Structural hemodynamic valve deterioration durability of RESILIA-tissue versus contemporary aortic bioprostheses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bartus K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10288964 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Structural hemodynamic valve deterioration durability of RESILIA-tissue versus contemporary aortic bioprostheses.
Bartus Krzysztof K Bavaria Joseph E JE Thourani Vinod H VH Xu Ke K Keuffel Eric L EL
Journal of comparative effectiveness research 20230123 3
<b>Aim:</b> 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. <b>Methods:</b> 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 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere are a few case reports regarding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for deteriorated surgical homograft.Case summaryWe present a case of severe structural valve deterioration (SVD) of homograft surgical aortic valve presenting severe aortic regurgitation in an 84-year-old man with decompensated heart failure. We performed TAVI in homograft valve using 23 mm SAPIEN3 Ultra RESILIA. The resulting grade of paravalvular regurgitation was trace, the post-operative effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.66 cm2 (index EOA: 1.19 cm2/m2), and device success was achieved.DiscussionStented bioprosthetic valves are more commonly implanted than mechanical and stentless bioprosthetic valves. In the 1980s and the early 1990s, homografts became particularly popular as alternatives to stented valves. There are several reports of TAVI for homograft SVD, but the paravalvular leakage grade is worse than that of redo-surgical aortic valve replacement, although the mortality rate is lower. However, the valves used in these reports were from older valves such as SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN3. There are no reports using SAPIEN3 Ultra RESILIA with a significant reduction in paravalvular leak due to an external textured polyethylene terephthalate skirt extending 40% higher above the valve inflow than the classical SAPIEN3, which is now available. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using SAPIEN3 Ultra RESILIA showed good therapeutic efficacy.
| S-EPMC10957156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is expected to progress into younger patient populations, valve-in-TAVR (ViTAVR) may become a frequent consideration. Data on ViTAVR, however, are limited. This study investigated the outcome of ViTAVR in comparison to valve in surgical aortic valve replacement (ViSAVR), because ViSAVR is an established procedure for higher-risk patients requiring repeated aortic valve intervention. Methods and Results Clinical and procedural data of patients who underwent ViTAVR at 3 sites in the United States and Germany were retrospectively compared with data of patients who underwent ViSAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. A total of 99 consecutive patients, 52.5% women, with a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 7.2 were identified. Seventy-four patients (74.7%) underwent ViSAVR, and 25 patients (25.3%) underwent ViTAVR. Balloon-expandable devices were used in 72.7%. ViSAVR patients presented with smaller index devices (21.0 versus 26.0 mm median true internal diameter; P<0.001). Significantly better postprocedural hemodynamics (median prosthesis mean gradient, 12.5 [interquartile range, 8.8-16.2] versus 16.0 [interquartile range, 13.0-20.5] mm Hg; P=0.045) were observed for ViTAVR compared with the ViSAVR. Device success, however, was not different (79.2% and 66.2% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively; P=0.35), as were rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (16.7% versus 5.4%; P=0.1). One-year-mortality was 9.4% and 13.4% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively (log-rank P=0.38). Conclusions Compared with ViSAVR, ViTAVR provides acceptable outcomes, with slightly better hemodynamics, similar device success rates, and similar 1-year mortality.
| S-EPMC7660709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhether a bovine or porcine aortic valve bioprosthesis carries a higher risk of endocarditis after aortic valve replacement is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of prosthetic endocarditis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a bovine versus porcine bioprosthesis.Methods and resultsThis nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with a bovine or porcine bioprosthesis in Sweden from 1997 to 2018. Regression standardization was used to account for intergroup differences. The primary outcome was prosthetic valve endocarditis, and the secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and early prosthetic valve endocarditis. During a maximum follow-up time of 22 years, we included 21 022 patients, 16 603 with a bovine valve prosthesis and 4419 with a porcine valve prosthesis. The mean age was 73 years, and 61% of the patients were men. In total, 910 patients were hospitalized for infective endocarditis: 690 (4.2%) in the bovine group and 220 (5.0%) in the porcine group. The adjusted cumulative incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis at 15 years was 9.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-14.4%) in the bovine group and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.4%-5.6%) in the porcine group. The absolute risk difference between the groups at 15 years was 6.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-12.5%).ConclusionsThe risk of endocarditis was higher in patients who received a bovine compared with a porcine valve prosthesis after surgical aortic valve replacement. This association should be considered in patients undergoing both surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
| S-EPMC10863842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], P=0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], P=0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], P=0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], P<0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], P=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (P=0.26), myocardial infarction (P=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (P=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.
| S-EPMC9798815 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC10146805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesLong-term durability of bioprosthetic valves is predominantly limited by structural valve deterioration. RESILIA™ tissue has exhibited reduced calcification in pre-clinical and early clinical studies. This study evaluated the 5-year clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of an aortic valve with this tissue.MethodsThis was a prospective, non-randomized, single-arm study of 133 patients implanted with a RESILIA aortic bioprosthesis between July 2011 and February 2013 at 2 sites in Poland. Clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance were assessed annually for 5 years post-implant. Safety events were adjudicated by a Clinical Events Committee and echocardiographic data were assessed by an independent core laboratory.ResultsMean patient age was 65.3 ± 13.5 years, with 34 patients (25.6%) ≤60. The mean follow-up was 4.2 ± 1.5 years. Early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) all-cause mortality were 2.3% (N = 3) and 3.2%/late patients-years (N = 18) respectively. Early events included thromboembolism in 3 patients (2.3%). Late valve-related events included endocarditis in 1 patient, which led to explant, and valve thrombosis in another patient. There were no events of structural valve deterioration throughout the study. At 5 years, mean gradient was 14.8 ± 7.6 mmHg and effective orifice area was 1.4 ± 0.5 cm2, a marked improvement over baseline values. All New York Heart Association class III patients and most class II patients at baseline had improved classifications at 5 years.ConclusionsThe bioprosthesis with RESILIA tissue demonstrated a good safety profile with excellent haemodynamic performance over 5 years of follow-up. These encouraging outcomes warrant additional investigation of this novel tissue.Clinical trial registration numberNCT01651052.
