Intermediate-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a novel RESILIATM tissue bioprosthesis

Five-year outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement with a novel bovine pericardial bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The short-term performance of the Cingular bovine pericardial aortic valve was proven. This study evaluated its 5-year safety and haemodynamic outcomes.

METHODS

It enrolled 148 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with the Cingular bovine pericardial aortic valve between March 2016 and October 2017 in 5 clinical centres in China. Safety and haemodynamic outcomes were followed up to 5 years. The incidence of all-cause mortality, structural valve deterioration and reintervention was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 67.7 [standard deviation (SD) 5.1] years, and 36.5% of patients were female. The mean follow-up was 5.3 (SD 1.2) years. Five-year freedom from all-cause mortality, structural valve deterioration and all-cause reintervention were 91.2%, 100% and 99.3%, respectively. At 5 years, the mean gradient and effective orifice area of all sizes combined were 14.0 (SD 5.5) mmHg and 1.9 (SD 0.3) cm2, respectively. For 19- and 21-mm sizes of aortic prostheses, the mean gradients and effective orifice area at 5 years were 17.5 (SD 7.0) mmHg and 1.6 (SD 0.2) cm2 and 13.7 (SD 6.7) mmHg and 1.8 (SD 0.3) cm2, respectively. The incidence of moderate or severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was 4.1% and 0.0% patients at 5 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year safety and haemodynamic outcomes of Cingular bovine pericardial aortic valve are encouraging. Longer-term follow-up is warranted to assess its true durability.

Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients under the age of 60 years - 1-year follow-up from the prospective INDURE registry

OBJECTIVES

We report 1-year safety and clinical outcomes in patients <60 years undergoing bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve intervention.

METHODS

The INSPIRIS RESILIA Durability Registry is a prospective, multicentre registry to assess clinical outcomes of patients <60 years. Patients with planned SAVR with or without concomitant replacement of the ascending aorta and/or coronary bypass surgery were included. Time-related valve safety, haemodynamic performance and quality of life (QoL) at 1 year were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 421 patients were documented with a mean age of 53.5 years, 76.5% being male and 27.2% in NYHA class III/IV. Outcomes within 30 days included cardiovascular-related mortality (0.7%), time-related valve safety (VARC-2; 5.8%), thromboembolic events (1.7%), valve-related life-threatening bleeding (VARC-2; 4.3%) and permanent pacemaker implantation (3.8%). QoL was significantly increased at 6 months and sustained at 1 year. Freedom from all-cause mortality at 1 year was 98.3% (95% confidence interval 97.1; 99.6) and 81.8% were NYHA I versus 21.9% at baseline. No patient developed structural valve deterioration stage 3 (VARC-3). The mean aortic pressure gradient was 12.6 mmHg at 1 year and the effective orifice area was 1.9 cm2.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1-year data from the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve demonstrate good safety and excellent haemodynamic performance as well as an early QoL improvement.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03666741.

One-year clinical outcomes following Edwards INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve implantation in 487 young patients with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience

Introduction

The use of an aortic bioprosthesis is on the rise in younger patients with severe aortic stenosis despite the risk of accelerated structural valve degeneration (SVD). In the search for an optimal valve substitute that would not be prone to SVD, the INSPIRIS bioprosthesis represents a promising solution to lowering the risk of SVD. Here, we report the 1-year outcomes of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic bioprosthesis in a population of young patients who underwent aortic valve replacement.

Methods

In this prospective single-center study, we included all consecutive patients receiving INSPIRIS RESILIA bioprosthesis between June 2017 and July 2021. Patients with isolated severe aortic regurgitation were excluded. Clinical assessment and transthoracic echocardiography were performed preoperatively and at 1 year post-operatively. The primary outcome was overall mortality at one year.

