Structural valve degeneration of bioprosthetic aortic valves: A network meta-analysis

Bovine pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic aortic valves: A nationwide population-based cohort study in Korea

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses, utilizing a nationwide administrative claims database.

METHODS

Adult patients (age ≥40 years) who underwent bioprosthetic AVR, without other valve replacements, between 2003 and 2018 were identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and valve-related events, including the incidence of reoperation, endocarditis, systemic thromboembolism, and major bleeding. Baseline adjustment was performed using propensity score matching. Time-related outcomes were evaluated using a competing risk analysis, with death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Among the 7714 patients who underwent bioprosthetic AVR, 5621 (72.9%) received bovine pericardial prostheses and 2093 (27.1%) received porcine bioprostheses. After matching, 1937 pairs were included in the final analysis. During follow-up (median, 4.49 years; interquartile range, 2.83-8.20 years), the use of porcine bioprostheses was associated with a higher risk of aortic valve reoperation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 3.01); however, no significant differences were observed in cumulative incidences of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, thromboembolism, or major bleeding. Subgroup analyses revealed that the use of bovine valves was associated with improved survival in patients with diabetes mellitus, whereas in patients undergoing dialysis, porcine valves exhibited better survival than bovine valves.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationwide cohort study of patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, the use of porcine prostheses was significantly associated with an increased risk of reoperation compared with the use of bovine prostheses, supporting previous findings.

Mechanical Valves: Past, Present, and Future-A Review

The mechanical valve was first invented in the 1950s, and since then, a wide variety of prostheses have been developed. Although mechanical valves have outstanding durability, their use necessitates life-long treatment with anticoagulants, which increases the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. The current guidelines recommend a mechanical prosthetic valve in patients under 50-60 years; however, for patients aged 50-70 years, the data are conflicting and there is not a clear-cut recommendation. In recent decades, progress has been made in several areas. First, the On-X mechanical valve was introduced; this valve has a lower anticoagulant requirement in the aortic position. Second, a potential alternative to vitamin K-antagonist treatment, rivaroxaban, has shown encouraging results in small-scale trials and is currently being tested in a large randomized clinical trial. Lastly, an innovative mechanical valve that eliminates the need for anticoagulant therapy is under development. We attempted to review the current literature on the subject with special emphasis on the role of mechanical valves in the current era and discuss alternatives and future innovations.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

5-Year haemodynamic performance of three aortic bioprostheses. A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The Carpentier Perimount (CP) Magna Ease, the Crown Phospholipid Reduction Treatment (PRT) and the Trifecta bovine pericardial valves have been widely used worldwide. The primary end point of this study was to compare the haemodynamic performance quantified by in vivo echocardiograms of these 3 aortic prostheses.

METHODS

The "BEST-VALVE" (comparison of 3 contemporary cardiac bioprostheses: mid-term valve haemodynamic performance) was a single-centre randomized clinical trial to compare the haemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned bioprostheses. The 5-year results are assessed in this manuscript.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were included. The CP Magna Ease (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRT (n = 51, 32.1%) and Trifecta (n = 55, 35.7%) valves were compared. Significant differences were observed among the 3 bioprostheses 5 years after the procedure. The following haemodynamic differences were found between the CP Magna Ease and the Crown PRT bioprostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (interquartile range {IQR} 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 15 mmHg (IQR 10.8-31.9) for the Crown PRT, P < 0.001] and between the CP Magna Ease and the Trifecta prostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (IQR 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 14.7 mmHg (IQR 8.2-55) for the Trifecta, P < 0.001], with a better haemodynamic performance of the CP Magna Ease. The cumulative incidence of severe structural valve degeneration was 9.5% in the Trifecta group at 6 years of follow-up. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from all-cause mortality was 91.5%, 83.5% and 74.8%, respectively (log rank P = 0.440). Survival from the composite event at the 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up was 92.8%, 74.6% and 59%, respectively (log rank P = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

We detected significant differences between the 3 bioprostheses; the CP Magna Ease had the best haemodynamic performance at the 5-year follow-up.

Real-World Comparison of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Current-Generation Devices

Few studies have reported comparisons of out-of-hospital clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the era of current-generation valves that reflect the real-world situation. Data on patients with severe AS aged 65 years or older who underwent TAVR or SAVR between 2015 and 2018 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service in Korea and clinical event rate was analyzed. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1 year. The cohort included a total of 4623 patients over 65 years of age, of whom 1269 (27.4%) were treated with TAVR. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2120 patients were included in the study. TAVR was associated with reduced 1-year mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42−0.70; p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in the incidence of ischemic stroke (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.43−1.20; p = 0.21) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 1.10; p = 0.74). Permanent pacemaker insertion was observed more frequently in the TAVR cohort (9.4% vs. 2.5%, HR: 3.95, 95% CI: 2.57−6.09; p < 0.001), whereas repeat procedures were rare in both treatments (0.5% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.499). In the nation-wide real-world data analysis, TAVR with current-generation devices showed significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to SAVR in severe AS patients.

Midterm Durability and Structural Valve Degeneration of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Federal Facility

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), previously reserved for patients of intermediate to prohibitive surgical risk, has now been expanded to patients of any surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis. Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration (SVD), a progressive and multifactorial process that limits valve durability. As the population undergoing TAVR shifts toward a lower-risk and younger profile, long-term durability is a crucial determinant for patient outcomes. Our objective was to determine the incidence and risk factors of SVD at midterm follow-up in a veteran TAVR population.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TAVR at our federal facility were retrospectively evaluated for SVD and other endpoints with standardized consensus criteria. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to evaluate risk factors for mortality and SVD.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2020, 344 patients (median age, 78 years) underwent TAVR. Survival from all-cause mortality was 91.3% at 1 year, 75.1% at 3 years, and 61.7% at 5 years. Cumulative freedom from SVD was 98.2% at 1 year, 96.5% at 3 years, and 93.7% at 5 years. All 13 patients with SVD met hemodynamic criteria, and 1 required intervention. Median time to hemodynamic SVD was 1.04 years. Independent risk factors for SVD included age (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86 to 0.99) and valve size (HR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

SVD was evident at a low but detectable rate at 5-year follow-up. Further understanding of TAVR biomechanics as well as continued longer-term follow-up will be essential for informing patient-specific risk of SVD.