Mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement with the 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

Long-Term Outcomes and Echocardiographic Data After Aortic Valve Replacement With a 17-mm Mechanical Valve

BACKGROUND

We investigated the long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a 17-mm mechanical valve.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between January 2005 and December 2011, 80 patients with aortic stenosis underwent AVR with the 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent prosthetic valve. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, at discharge, and at follow-up, which was performed at least 2 years postoperatively (median interval, 7.3 years). Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was defined as an indexed effective orifice area <0.85 cm2/m2at discharge and occurred in 25 patients (31%). The median follow-up period was 8.7 years (100% complete). Overall in-hospital mortality was 2.5% (2 patients) with 27 late deaths (34%). The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 78.7% and 63.0%, respectively. Peripheral arterial disease and concomitant mitral valve repair were independent predictors of late mortality. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events (MAVRE) rates were 91.6% and 83.5%, respectively. PPM at discharge did not affect long-term survival, freedom from MAVRE, or freedom from heart failure. Echocardiographic data at follow-up revealed a significant reduction in the mean left ventricular mass index (LVMI). LVMI reduction observed at follow-up was similar between patients with and without PPM.

CONCLUSIONS

AVR with the 17-mm mechanical prosthesis had acceptable long-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Significant reduction in LVMI was observed regardless of PPM.

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.

Does the St. Jude Regent 17-mm Offer Better Outcomes Than the Hemodynamic Plus 17-mm Aortic Valve Mechanical Prothesis?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study is to report the early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic results of a prospective trial investigating the clinical performance of the St. Jude Medical Regent 17 mm (SJMR-17) versus St. Jude Medical Hemodynamic Plus 17 mm (SJMHP-17).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2000 and August 2013, 20 patients (Group I) with aortic valve (AV) stenosis underwent first time AV replacement with a SJMR-17 and nine patients (Group II) underwent AV replacement with a SJMHP-17. The mean follow-up was 58 ± 31 months.

RESULTS

There was one death in Group I. The end-diastolic IVS thickness and end-systolic posterior left ventricle (LV) wall thickness was reduced significantly in boths groups (p = 0.001 and p = 0.006 in Group I and p = 0.007 and p = 0.011 in Group II). The peak and mean transprosthesis gradients (P-TPG and M-TPG) were 29 ± 6.8 mmHg and 17.5 ± 4.5 mmHg in Group I, significantly lower than in Group II (55.2 ± 19.7 mmHg and 28.8 ± 7.7 mmHg). The postoperative left ventricular mass (LVM) and indexed left ventricular mass (LVMi) were reduced significantly in both groups versus the preoperative values. The postoperative LVMi was 114.5 ± 10.6 g/m(2) in Group I versus 127 ± 8 g/m(2) in Group II (p = 0.01). With dobutamine, heart rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac output, transprosthesis peak, and mean gradients increased significantly in both groups, however, the P-TPG and M-TPG were significantly higher in Group II (p = 0.026 and p = 0.022) despite a non-significant increase of the indexed effective orifice area.

CONCLUSIONS

The SJMR-17 can be employed with satisfactory postoperative clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in patients with small aortic annulus, especially in elderly patients offering better outcome than SJMHP-17.

Hemodynamics of 17-mm vs. 19-mm St. Jude Medical Regent and annulus enlargement

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare early and midterm clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of 17-mm vs. 19-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valves with concomitant aortic annulus enlargement.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2012, 20 patients (group 1) underwent first-time aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve, and 35 patients (group 2) had a 19-mm valve and concomitant aortic annulus enlargement. The mean follow-up was 81 ± 37 months (range 20-110 months).

RESULTS

There was one death in group 1 vs. 4 in group 2 (p > 0.05). The mean postoperative transprosthetic gradient was 17.5 ± 4.5 in group 1 and 17 ± 6.4 mm Hg in group 2 (p = 0.83), and 37 ± 10.7 and 32 ± 13 mm Hg, respectively, under stress (p = 0.17). Left ventricular mass and left ventricular mass index were reduced and similar in both groups. Postoperative effective orifice area index was higher in group 2 (0.85 ± 0.17 cm(2 )m(-2)) than group 1 (0.76 ± 0.2 cm(2 )m(-2); p > 0.05). A multivariate Cox model identified a 19-mm valve with aortic annulus enlargement (p = 0.032), functional class (p = 0.025), reoperation (p = 0.04), ejection fraction < 35% (p = 0.042), and combined surgery (p = 0.04) as strong predictors of poorer overall event-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve may be employed with satisfactory postoperative clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in patients with a small aortic annulus, as an alternative to a larger prothesis with aortic annulus enlargement.

A critical review of hemodynamic changes and left ventricular remodeling after surgical aortic valve replacement and percutaneous aortic valve replacement

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in clinical practice has widened options for symptomatic patients at high surgical risk; however, it is not known whether TAVR has equivalent or prolonged benefits in terms of left ventricular (LV) remodeling.

METHODS

To explore the relative hemodynamic benefits and postoperative LV remodeling associated with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed a critical review of the available literature. A total of 67 studies were included in this systematic review.

