Stented versus Stentless Bioprostheses in Aortic Valve Stenosis: Effect on Left Ventricular Remodelling

Long-term clinical outcomes of the Toronto stentless porcine valve: 15-year results from dual centers

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine the long-term durability of the Toronto stentless porcine valve (SPV) in the aortic position (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN).

METHODS

We assessed the long-term clinical outcomes of 515 patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Toronto SPV from 1987 to 2001 at two centers, excluding early (<30 days) death. Median follow-up was 11.5 years (maximum 19.0 years).

RESULTS

Average age was 64.2 ± 10.8 years, and females were 34% (173/515). The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch was low, 10.9%. Overall survival was 90.7 ± 1.3%, 75.4 ± 2.0%, and 56.8 ± 3.2% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively after surgery. Over the follow-up duration, 116 patients (23%) underwent repeated AVR: 90 for structural valve deterioration (SVD), 12 for endocarditis, 10 nonstructural valve dysfunction (10 aortic regurgitation due to aorta dilatation), and four for other reasons. The cumulative incidence of repeated AVR with death as a competing risk was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-2.7), 11.1% (95% CI, 8.4-14.2), and 34.4% (95% CI, 28.8-40.2) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Reoperative mortality was 5.2% (6/116). In SVD, the regurgitation type was dominant (82%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Toronto SPV is associated with excellent survival and durability during the first decade of follow-up. However, regurgitation type of SVD increases from 10 years after operation with acceptable reoperative mortality. These findings may assist with prosthesis selection and reintervention strategy for failing stentless bioprosthesis.

A critical review of hemodynamic changes and left ventricular remodeling after surgical aortic valve replacement and percutaneous aortic valve replacement

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in clinical practice has widened options for symptomatic patients at high surgical risk; however, it is not known whether TAVR has equivalent or prolonged benefits in terms of left ventricular (LV) remodeling.

METHODS

To explore the relative hemodynamic benefits and postoperative LV remodeling associated with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed a critical review of the available literature. A total of 67 studies were included in this systematic review.

RESULTS

There is at least equivalent if not slightly superior hemodynamic performance of TAVR over SAVR, and TAVR showed lower prosthesis-patient mismatch compared with SAVR. However, LV mass appears to regress to a greater degree after SAVR compared with TAVR. Aortic regurgitation, paravalvular in particular, is more common after TAVR than SAVR, although it is rarely more than moderate in severity. Improvements in diastolic function and mitral regurgitation are reported in only a handful of studies each and could not be compared across prosthesis types.

CONCLUSIONS

The published data support the hemodynamic comparability of SAVR and TAVR, with the higher incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in SAVR offset by higher incidence of paravalvular leak in TAVR. These results highlight the need for further studies focusing on hemodynamic changes after valve therapy.

Stentless versus Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Objective

This meta-analysis sought to determine whether stentless bioprosthetic valves improve clinical and resource outcomes compared with stented valves in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

Methods

A comprehensive search was undertaken to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing stentless to stented bioprosthetic valves in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement available up to March 2008. The primary outcomes were clinical and resource outcomes in randomized controlled trial (RCT). Secondary outcomes clinical and resource outcomes in nonrandomized controlled trial (non-RCT). Odds ratios (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed as appropriate.

Results

Seventeen RCTs published in 23 articles involving 1317 patients, and 14 non-RCTs published in 18 articles involving 2485 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For the primary analysis of randomized trials, mortality for stentless versus stented valve groups did not differ at 30 days (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68–2.72), 1 year (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55–1.85), or 2 to 10 years follow-up (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50–1.33). Aggregate event rates for all-cause mortality at 30 days were 3.7% versus 2.9%, at 1 year were 5.5% versus 5.9% and at 2 to 10 years were 17% versus 19% for stentless versus stented valve groups, respectively. Stroke or neurologic complications did not differ between stentless (3.6%) and stented (4.0%) valve groups. Risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch was numerically lower in the stentless group (11.0% vs. 31.3%, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05–1.66), but this parameter was reported in few trials and did not reach statistical significance. Effective orifice area index was significantly greater for stentless aortic valve compared with stented valves at 30 days (WMD 0.12 cm2/m2), at 2 to 6 months (WMD 0.15 cm2/m2), and at 1 year (WMD 0.26 cm2/m2). Mean gradient at 1 month was significantly lower in the stentless valve group (WMD −6 mm Hg), at 2 to 6 month follow-up (WMD −4 mm Hg,), at 1 year follow-up (WMD −3 mm Hg) and up to 3 year follow-up (WMD −3 mm Hg) compared with the stented valve group. Although the left ventricular mass index was generally lower in the stentless group versus the stented valve group, the aggregate estimates of mean difference did not reach significance during any time period of follow-up (1 month, 2–6 months, 1 year, and 8 years).

Conclusions

Evidence from randomized trials shows that subcoronary stentless aortic valves improve hemodynamic parameters of effective orifice area index, mean gradient, and peak gradient over the short and long term. These improvements have not led to proven impact on patient morbidity, mortality, and resource-related outcomes; however, few trials reported on clinical outcomes beyond 1 year and definitive conclusions are not possible until sufficient evidence addresses longer-term effects.