Long-term survival after Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve replacement in Western Denmark: a multi-centre observational study

A comparison of neurological event and mortality rates between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement

Introduction

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.

Aim

To evaluate the neurological event and mortality rates of TAVI in comparison with those of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Material and methods

A systematic literature search identified pertinent full-text journal articles published from 2000 to 2022 that were taken as the study materials.

Results

Patients were at the age of 79.3 ±2.8 years and 79.9 ±2.9 years at the time of intervention/open surgery in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Patients' age and preoperative comorbidity rates were similar in both groups. A self-expanding valve prosthesis and a percutaneous transfemoral route were the most commonly used in patients receiving TAVI. The duration of the procedure and the hospital stay were much shorter, and the number of transfused blood units was much lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group. No significant intergroup difference was found in the prevalence of postoperative stroke, 1-month all-cause mortality, and 1-month and 1-year cardiovascular mortality rates. However, 1-year all-cause mortality was much lower in the TAVI than the SAVR group. The subgroups of risk stratification showed better outcomes for non-high-risk patients compared with high-risk patients.

Conclusions

Irrespective of other postoperative complications of TAVI, this study emphasizes the postoperative major neurological events and mortality. TAVI appears to be superior to SAVR with regard to 1-year all-cause mortality. TAVI is thus recommended for elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at very high surgical risk contraindicated for SAVR.

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.

Atorvastatin and the influence on postoperative atrial fibrillation after surgical aortic valve replacement (STARC) in adults at Odense University Hospital, Denmark: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common postoperative complication after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and occurs in up to 50% of the patients. Development of postoperative AF (POAF) is associated with a 2-3 fold increased risk of adverse events, including stroke, myocardial infarction and death.Several studies have implied that prophylactic Atorvastatin therapy could prevent POAF in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft. These studies suggest that Atorvastatin has rapid and significant pleiotropic actions that reduce the risk of POAF. However, prophylactic treatment with statins has yet to be understood in SAVR. The aim of this study is to investigate whether prophylactic administration of torvastatin reduces POAF in patients undergoing SAVR.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this investigator-initiated, prospective, parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled single-centre trial, 266 patients undergoing elective solitary SAVR with bioprosthetic valve, with no prior history of AF, and statin-naïve will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with Atorvastatin (80 mg once daily) or matching placebo for 1-2 weeks prior to and 30 days after surgery. The primary endpoint is POAF defined as an episode of irregular RR-intervals without a traceable p-wave of at least 30 s duration. After discharge and until day 30 after surgery, POAF will be documented by either rhythm strip or 12-lead ECG.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Protocol approval has been obtained from the Regional Scientific Ethical Committee for Southern Denmark (S-20210159), The Danish Medicines Agency (2021103821) and the Data Protection Agency (21/65621).The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the ICH-GCP (International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice) guidelines and the legal regulations of Denmark. Study findings will be shared via peer-reviewed journal publication and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05076019.

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.