| S-EPMC7850021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many observational studies have reported outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), but there are no recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses including all available bioprostheses and allografts. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported in the last 15 years. We conducted a systematic literature review (PROSPERO register: CRD42015017041) of studies published between 2000-15. Inclusion criteria were observational studies or randomized controlled trials reporting on outcomes of AVR with bioprostheses (stented or stentless) or allografts, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve repair procedure, with study population size n ≥ 30 and mean follow-up length ≥5 years. Fifty-four bioprosthesis studies and 14 allograft studies were included, encompassing 55 712 and 3872 patients and 349 840 and 32 419 patient-years, respectively. We pooled early mortality risk and linearized occurrence rates of valve-related events, reintervention and late mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influence of outliers on the pooled estimates and to explore sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plots were used to investigate publication bias. Pooled early mortality risks for bioprostheses and allografts were 4.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.44-5.62) and 5.03% (95% CI, 3.61-7.01), respectively. The late mortality rate was 5.70%/patient-year (95% CI, 4.99-5.62) for bioprostheses and 1.68%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.23-2.28) for allografts. Pooled reintervention rates for bioprostheses and allografts were 0.75%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.61-0.91) and 1.87%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.52-2.31), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity in most outcomes. Meta-regression analyses identified covariates that could explain the heterogeneity: implantation period, valve type, patient age, gender, pre-intervention New York Heart Association class III/IV, concomitant CABG, study design and follow-up length. There is possible publication bias in all outcomes. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported during the last 15 years. The results of this study can support patients and doctors in the prosthetic valve choice and can be used in microsimulation models to predict patient outcomes and estimate the cost-effectiveness of AVR with bioprostheses or allografts compared with current and future heart valve prostheses.
| S-EPMC5052462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. A total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-1.88]; P=0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P=0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI, 0.56-3.21]; P=0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR: 2.52 [95% CI, 0.60-1.06]; P=0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.16±1.2 versus 2.13±2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI, -1.22 to -0.75]; P=0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR: 2.45 [95% CI, 1.44-4.17]; P=0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42±1.73 versus 22.8±1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.62-1.18]; P=0.001), even during follow-up (10.98±5.7 versus 13.06±6.2; mean difference: -2.08 [95% CI, -3.96 to -0.21]; P=0.030). We found no difference in 1-year mortality. The Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC5850177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe durability of bioprosthetic heart valves is limited by structural valve deterioration (SVD) due to long-term calcification. A novel bioprosthetic tissue (RESILIATM) has been developed which, in preclinical studies, has shown reduced calcification. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intermediate-term clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of this tissue.MethodsA prospective, single-arm, observational trial was conducted in patients who required surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Between July 2011 and February 2013, 133 patients were implanted at two sites in Poland. Hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes were assessed annually through 4 years of follow-up. All safety events were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee, and echocardiographic data were evaluated by a core laboratory.ResultsPatients were 65.3±13.5 years old and 26% were ≤60 years old. The average follow-up was 3.8±1.1 (median: 4.1; IQR, 4.0-4.3) years. Early (≤30 day) and late (>30 day) all-cause mortality rates were 2.3% (n=3) and 3.2% late patient-years (n=16), respectively. There were no cases of early or late SVD. There was one early case of major paravalvular leak (0.8%), and no late cases. At 4 years, the mean gradient was 14.5±7.4 mmHg and the effective orifice area was 1.6±0.4 cm2, both markedly improved from baseline. At 4 years, the New York Heart Association functional class had improved from baseline in 54.5% of patients.ConclusionsThe aortic bioprosthesis with novel RESILIATM tissue demonstrated excellent hemodynamic performance and safety outcomes over 4 years. Longer follow-up will be important to confirm the durability of this bioprosthesis.
| S-EPMC6688015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the Western world. It is caused primarily by age-related degeneration and progressive calcification typically detected in patients 65 years and older. In patients presenting with symptoms of heart failure, the average survival rate is only 2 years without appropriate treatment. Approximately one half of all patients die within the first 2 to 3 years of symptom onset. In addition, the age of the patients presenting for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is increased along with the demographic changes. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database shows that the number of patients older than 80 years has increased from 12% to 24% during the past 20 years. At the same time, the percentage of candidates requiring AVR as well as concomitant coronary bypass surgery has increased from 5% to 25%. Surgical AVR continues to be the criterion standard for treatment of aortic stenosis, improving survival and quality of life. Recent advances in prosthetic valve technology, such as transcatheter AVR, have expanded the indication for AVR to the extreme high-risk population, and the most recent surgical innovation, rapid deployment AVR, provides an additional tool to the surgeons' armamentarium.
| S-EPMC4791312 | biostudies-literature