area (EOA), geometric orifice area (GOA), minimal internal diameter (MID), and pinwheeling index (PWI) were analyzed before and after HP-BAV of the SAVBP using a noncompliant balloon. Fracturing of the SAVBP was done before implantation of the THV and the balloon pressures at the point of fracture were recorded.

RESULTS

The Magna Ease and Epic fractured at balloon pressures of 18 and 8 atm, respectively. The Trifecta did not fracture up to a balloon pressure of 30 atm but was dilated. HP-BAV led to increased THV expansion as evident by straightened coaptation lines of the Evolut R 26 mm with reduced PWI, increased MID, and increased GOA in all 21 mm SAVBP. Evolut R showed significantly lower MPG and higher EOA as ViV in all prostheses after HP-BAV (p < 0.001). MPG and EOA of Evolut R differed regarding the SAVBP. Evolut R presented the lowest MPG and highest EOA in Magna Ease and the highest MPG and lowest EOA in Epic supra.

CONCLUSIONS

The degree of function improvement of the same THV as ViV after HP-BAV depends on the surgical valve model. Functional improvement can also be achieved without valve fracture.

Functional performance of eight small surgical aortic valve bioprostheses: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

Selection of a surgical aortic valve bioprosthesis (SAV) model for treatment of aortic valve disease remains controversial. The aim of this study was to characterize the functional performance of eight SAV models in a standardized in vitro setting.

METHODS

The hydrodynamic performance of eight SAVs with labelled size 21 mm (Avalus™, Hancock® II, Mosaic® UltraTM, Perimount®, Perimount® Magna Ease, EpicTM Supra, Trifecta™ GT; Freestyle®) was investigated in a pulse duplicator. Transvalvular pressure gradients and effective orifice area (EOA) were recorded. The geometrical orifice area (GOA) and physical dimensions of the valves were determined, and new functional dimensions were introduced.

RESULTS

Mean pressure gradient (MPG) and EOA differed significantly between the analyzed SAVs. The Epic presented with the lowest EOA and highest MPG, while the Trifecta showed the highest EOA and the lowest MPG. We introduce a useful way to determine the minimal internal diameter and a new measure termed 'relative orifice area' to characterize a valve's performance.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVs showed significant differences in their hydrodynamic performance despite the same label size. This finding was related to the construction of the valves. We introduce a new measure that characterizes the functional performance of a valve model and size for treatment of an aortic annulus of a specific size. Our data emphasize that SAV selection should carefully be done using an individual patient approach and that future research is necessary to improve the current generation of SAVs.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Hemodynamics: Definitions, Outcomes, and Evidence Gaps: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics.

Patient Prosthesis Mismatch After SAVR and TAVR

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) remains one out of many factors to be considered during decision-making for the treatment of aortic valve pathologies. The idea of adequate sizing of a prosthetic heart valve was established by Rahimtoola already in 1978. In this article, the author described the phenomenon that the orifice area of a prosthetic heart valve may be too small for the individual patient. PPM is assessed by measurement or projection of the prosthetic effective orifice area indexed to body surface area (iEOA), while it is recommended to use different cut point values for non-obese and obese patients for the categorization of moderate and severe PPM. Several factors influence the accuracy of both the projected and the measured iEOA for PPM assessment, which leads to a certain number of false assignments to the PPM or no PPM group. Despite divergent findings on the impact of PPM on clinical outcomes, there is consensus that PPM should be avoided to prevent sequelae of increased prosthetic gradients after aortic valve replacement. To prevent PPM, it is required to anticipate the iEOA of the prosthesis prior to the procedure. The use of adequate reference tables, derived from echocardiographically measured mean effective orifice area (EOA) values from preferably large numbers of patients, is most appropriate to predict the iEOA. Such tables should be used also for transcatheter heart valves in the future. During the decision-making process, all available options should be taken into account for the individual patient. If the predicted size and type of a surgical prosthesis cannot be implanted, additional surgical procedures, such as annular enlargement with the Manougian technique, or alternative procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can prevent PPM. PPM prevention for TAVI patients is a new field of interest and includes anticipation of the iEOA, prosthesis selection, and procedural strategies.