CarboMedics Mitroflow pericardial aortic bioprosthesis - performance in patients aged 60 years and older after 15 years

Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018

IMPORTANCE

The performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves is usually assessed in single valve models or head-to-head comparisons. National databases or registries offer the opportunity to investigate all available valve models in the population and allows for a comparative assessment of their performance.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the long-term rates of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization associated with commonly used bioprosthetic aortic valves and to identify valve model groups with deviation in clinical performance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based, nationwide cohort study included all adult patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery or ascending aortic surgery) in Sweden between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Patients were identified from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Patients with concomitant valve surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and previous transcatheter valve replacement were excluded. Follow-up was complete for all participants. Data were analyzed from March 9, 2020, to October 12, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Primary surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perimount, Mosaic/Hancock, Biocor/Epic, Mitroflow/Crown, Soprano, and Trifecta valve models.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of reintervention, defined as a subsequent aortic valve operation or transcatheter valve replacement. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Regression standardization and flexible parametric survival models were used to account for intergroup differences. Mean follow-up time was 7.1 years, and maximum follow-up time was 16.0 years.

RESULTS

A total of 16 983 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [8.5] years; 10 685 men [62.9%]) were included in the analysis. The Perimount valve model group had the lowest and the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group had the highest cumulative incidence of reintervention. The estimated cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 3.6% (95% CI, 3.1%-4.2%) in the Perimount valve model group and 12.2% (95% CI, 9.8%-15.1%) in the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group. The estimated incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 9.3% (95% CI, 7.3%-11.3%) in the Soprano valve model group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study showed that the Perimount valve was the most commonly used and had the lowest incidence of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization, whereas the Mitroflow/Crown valve had the highest rates. These findings highlight the need for clinical vigilance in patients who receive either a Soprano or Mitroflow/Crown aortic bioprosthesis.

[Safety of biological valves for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive and contemporary overview of the long-term safety outcomes after aortic valve replacements (AVR) with conventional biological heart valve (stented or stentless).

METHODS

English databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrial.gov) and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and SinoMed) were searched systemically from January 1, 2000 to January 26, 2019. Eligible randomized controlled trials, non-randomized clinical trials, cohort studies (retrospective or prospective), and unselected case series were included. Strict screening of the obtained literature was conducted to extract relevant data by two reviewers. Other inclusion criteria were studied reporting on outcomes of AVR with biological valves (stented or stentless), with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve repair procedure, with mean follow-up length equal to or longer than 5 years. We excluded studies that reported only a specific patient group (e.g., patients with renal failure, or pregnancy), without the report of biological valve type, or with study population size less than 100. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 software.

RESULTS

In this study, 53 papers (in total 57 study groups) involving 47 803 patients were included. (1) The all-cause mortality was 6.33/100 patient-years (95%CI: 5.85-6.84). Subgroup analysis showed that the mortality rates of porcine and bovine valve prostheses were 5.69/100 patient-years (95%CI: 5.05-6.41) and 7.29/100 patient-years (95%CI: 6.53-8.13), respectively. The all-cause mortality rates for stented and stentless valve were 6.69/100 patient-years (95%CI: 6.12-7.30) and 5.21/100 patient-years (95%CI: 4.43-6.14), respectively. (2) The incidence rate of thromboembolism was 1.16/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.96-1.40), the incidence rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation was 1.08/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.75-1.54), the incidence rate of stroke was 0.74/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.51-1.06), the incidence rate of structural valve dysfunction (SVD) was 0.73/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.59-0.91), the incidence rate of major bleeding was 0.52/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.41-0.65), the incidence rate of endocarditis was 0.38/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.33-0.44), and the incidence rate of non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD) was 0.20/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.13-0.31). The total reoperation rate for biological aortic valve was 0.77/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.65-0.91), and the SVD related reoperation rate was 0.46/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.36-0.58).

CONCLUSION

The all-cause mortality for conventional biological AVR was 6.33/100 patient-years. Thromboembolism, PPM implantation, reoperation, stroke, and SVD were major long term complications.

Structural valve deterioration in the Mitroflow biological heart valve prosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Concern has been raised regarding the long-term durability of the Mitroflow biological heart valve prosthesis. Our aim was to assess the incidence of structural valve degeneration (SVD) for the Mitroflow bioprosthesis in a nationwide study in Denmark including all patients alive in Denmark who had received a Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis since 2000.