Results

A total of 487 patients were included. The mean age was 58.2 ± 11.5 years, 75.2% were men. Most of the interventions were elective, with a mean EuroSCORE II of 4.8 ± 7.9. The valve annulus size in most cases was either 23 mm or 25 mm. Overall mortality at 1-year was 4.1%. At 1-year, 7 patients (1.4%) had a stroke, 4 patients (0.8%) had a myocardial infarction, and 20 patients (4.1%) were hospitalized for congestive heart failure. The Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates and survival without major adverse cardiac events at 1-year were 96.4% and 96.7%, respectively. At 1-year follow-up, 10 patients (2.1%) had endocarditis and 1 patient (0.2%) had partial prosthetic thrombosis. Pacemaker implantation at 1-year post-operative was necessary in 27 patients (5.5%). Severe patient prosthesis mismatch and severe intra valvular regurgitation were 1.2% and 0.6%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates at 1-year of no infective endocarditis preoperative and infective endocarditis preoperative were 97.9 ± 0.7% and 89.5 ± 3.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). Excluding endocarditis-related complication, no structural valve deterioration and no valve failure requiring redo surgery were reported.

Conclusion

This is the largest single-center descriptive study of the 1-year outcomes after INSPIRIS RESILIA bioprosthesis implantation. The EDWARDS INSPIRIS RESILIA bioprosthesis provides encouraging clinical outcomes with an excellent 1- year survival rates and good hemodynamic performance. Long-term studies are mandatory to assess valve durability.

Valve-in-Valve TAVR versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Early Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess short-term outcomes of patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) or redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR).

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2019, 90 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (n = 73) or rSAVR (n = 17) due to failed aortic valve bioprosthesis fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Groups were compared regarding clinical end points, including in-hospital all-cause mortality. Patients with endocarditis and in a need of combined cardiac surgery were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

ViV-TAVR patients were older (78.0 ± 7.4 vs. 62.1 ± 16.2 years, p = 0.012) and showed a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and arterial hypertension. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher for rSAVR than in the ViV-TAVR group (17.6 vs. 0%, p < 0.001), whereas intensive care unit stay was more often complicated by blood transfusions for rSAVR patients without differences in cerebrovascular events. The paravalvular leak was detected in 52.1% ViV-TAVR patients compared with 0% among rSAVR patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVR can be a safe and feasible alternative treatment option in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprosthesis. The choice of treatment should include the patient's individual characteristics considering ViV-TAVR as a standard of care.

Clinical performance of a novel bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve in a German high-volume center

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is increasingly adopted in younger patients. We aimed to analyze mid-term follow-up data after SAVR to assess the performance of the prosthesis.

METHODS

Data were collected from a single-center series of 154 patients, who underwent SAVR with a bioprosthetic heart valve with the RESILIA tissue at our Heart Centre in Siegburg. All procedural and midterm patient outcomes were documented.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 56.8 ± 9.9 years, 35.7% were female, and the mean logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) was 3.4 ± 3.6%. Diabetes (12.3%), atrial fibrillation (10.4%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (5.8%) were common comorbidities. The mean surgery duration was 163.8 ± 73.4 min, with the 23 mm (34.4%) and 25 mm (33.8%) heart valves being most frequently implanted. At 3-year follow-up, mean pressure gradient was 13.9 ± 5.9 mmHg, peak gradient was 23.6 ± 7.7 mmHg, and effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.9 ± 0.4 cm². No patient died during the operation, 3 (2.1%) patients within 30 days, and 4 (2.7%) thereafter with an overall mortality of n = 7. Of the surviving patients, 97.8% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I/II and none had structural valve deterioration (SVD).

CONCLUSION

Results of our single-center study indicate favorable procedural outcomes. The safety outcomes confirm preliminary earlier results of this novel bioprosthesis but include more patients and a longer midterm follow-up.

The First 100 Cases of Two Innovations Combined: Video-Assisted Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy Using a Novel Aortic Prosthesis

Introduction

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) is less traumatic than via other surgical routes; using a novel aortic valve may confer long-term resistance against valve deterioration, and thus be useful in younger, more active patients. Here we aim to validate using the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve with minimally invasive RAMT.

