Left ventricular remodeling and long-term outcomes of aortic stenosis patients receiving 19 mm Mosaic

Mosaic valve shows higher pressure gradient after aortic valve replacement compared to other same size labeled prostheses in postoperative echocardiogram. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term echocardiogram findings and long-term clinical outcomes of patients receiving a 19 mm Mosaic. Forty-six aortic stenosis patients receiving 19 mm Mosaic and 112 patients receiving either 19 mm Magna or Inspiris, who underwent mid-term follow-up echocardiogram were included in the study. Mid-term hemodynamic measurements evaluated by trans-thoracic echocardiogram and long-term outcomes were compared. Patients receiving Mosaic were significantly older (Mosaic: 76 ± 5.1 years vs. Magna/Inspiris: 74 ± 5.5 years, p = 0.046) and had smaller body surface area (Mosaic: 1.40 ± 0.114m2 vs. Magna/Inspiris: 1.48 ± 0.143m2, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in comorbidities and medications. Post-operative echocardiogram performed at 1 week after the surgery showed higher maximum pressure gradient in patients receiving Mosaic (Mosaic: 38 ± 13.5 mmHg vs. Magna/Inspiris: 31 ± 10.7 mmHg, p = 0.002). Furthermore, mid-term echocardiogram follow-up performed at median duration of 53 ± 14.9 months after the surgery continuously showed higher maximum pressure gradient in patients receiving Mosaic (Mosaic: 45 ± 15.6 mmHg vs. Magna/Inspiris: 32 ± 13.0 mmHg, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant difference in changes in left ventricular mass from baseline in both groups. Kaplan-Meyer curve also showed no difference in long-term mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event between the two groups. Although the pressure gradient across the valve evaluated by echocardiogram was higher in 19 mm Mosaic compared to 19 mm Magna/Inspiris, there were no significant differences in left ventricular remodeling and long-term outcomes between the two groups.

Mid-term clinical and haemodynamic results after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and haemodynamic results after implantation of the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing Trifecta aortic valve replacement between 01 January 2012 and 31 December 2017 at the Ghent University Hospital. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of valve- and procedure-related complications and mortality. The haemodynamic performance was analysed by longitudinal Doppler echocardiography.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 182 patients was 77 [standard deviation (SD): 5.5] years; 54.9% were women. The mean follow-up was 39.8 (SD: 24.3) months. Overall survival at 1 and 5 years was 86% (SD: 3%) and 68% (SD: 4%), respectively, and overall freedom from structural valve deterioration was 100% and 98% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. There was no valve thrombosis nor early endocarditis. Urgent surgery was the only risk factor for early mortality in the multivariable analysis [P = 0.009, odds ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.5]. Preoperative atrial fibrillation was the most important predictor of late mortality (P = 0.001, hazard ratio 3.68, 95% CI 1.65-8.21). The average peak gradients were stable from discharge up to 1 and 5 years postoperatively [15 (SD: 6) and 17 (SD: 8) mmHg].

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the excellent clinical performance of the Trifecta valve, particularly in an elderly age group. Through the 7-year follow-up period, low transvalvular gradients persisted, and only a few patients needed reoperation. Although structural valve degeneration occurred rarely, it was unrelated to valve size or age at implantation; therefore, further long-term follow-up remains mandatory.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Mosaic Mitral Porcine Bioprosthesis in Japan - Results From the Japan Mosaic Valve Long-Term Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

This study retrospectively evaluated the long-term patient outcomes and durability of the Mosaic mitral porcine bioprosthesis in the Japan Mosaic valve long-term multicenter study.Methods and Results:The medical records of 390 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement with the Mosaic bioprosthesis at 10 centers in Japan (1999-2014) were reviewed. Patient data were collected using the Research Electronic Data Capture software. Patient survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) and valve-related reoperation and death were determined using actuarial methods. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of the cohort was 73 (69-77) years. The median (IQR) follow-up period was 4.83 (1.84-8.26) years. The longest follow-up period was 15.8 years. The 30-day mortality rate was 5.4%. The 12-year actuarial survival rate was 54.1±4.5%, and the freedom from valve-related death was 85.3±3.4%. The freedom from reoperation at 12 years was 74.3±5.7%. The freedom from SVD at 12 years was 81.4±6.6% for patients aged ≥65 years and 71.6±11.1% for those aged <65 years. The median (IQR) mean pressure gradient was 4.1 (3.0-6.0) and 5.6 (4.0-6.7) mmHg at 1 and 10 years, respectively. The median (IQR) effective orifice area was 1.7 (1.4-2.0) and 1.4 (1.2-1.6) cm²at 1 and 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis offered satisfactory long-term outcomes for up to 12 years.

