Magna ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients

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.

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus (SAA) remains to be determined. This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a SAA.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter international randomized trial was performed in 15 university hospitals. Participants were 151 patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (mean diameter <23 mm) randomized (1:1) to TAVR (n=77) versus SAVR (n=74). The primary outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics (ie, severe prosthesis patient mismatch or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation) at 60 days as evaluated by Doppler echocardiography and analyzed in a central echocardiography core laboratory. Clinical events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 75.5±5.1 years, with 140 (93%) women, a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 2.50% (interquartile range, 1.67%-3.28%), and a median annulus diameter of 21.1 mm (interquartile range, 20.4-22.0 mm). There were no differences between groups in the rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (TAVR, 4 [5.6%]; SAVR, 7 [10.3%]; P=0.30) and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (none in both groups). No differences were found between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 1 [1.3%]; SAVR, 1 [1.4%]; P=1.00) and stroke (TAVR, 0; SAVR, 2 [2.7%]; P=0.24) at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 2 (interquartile range, 1-4) years, there were no differences between groups in mortality rate (TAVR, 7 [9.1%]; SAVR, 6 [8.1%]; P=0.89), stroke (TAVR, 3 [3.9%]; SAVR, 3 [4.1%]; P=0.95), and cardiac hospitalization (TAVR, 15 [19.5%]; SAVR, 15 [20.3%]; P=0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA (women in the majority), there was no evidence of superiority of contemporary TAVR versus SAVR in valve hemodynamic results. After a median follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. These findings suggest that the 2 therapies represent a valid alternative for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA, and treatment selection should likely be individualized according to baseline characteristics, additional anatomical risk factors, and patient preference. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future larger studies.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03383445.

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.

Successful Rescue Transaortic Valve Replacement Using Edwards Sapien 3 Following Failed Evolut R Implantation in a Degenerated Surgical Bioprosthesis: A Case Report

This study examines a complex scenario of structural valve degeneration (SVD) in a high surgical-risk patient with a previously implanted 25 mm Carpentier-Edwards (CE) Perimount Magna Ease 3300 (Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences) surgical bioprosthetic valve (SAV), the patient presented with both paravalvular leak (PVL) and central prosthetic valve insufficiency (PVI). The patient was considered for a transaortic valve-in-valve (ViV) intervention with a self-expanding 29 mm Evolut R valve (Minneapolis, MN: Medtronic). The case describes a ViV intervention complicated by the malpositioning of the Evolut R valve secondary to micro-dislodgement into the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) after deployment and subsequent migration into the LVOT during an attempted bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) of the SAV that aimed to decrease transvalvular gradients. The resulting acute severe PVL resulted in significant hemodynamic deterioration, necessitating emergent intervention by implanting a balloon-expandable 26 mm Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve (Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences), effectively averting the need for a surgical valve explant. This study illuminates the intricacies and emergency management strategies in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures, particularly in high-risk patients with SVD, and offers critical insights into the challenges and solutions in ViV implantations.

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).

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.

Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes and Hemodynamic Performances of Trifecta and Perimount Bioprostheses following Aortic Valve Replacement