Methods

Between April 2017 and June 2019, 100 patients underwent video-assisted minimally invasive AVR by RAMT, using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. Cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was through femoral vessels. Clinical data were prospectively entered into our institutional database.

Results

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping times were 79 ± 38 and 41 ± 17 min. Surgical access was successful in 100% of cases. There were no cases of intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular events, rethoracotomy for bleeding, valve-related reoperation, right internal mammary artery injury, or conversion to sternotomy. Intensive care and hospital stays were 2 ± 1 and 6 ± 3 days, respectively. One patient had a pacemaker fitted. Postoperative dialysis was necessary in one patient. Trace to mild aortic valve regurgitation occurred in two patients. No structural valve deterioration (SVD) and paravalvular leak were seen. At 1-year follow-up mean effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.8 ± 0.1 cm², peak gradient was 22.1 ± 3.1 mmHg, and mean gradient was 11.5 ± 2.3 mmHg.

Conclusion

Our preliminary experience suggests that RAMT for AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve is safe, effective, and reproducible. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and durability of this new valve.

Device profile of the Inspiris Resilia valve for aortic valve replacement: overview of its safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

The Inspiris Resilia tissue valve was recently introduced into clinical practice. This review summarizes the pre-clinical and clinical studies leading to this new bioprosthesis.

AREAS COVERED

The novel Resilia tissue was tested extensively in a large animal model. The clinical use of the tissue started in 2011 with the European Feasibility study, followed by a North-American multi-center study. Since 2017, the Inspiris Resilia valve has been in full commercial use. Further prospective evaluations and registries are ongoing.

EXPERT OPINION

The Inspiris Resilia valve was clinically introduced after pre-clinical tests revealed superiority compared to contemporary therapy such as the Perimount valve. Prospective long-term follow-up studies on Resilia are ongoing since 2011 and reveal no major complications. Full 5-year data show no signs of early degeneration, but longer follow-up is certainly still needed. Several prospective registries are actively monitoring the outcome with the Inspiris Resilia valve now. The novel tissue, designed to mitigate calcification and increase durability, together with the expandable stent, facilitating potential future valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures, are the cutting-edge aspects. Clinical use in younger patients is currently ongoing: their follow-up and outcome will determine the added value of this valve.

Inverted aortic bioprosthetic for mitral valve replacement with Ross procedure: case report

Background

A 34-year-old gentleman presented with Staphylococcus salivarius infective endocarditis 13 years after aortic homograft and mitral valve repair for degenerative bicuspid aortic valve associated with rheumatic heart disease. The homograft had calcified, and the mitral repair had deteriorated with severe regurgitation. Multidisciplinary team decision to restore best quality of life was for re-do Ross procedure with bi-leaflet preserving mitral valve replacement with an inverted RESILIA aortic valve as the patient was fundamentally against lifelong anti-coagulation.

Case presentation

The aortic homograft was excised, and coronary arteries dissected out followed by harvesting of the pulmonary autograft. The mitral valve was accessed via a trans-septal approach. On examination, there was a restricted and thickened posterior mitral valve leaflet. An inverted 27-mm INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic bio-prosthesis was placed with mitral cusps preserved. The pulmonary autograft was implanted in an intra-annular position, and a 26-mm pulmonary homograft was used to replace the pulmonary valve. Echocardiogram at 4 weeks revealed preserved LV function and well-functioning prosthetic, autograft and homograft.

Conclusion

An inverted RESILIA valve, with its anti-structural valve deterioration properties, can be used in the mitral position with preservation of the mitral cusps to avoid anti-coagulation with the hope of reducing need for re-operation in line with patient wishes.

