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.

Intermediate-term outcome of 500 consecutive rapid-deployment surgical aortic valve procedures†

OBJECTIVES

The Edwards INTUITY Valve System is a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, inspired from the Edwards Magna valve and transcatheter technology, with a subvalvular stent frame to enable rapid deployment. We report a single-centre experience of aortic valve replacement with this novel bioprosthesis.

METHODS

Five hundred consecutive patients, of whom 45.6% were female with a mean age of 73.5 [standard deviation (SD) 7.9 years], with severe aortic stenosis who received a rapid deployment aortic valve between May 2010 and July 2017 were included in a prospective and ongoing database. The median follow-up time was 12 months, and the total accumulated follow-up time was 818 patient years. Preoperative characteristics, operative parameters, survival, valve-related adverse events and valve haemodynamics were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was 0.8% (4/500), and overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 94%, 89% and 81%, respectively. A minimally invasive surgical approach was chosen in 236 patients (47%), of which 122 (24%) were operated on through an anterior right thoracotomy. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times for isolated aortic valve replacement were 53 (SD 17) and 89 (SD 29) min for full sternotomy as well as 75 (SD 23) and 110 (SD 31) min for minimally invasive surgery approaches (P < 0.001). Mean gradients at discharge, 1, 3 and 5 years were 13 (SD 5), 11 (SD 4), 12 (SD 5) and 11 (SD 3) mmHg, respectively. New pacemaker implantation was necessary in 8.6% of patients. A single case (0.2%) of structural degeneration was registered after 6 years. Valve explantation for non-structural dysfunction or endocarditis occurred in 9 patients (1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid deployment aortic valve has shown excellent results concerning haemodynamic performance, durability and safety. Implantation requires specific training, and the rate of pacemaker implantation remains a matter of concern. This novel valve also facilitates minimally invasive approaches and may be beneficial in complex combined procedures.

Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: Part 2-Morphomechanical Abnormalities, Gene Reexpression, and Gender Effects on Ventricular Hypertrophy and Its Reversibility

In part 1, we considered cytomolecular mechanisms underlying calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), hemodynamics, and adaptive feedbacks controlling pathological left ventricular hypertrophy provoked by ensuing aortic valvular stenosis (AVS). In part 2, we survey diverse signal transduction pathways that precede cellular/molecular mechanisms controlling hypertrophic gene expression by activation of specific transcription factors that induce sarcomere replication in-parallel. Such signaling pathways represent potential targets for therapeutic intervention and prevention of decompensation/failure. Hypertrophy provoking signals, in the form of dynamic stresses and ligand/effector molecules that bind to specific receptors to initiate the hypertrophy, are transcribed across the sarcolemma by several second messengers. They comprise intricate feedback mechanisms involving gene network cascades, specific signaling molecules encompassing G protein-coupled receptors and mechanotransducers, and myocardial stresses. Future multidisciplinary studies will characterize the adaptive/maladaptive nature of the AVS-induced hypertrophy, its gender- and individual patient-dependent peculiarities, and its response to surgical/medical interventions. They will herald more effective, precision medicine treatments.

Conventional versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a single-centre comparison between the Edwards Magna valve and its rapid-deployment successor

OBJECTIVES

Sutureless and rapid-deployment valves were recently introduced into clinical practice. The Edwards INTUITY valve system is a combination of the Edwards Magna pericardial valve and a subvalvular stent-frame to enable rapid deployment. We performed a parallel cohort study for comparison of the two valve types.