Late results after mitral valve replacement with Mosaic bioprosthesis in patients aged 65 years or younger

OBJECTIVES

Although in younger patients indications for biological prosthesis implantation in mitral valve replacement remain controversial, recently bioprostheses use increased considerably. We present late results obtained with the Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis in patients aged 65 years or younger.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2017, 67 mitral Mosaic bioprostheses were implanted in patients aged 65 years or younger (58.5 ± 6.4 years). Follow-up extended up to 13 years. Survival, freedom from structural valve degeneration, endocarditis, thromboembolic events and reoperation were considered as main clinical end points evaluated at 1, 5 and 10 years.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 2.8 years. Overall mortality rate was 12%. At 1, 5 and 10 years, survival was 94 ± 3%, 89 ± 4% and 77 ± 9%, respectively. Freedom from structural valve degeneration was 100%, 94 ± 4% and 71 ± 21%. Freedom from endocarditis was 95 ± 3%, 90 ± 6% and 84 ± 8%. Freedom from thromboembolic events was 94 ± 3%, 90 ± 5% and 90 ± 5%. Freedom from reoperation was 94 ± 3%, 87 ± 5% and 65 ± 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

Mosaic bioprosthesis appears a valid mitral valve substitute even when employed in ≤65-year-old patients.

Comparison of safety and haemodynamic performance between the Avalus™ stented aortic valve bioprosthesis and Magna™ valve in Japanese patients

Objectives

A new stented bovine pericardial valve (Avalus™) has been proven safe and effective with good hemodynamic performance in Western populations. However, its use in Japanese patients is poorly understood. We retrospectively compared the feasibility, safety, and valve haemodynamics between the Avalus™ and Magna™ valves in patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

This study included 87 patients receiving an Avalus™ valve and 387 receiving a Magna™ valve. We evaluated adverse events, outcomes, and valve haemodynamics within 1 year postoperatively. There were no significant differences in any surgical risk scores.

Results

No in-hospital mortality occurred in the Avalus™ group, but two mortality events occurred in the Magna™ group. No pacemaker implantation for complete atrioventricular block was required in the Avalus™ group. There was no significant difference in in-hospital or clinical outcomes between the two groups until 1 year postoperatively. Left ventricular mass index reduction appeared to predominate in the Avalus™ over Magna™ group. There was no significant difference in the mean pressure gradient or effective orifice area of each valve size at 1 week or 1 year between the two groups, apart from the mean pressure gradient of the 23-mm valve at 1 week. Three patients (3.4%) in the Avalus™ group and 39 (10.8%) in the Magna™ group (p = 0.12) had severe patient–prosthesis mismatch at 1 week postoperatively.

Conclusions

The new Avalus™ stented aortic valve bioprosthesis was associated with good in-hospital outcomes and good valve functionality post-SAVR in Japanese patients.

Hemodynamic Performance and Outcomes of Mosaic Valve for Aortic Stenosis with Decreased Left Ventricular Function: Results from J-MOVE Study

We evaluated impact of a small-sized Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis on hemodynamic performance and outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a Japan multicenter cohort. Of 1,202 patients enrolled, 105 (8.7%) who had LVEF < 50% and AS underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). Fifty-two patients received Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis ≤ 21 mm (S-AVR), and 53 received a bioprosthesis ≥ 23 mm (L-AVR). The median follow-up period was 3.1 [1.2, 5.1] years. At 5 years, LVEF significantly improved from median 41.2 [33.8, 45.9]% to 64.2 [49.8, 72.5]% in S-AVR (p < 0.001) and from median 43.2 [37.3, 46.8]% to 61.2 [47.2, 68.0]% in L-AVR (p < 0.001). The left ventricular mass index significantly decreased from median 158.4 [122.2, 194.9] to 110.0 [83.6, 129.4] gm/m in S-AVR (p < 0.001) and from median 169.8 [132.2, 203.6] to 109.6 [101.8, 132.4] gm/m in L-AVR (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between S-AVR and L-AVR groups regarding freedom from cardiac death (93.1 ± 3.9% vs. 96.2 ± 3.8%; p = 0.119) and valve-related death (97.6 ± 2.4% vs. 100.0 ± 0.0%; p = 0.953). Clinical outcomes and improved hemodynamic performance were similar in both groups.