RESULTS

There is at least equivalent if not slightly superior hemodynamic performance of TAVR over SAVR, and TAVR showed lower prosthesis-patient mismatch compared with SAVR. However, LV mass appears to regress to a greater degree after SAVR compared with TAVR. Aortic regurgitation, paravalvular in particular, is more common after TAVR than SAVR, although it is rarely more than moderate in severity. Improvements in diastolic function and mitral regurgitation are reported in only a handful of studies each and could not be compared across prosthesis types.

CONCLUSIONS

The published data support the hemodynamic comparability of SAVR and TAVR, with the higher incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in SAVR offset by higher incidence of paravalvular leak in TAVR. These results highlight the need for further studies focusing on hemodynamic changes after valve therapy.

Seventeen-millimeter St. Jude Medical Regent valve in patients with small aortic annulus: dose moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch matter?

Background

The study was designed to evaluate the effects of moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch (defined as 0.65 cm²/m² < indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.85 cm²/m²) on midterm outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm St. Jude Medical Regent valve in a large series of patients, and to determine if these effects are influenced by patient confounding variables.

Methods

One-hundred and six patients with and without moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch early after implantation of a 17-mm Regent valve at aortic position were included. Both clinical and echocardiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, at discharge and during follow-up period (mean follow-up time 52.6 ± 11.9 months).

Results

The prevalence of moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch was documented in 46 patients (43.4%) at discharge. During the follow-up period, no difference in the regression of left ventricular mass, decrease of transvalvular pressure gradients, mortality and prosthesis-related complications was observed between patients with and without moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch. After adjustment for several risk factors, moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with increased midterm mortality in patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% (HR: 1.80, p = 0.02), but with normal prognosis in those with preserved LV function. Younger age (cut off value = 65 years) was not an independent predictor of increased midterm mortality and valve-related complications in patients with moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Conclusions

Moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement with a small mechanical prosthesis is associated with increased mortality and adverse events in patients with pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction. Selected patients with small aortic annulus can experience satisfactory clinical improvements and midterm survival after aortic valve replacement with a 17-mm Regent valve.

Replacement of the st jude medical regent valve in the aortic position with a continuous suture technique in the small aortic root

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to review the strategy of performing aortic valve replacement (AVR) by using the St. Jude Medical (SJM) Regent valve with a continuous suture technique in patients with a small aortic root.

METHODS

Forty-six patients with small aortic annulus underwent AVR by using 19 or 21 mm SJM Regent valves. There were 15 males and 31 females. The mean age of the patients was 51.8 ± 12.4 years. The aortic annular diameter was 20.2 ± 0.9 mm. AVR procedures were performed with continuous suture technique using SJM Regent valves under standard cardiopulmonary bypass. Echocardiaographic data were collected before operation, at discharge, and at a follow-up time, respectively.

RESULTS

The intraoperative course was uneventful and there was no operative mortality. The implanted SJM Regent valves consisted of 21 mm valves in 15 patients and 19 mm valves in 31 patients. Echocardiography at 5.6 ± 1.3 months after operation showed a significant increase in the mean effective orifice area index (0.97 ± 0.24 cm(2) /m(2) ), decrease in the mean and peak transvavluar pressure gradient (12.5 ± 5.9 and 22.3 ± 9.6 mmHg), and decrease in the mean left ventricular mass index (106 ± 41.3 g/m(2) ). Moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (effective orifice area index between 0.65 and 0.85 cm(2) /m(2) ) was present in three patients and no severe PPM (effective orifice area index <0.65 cm(2) /m(2) ) occurred at discharge and during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Replacement of SJM Regent valve with a continuous suture technique maybe a good option to prevent PPM in the aortic position.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch in aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

The clinical impacts of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) have been debated since Rahimtoola first reported PPM in 1978. Many reports discussing several aspects of PPM have been published to date, but the definitive clinical impacts of PPM have not yet been clarified.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to evaluate recent articles regarding PPM and discuss the latest findings.

RESULTS

Moderate PPM (indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.85 cm(2)/m(2)) did not affect the surgical outcomes in several papers, but severe PPM (indexed effective orifice area ≤ 0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) affected early and late mortality in almost of the all papers in which it was reported. PPM had a greater effect on younger patients and patients with left ventricular dysfunction than it did on elderly patients and patients with preserved left ventricular function.

CONCLUSION

Based on recent findings, it is difficult to define the impact of PPM after AVR. To some degree, PPM affects the clinical outcomes after AVR; therefore, it is important to avoid PPM, especially severe PPM.

Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch (VP-PM): a long-term perspective

The concept/phenomenon of valve prosthesis/patient mismatch (VP-PM), described in 1978, has stood the test of time. From that time to 2011, VP-PM has received a great deal of attention but studies have come to varying conclusions. This is largely because of the determination of prosthetic heart valve area [called effective orifice area index (EOAi)] by projection rather than by actual measurement, variable criteria to assess severity of EOAi and the timing of determination of EOAi. All prosthetic heart valves have some degree of VP-PM which must be placed in a proper clinical perspective. This can be done by determining its effects on function and outcomes. For mortality one needs to focus especially on severe/critical degree of VP-PM and determine the cause of death was due to VP-PM. For the period "beyond 2011" a road map is suggested that will have uniformity of assessment of VP-PM and a focusing on the important goals of VP-PM.