METHODS

All patients receiving either an Edwards Magna Ease valve or an Edwards INTUITY valve system due to aortic stenosis from May 2010 until July 2014 were included. Patients undergoing bypass surgery, an additional valve procedure, atrial ablation surgery or replacement of the ascending aorta were excluded. Preoperative characteristics, operative specifications, survival, valve-related adverse events and transvalvulvar gradients were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients underwent rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement [mean age 75 years (SD: 8); 62% female] and 132 patients underwent conventional aortic valve replacement [70 years (SD: 9); 31% female; P < 0.001]. Conventional valve patients were taller and heavier. The mean EuroSCORE II was 3.1% (SD: 2.7) and 4.4% (SD: 6.0) for rapid-deployment and conventional valve patients, respectively (P = 0.085). The mean implanted valve size was higher in the conventional group [23.2 mm (SD: 2.0) vs 22.5 mm (SD: 2.2); P = 0.007], but postoperative transvalvular mean gradients were comparable [15 mmHg (SD: 6) vs 14 mmHg (SD: 5); P = 0.457]. A subgroup analysis of the most common valve sizes (21 and 23 mm; implanted in 63% of patients) revealed significantly reduced mean postoperative transvalvular gradients in the rapid-deployment group [14 mmHg (SD: 4) vs 16 mmHg (SD: 5); P = 0.025]. A significantly higher percentage received minimally invasive procedures in the rapid-deployment group (59 vs 39%; P < 0.001). The 1- and 3-year survival rate was 96 and 90% in the rapid-deployment group and 95 and 89% in the conventional group (P = 0.521), respectively. Valve-related pacemaker implantations were more common in the rapid-deployment group (9 vs 2%; P = 0.014) and postoperative stroke was more common in the conventional group (1.6 vs 0% per patient year; P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that this rapid-deployment valve probably facilitates minimally invasive surgery. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis showed reduced transvalvular gradients in smaller valve sizes compared with the conventionally implanted valve of the same type. The favourable haemodynamic profile and the potentially different spectrum of valve-related adverse events should be addressed in further clinical trials.

Comparison of the early haemodynamics of stented pericardial and porcine aortic valves

Data comparing the haemodynamic performance of stented pericardial and porcine aortic valves are conflicting. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the early haemodynamic parameters of stented pericardial and porcine valves in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science were queried for English language original publications from 2000 to 2013. Studies comparing porcine (PoV) and pericardial (PeV) with regard to their haemodynamic parameters were included in this review. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD). A random-effect inverse weighted analysis was conducted; a P-value<0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Thirteen studies (1265 PeV patients and 871 PoV patients) were included in this analysis. The pooled transvalvular mean gradient was lower for PeV [MD -4.6 (-6.45 to -2.77) mmHg; P<0.01]. Limiting this analysis to small valves (19 and 21 mm; eight studies; 714 patients) revealed that the PeV gradients were significantly lower [MD -4.5 (-5.7 to -3.2); P=0.001]. The corresponding effective orifice area of PeV was significantly larger than PoV [SMD 0.42 (0.15-0.69); P<0.01]. A sensitivity analysis comprising only randomized controlled trials did not significantly alter results. When compared with porcine valves, stented pericardial aortic valves have lower mean transvalvular gradients early after implant. Even pericardial valves in smaller sizes (19 and 21 mm) have a better haemodynamic profile when compared with their counterparts.

Comparison of the early haemodynamics of stented pericardial and porcine aortic valves

Data comparing the haemodynamic performance of stented pericardial and porcine aortic valves are conflicting. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the early haemodynamic parameters of stented pericardial and porcine valves in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science were queried for English language original publications from 2000 to 2013. Studies comparing porcine (PoV) and pericardial (PeV) with regard to their haemodynamic parameters were included in this review. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD). A random-effect inverse weighted analysis was conducted; a P-value<0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Thirteen studies (1265 PeV patients and 871 PoV patients) were included in this analysis. The pooled transvalvular mean gradient was lower for PeV [MD -4.6 (-6.45 to -2.77) mmHg; P<0.01]. Limiting this analysis to small valves (19 and 21 mm; eight studies; 714 patients) revealed that the PeV gradients were significantly lower [MD -4.5 (-5.7 to -3.2); P=0.001]. The corresponding effective orifice area of PeV was significantly larger than PoV [SMD 0.42 (0.15-0.69); P<0.01]. A sensitivity analysis comprising only randomized controlled trials did not significantly alter results. When compared with porcine valves, stented pericardial aortic valves have lower mean transvalvular gradients early after implant. Even pericardial valves in smaller sizes (19 and 21 mm) have a better haemodynamic profile when compared with their counterparts.