METHODS

Patients alive in Denmark with a Mitroflow bioprosthesis implanted since January 2000 were invited to participate in a nationwide cross-sectional study with a predefined definition of SVD. Of 1552 patients, 861 patients had died and 47 patients had been reoperated with 40 reoperations due to SVD. The remaining 644 patients were invited for evaluation; 574 patients accepted and were evaluated for SVD. The incidence of SVD was calculated using competing risk regression analysis with death as the competing event.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients were diagnosed with SVD by echocardiography. Of these, 64 (11%) patients had severe SVD and 109 (19%) patients moderate SVD. Severe SVD was associated with the age of the prosthesis and small prosthesis size [Size 21: hazard ratio (95% confidence interval, CI) 2.72 (0.97-8.56), P = 0.06; Size 19: 6.26 (1.63-24.06), P = 0.008]. The cumulative incidences of reoperation or severe SVD at Year 9 were 12.5% for Size 19, 7.6% for Size 21 and 3.1 (1.2-6.4)% for Size 23. Median survival in patients with prosthesis Sizes 23-29 was 6.4 (95% CI 5.7-7.0) years, with Size 21 it was 6.5 (95% CI 5.9-7.1) years and with Size 19 it was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.2) years (P = 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of undetected severe SVD was as high as the incidence of operated SVD. The overall risk for SVD is high for the Mitroflow bioprosthesis, especially if the prosthesis is small and older than 5 years.

Ten-year results of aortic valve replacement with first-generation Mitroflow bioprosthesis: is early degeneration a structural or a technical issue?

OBJECTIVES

Concerns have been raised about the durability of the first-generation Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis (model 12 A-LX) due to the lack of anticalcification treatment. This study reflects a 10-year experience with this prosthesis for aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

From June 2003 to May 2012, the Mitroflow prosthesis was used for aortic valve replacement in 510 patients, of whom only 467 with complete clinical follow-up were included for analysis. Study end-points were survival and incidence of structural valve degeneration (SVD). Analysis of SVD was based on cumulative incidence function and competing-risk Cox regression.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 76.4 ± 6.1 years. Valve sizes from 23 to 25 were used in 70.4%, whereas sizes from 19 to 21 were used in only 19.2%, thereby avoiding patient-prosthesis mismatch in 89.1%. Within a median follow-up time of 6.6 years (interquartile range 4.4), a cumulative 2375 patient-years, the survival rate was 86.2%, 67.3% and 33.3% at 1, 5 and 10 years, respectively. The cumulative incidence of SVD, with death as a competing risk, was 0%, 0.7% and 6.2% at 1, 5 and 10 years, respectively. Only age <75 years tended to affect the late hazard of SVD (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.23-1.08, P  = 0.08), regardless of valve-specific issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The data do not support the concerns about early accelerated structural degeneration of the first-generation Mitroflow bioprosthesis used for aortic valve replacement in patients older than 75 years. We postulate that limiting the number of small prostheses using a proper implantation technique has enhanced the reduction in risk of significant patient-prosthesis mismatch as the main determinant of early SVD.

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.

Heart valve tissue engineering: how far is the bedside from the bench?

Heart disease, including valve pathologies, is the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite the progress made thanks to improving transplantation techniques, a perfect valve substitute has not yet been developed: once a diseased valve is replaced with current technologies, the newly implanted valve still needs to be changed some time in the future. This situation is particularly dramatic in the case of children and young adults, because of the necessity of valve growth during the patient's life. Our review focuses on the current status of heart valve (HV) therapy and the challenges that must be solved in the development of new approaches based on tissue engineering. Scientists and physicians have proposed tissue-engineered heart valves (TEHVs) as the most promising solution for HV replacement, especially given that they can help to avoid thrombosis, structural deterioration and xenoinfections. Lastly, TEHVs might also serve as a model for studying human valve development and pathologies.

Current status and future perspectives of prosthetic valve selection for aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve abnormality is the most frequent form of valvular heart disease. Notably, aortic stenosis in the elderly population has been increasingly common. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) using prosthetic valve has been still believed as a gold standard surgical intervention for various types of diseased aortic valve. The numerous reports and studies evaluating the clinical outcomes and durability of prosthesis were revealed, however, prosthesis selection for AVR is still debated. In twenty-first century, paradigm shift of prosthesis preference might be emerged from mechanical valves to bioprosthesis due to the development of the technology. Moreover, transcatheter aortic valve implantation accelerated among the worldwide trends. It could be developed having the potential to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with high-risk traditional AVR. After the current guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease, we should consider the valve choice in various patients' profile setting. This review summarizes the current status of prosthesis selection and future perspectives of ideal aortic valve intervention, including minimal invasive care.