Study Protocol for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for a Degenerated Aortic Bioprosthesis in a Japanese Cohort

Background: The valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure is being increasingly performed in high-risk patients with a degenerated bioprosthesis in an aortic position in Western countries. The early safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure, however, remain unclear in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus. We present the protocol for a study designed to evaluate the early safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure in the aortic position in Japanese patients.

Methods and Results: The prospective, single-center, non-comparative, clinical study of the VIV procedure for the aortic position (AORTIC VIV study) commenced in August 2016 and will end in March 2020. Patients will be monitored for ≥1 month after the VIV procedure. The targeted number of patients is 11. Eligible patients are those who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for a surgical valve (including stented or stentless bioprosthetic valves), or for a transcatheter heart valve. The VIV procedure is performed in high-operative-risk patients with substantial prosthetic valve stenosis, and regurgitation and heart failure resistant to medical treatment (unless the patient meets an exclusion criterion). The safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure will be evaluated in accordance with the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 initiative.

Conclusions: The AORTIC VIV study will clarify the early safety and efficacy of the VIV procedure in Japanese patients.

Trifecta has lower gradient and less prosthesis-patient mismatch than Mosaic Ultra in the aortic position: A prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

When aortic valve replacement is needed, a biological valve is usually implanted in patients older than age 60 to 65 years. A large valvular opening area is important to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch and facilitate reverse left ventricular remodeling. The Trifecta biological valve (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minn) is, because of its design, believed to reduce transvalvular gradient compared with other biological valves, especially in smaller annuli. Several retrospective studies have compared transvalvular gradients of implanted valves prostheses using the respective manufacturers given size and not the actual annulus size measured by a metric sizer. This makes comparison of the hemodynamic properties of different valve brands and sizes difficult. We therefore performed a prospective randomized study, using the same metric sizer to measure annulus size, and compared hemodynamic profiles of the Trifecta to our standard Mosaic Ultra biological valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn).

METHODS

Ninety elective patients with small to medium annulus diameter undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to either Trifecta or Mosaic Ultra. After native valve removal and decalcification, a Hegar-sizer was used to measure true annulus size. Then the largest possible valve of either brand was implanted according to the randomization protocol. Echocardiography was performed 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Baseline parameters of the 2 cohorts were comparable. There were lower transvalvular gradients in the Trifecta compared with the Mosaic Ultra group for the given annulus sizes. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was present in 28% of patients in the Mosaic group and 3% of patients in the Trifecta group.

CONCLUSIONS

Trifecta showed lower transvalvular gradients and less severe prosthesis-patient mismatch compared with Mosaic Ultra for the given annulus sizes. ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol ID: 2011/2596/REK.

Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses.

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

 Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.

METHODS

 Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

 In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).

CONCLUSION

 Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.

Impact of Ross Operation on Outcome in Young Female Adult Patients Wanting to Have Children

BACKGROUND

The most appropriate valve substitute at aortic valve replacement (AVR) for young female adult patients wanting to have children is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 1992 and 2013, 12 consecutive female patients aged >18 (median, 22.5 years; range, 18-34 years) underwent Ross operation (Ross group). Between 1984 and 2013, 9 consecutive female patients aged >18 (median, 30 years; range, 22-39 years) underwent AVR with bioprosthesis (bioprosthesis group). There was 1 late mortality in the bioprosthesis group, due to prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). Freedom from reoperation for aortic valve at 15 years was 90.0% in the Ross group, and 57.1% in the bioprosthesis group (log-rank, P=0.098). One in the Ross group underwent reoperation for aortic regurgitation (AR), whereas 4 in the bioprosthesis group did so for aortic stenosis (AS) in 2, combined AS and AR in 1, and PVE in 1. Five patients in the Ross group and 3 in the bioprosthesis group had 7 and 4 uneventful pregnancies, respectively. AR progressed during the perinatal period in a total of 7 of 11 pregnancies. No AS was seen at discharge, after 5 years, or during pregnancy in the Ross group.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term outcome of Ross operation for female patients wanting to have children is excellent. Although subclinical pulmonary autograft valve regurgitation during pregnancy was often observed, pulmonary autograft stenosis did not occur, therefore it would be an ideal option for patients wanting to have children.