Aims of the Study: We evaluated the clinical outcome and the hemodynamic and freedom from structural valve degeneration of two standard aortic bioprostheses. Methods: Clinical results, echocardiographic findings and follow-up data of patients operated for isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with the Perimount or the Trifecta bioprosthesis were prospectively collected, retrospectively analysed and compared. We weighted all the analyses by the inverse of the propensity of choosing either valves. Results: Between April 2015 and December 2019, 168 consecutive patients (all comers) underwent aortic valve replacement with Trifecta (n = 86) or Perimount (n = 82) bioprostheses. Mean age was 70.8 ± 8.6 and 68.8 ± 8.6 years for the Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (p = 0.120). Perimount patients presented a greater body mass index (27.6 ± 4.5 vs. 26.0 ± 4.2; p = 0.022), and 23% of them suffered from angina functional class 2–3 (23.2% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.002). Mean ejection fraction was 53.7 ± 11.9% (Trifecta) and 54.5 ± 10.4% (Perimount) (p = 0.994), with mean gradients of 40.4 ± 15.9 mmHg (Trifecta) and 42.3 ± 20.6 mmHg (Perimount) (p = 0.710). Mean EuroSCORE-II was 7 ± 11% and 6 ± 9% for the Trifecta and Perimount group, respectively (p = 0.553). Trifecta patients more often underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (45.3% vs. 26.8%; p = 0.016) and annulus enlargement (10.5% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.058). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 3.5% (Trifecta) and 8.5% (Perimount), (p = 0.203) while new pacemaker implantation (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) and stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) were similar. Acute MACCE were observed in 5% (Trifecta) and 9% (Perimount) of patients with an unweighted OR of 2.22 (95%CI 0.64–7.66; p = 0.196) and a weighted OR of 1.10 (95%CI: 0.44–2.76, p = 0.836). Cumulative survival at 24 months was 98% (95%CI: 0.91–0.99) and 96% (95%CI: 0.85–0.99) for Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (log-rank test; p = 0.555). The 2-year freedom from MACCE was 94% (95%CI: 0.65–0.99) for Trifecta and 96% (95%CI: 0.86–0.99) for Perimount (log-rank test; p = 0.759, HR 1.46 (95%CI: 0.13–16.48)) in the unweighted analysis (not estimable in the weighted analysis). During the follow-up (median time: 384 vs. 593 days; p = 0.0001) there were no re-operations for structural valve degeneration. Mean valve gradient at discharge was lower for Trifecta across all valve sizes (7.9 ± 3.2 vs. 12.1 ± 4.7 mmHg; p < 0.001), but the difference did not persist during follow-up (8.2 ± 3.7 mmHg for Trifecta, 8.9 ± 3.6 mmHg for Perimount; p = 0.224); Conclusions: Postoperative outcome and mid-term follow-up were similar. An early better hemodynamic performance was detected for the Trifecta valve but did not persist over time. No difference in the reoperation rate for structural valve degeneration was found.

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.

Structural hemodynamic valve deterioration durability of RESILIA-tissue versus contemporary aortic bioprostheses

Aim: Durability of aortic valve replacement is becoming increasingly important. Aortic bioprostheses with RESILIA tissue have demonstrated outstanding outcomes thus far, but only in single-arm studies. Methods: We compared structural valve deterioration (SVD)-related hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) of grade ≥2 of RESILIA tissue valves from the COMMENCE trial (n = 689) to those from the PARTNER 2A contemporary AVR arm (n = 936) based upon annual core laboratory echocardiograms through 5 years of follow-up. Results: SVD-related HVD in the COMMENCE and PARTNER 2A cohorts were 1.8 versus 3.5%, respectively (one-sided 95% lower-bound hazard ratio of 0.92; p = 0.07). In propensity-matched cohorts (n = 239), these outcomes were 1.0 versus 4.8%, respectively (one-sided 95% lower-bound hazard ratio of 1.15; p = 0.03). Conclusion: RESILIA tissue-based AVR exhibited reduced SVD-related HVD compared with a contemporary AVR cohort devoid of RESILIA tissue.

Eight-year outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease valve

INTRODUCTION

The Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease valve is a third-generation bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This is a postapproval study reporting on its 8-year outcomes.

METHODS

Adults undergoing AVR with the Magna Ease valve between October 2007 and December 2012 were enrolled for this prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm, and multicenter study. Assessments occurred preoperatively, at hospital discharge, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter for up to 8 years. Outcomes included safety endpoints, hemodynamic performance, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

RESULTS

Of the 258 study patients, 67.5% were in NYHA Class I or II, and 32.5% were in NYHA Class III or IV at baseline. Concomitant procedures were performed in 44.2%. Total follow-up was 1597.6 patient-years, and median follow-up was 7 years (interquartile range: 5.5-8.0 years). Eight years following AVR, the functional class remained improved from baseline with 93.9% in NYHA Class I/II and 6.1% in NYHA Class III; 38 deaths had occurred, 8 of which were valve related; freedom from all-cause mortality was 80.7% (95% confidence intervals: 74.9, 86.4); freedom from valve-related mortality was 95.8% (92.8, 98.8); freedom from reintervention, explant, major bleeding events, and structural valve deterioration was 89.8% (85.1, 94.6), 94.8% (91.7, 97.9), 85.1% (80.0, 90.1), and 90.1% (84.7, 95.4), respectively; effective orifice area was 1.5 ± 0.5 cm² , the mean gradient was 14.8 ± 8.3 mmHg, and 88.6% of patients had no or trivial aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated satisfactory safety and sustained hemodynamic and functional improvements at 8 years following AVR with the Magna Ease valve.