Poly(ethylene glycol)-Based Coatings for Bioprosthetic Valve Tissues: Toward Restoration of Physiological Behavior

Bioprosthetic valves (BPVs) have a limited lifespan in the body necessitating repeated surgeries to replace the failed implant. Early failure of these implants has been linked to various surface properties of the valve. Surface properties of BPVs are significantly different from physiological valves because of the fixation process used when processing the xenograft tissue. To improve the longevity of BPVs, efforts need to be taken to improve the surface properties and shield the implant from the bodily interactions that degrade it. Toward this goal, we evaluated the use of hydrogel coatings to attach to the BPV tissue and impart surface properties that are close to physiological. Hydrogels are well characterized for their biocompatibility and highly tunable surface characteristics. Using a previously published coating method, we deposited hydrogel coatings of poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate (PEGDA) and poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylamide (PEGDAA) atop BPV samples. Coated samples were evaluated against the physiological tissue and uncoated glutaraldehyde-fixed tissue for deposition of hydrogel, surface adherence, mechanical properties, and fixation properties. Results showed both PEGDA- and PEGDAA-deposited coatings were nearly continuous across the valve leaflet surface. Further, the PEGDA- and PEGDAA-coated samples showed restoration of physiological levels of protein adhesion and mechanical stiffness. Interestingly, the coating process rather than the coating itself altered the material behavior yet did not alter the cross-linking from fixation. These results show that the PEG-based coatings for BPVs can successfully alter surface properties of BPVs and help promote physiological characteristics without interfering with the necessary fixation.

Bioprosthetic or mechanical heart valves: prosthesis choice for borderline patients?-Results from 9,616 cases recorded in Polish national cardiac surgery registry

Background

In middle-aged patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), the selection of prosthesis type is a complex process. Current guidelines do not unequivocally indicate the type of prosthesis (bioprosthetic or mechanical) recommended for patients between 60–70 years of age. The aim of the study was to present the trends in AVR prosthesis selection in borderline patients over a 10-year period, based on real-life registry data.

Methods

The study population comprised of 9,616 consecutive patients aged between 60–70 years, who underwent isolated AVR between 2006 and 2016 in all cardiac surgery departments in Poland. Data were extracted from the Polish National Registry of Cardiac Surgery.

Results

Among 27,797 consecutive AVR procedures, patients aged 60–70 years represented 34.6% of the population operated on. From 2006 to 2016, bioprosthetic valves (BVs) were implanted in 53.9% cases, (and) mechanical valves (MVs) in 42.1%. The proportion of different valve types changed in time: from 77.5% of MVs vs. 22.5% of BVs in 2006 to 23.2% of MVs vs. 76.8% of BVs in 2016 (P<0.001). The most commonly implanted BV was the Hancock II (used in 36.4% of BV implantations), the most commonly used MV was the Saint Jude Mechanical prosthesis (implanted in 36.4% of MV implantation cases). A multivariable model identified smaller annulus [OR (95% CI) 0.89 (0.86–0.92), P<0.001], atrial fibrillation [OR (95% CI) 1.32 (1.05–1.67), P=0.017], male sex [OR (95% CI) 1.47 (1.24–1.74), P<0.001] and year of implantation [OR (95% CI) 0.75 (0.71–0.79), P<0.001] as predictors of MV implantation.

Conclusions

Patients aged 60–70 years represent more than one-third of all AVR patients. Between 2006 and 2016, the proportion of implanted prostheses has changed dramatically. In 2016 BVs were implanted in nearly 75% of AVR cases, three times more often than in 2006.

Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients under the age of 60 years - rationale and design of the international INDURE registry

BACKGROUND

There is an ever-growing number of patients requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR). Limited data is available on the long-term outcomes and structural integrity of bioprosthetic valves in younger patients undergoing surgical AVR.

METHODS

The INSPIRIS RESILIA Durability Registry (INDURE) is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, international registry with a follow-up of 5 years to assess clinical outcomes of patients younger than 60 years who undergo surgical AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. INDURE will be conducted across 20-22 sites in Europe and Canada and intends to enrol minimum of 400 patients. Patients will be included if they are scheduled to undergo AVR with or without concomitant root replacement and/or coronary bypass surgery. The primary objectives are to 1) determine VARC-2 defined time-related valve safety at one-year (depicted as freedom from events) and 2) determine freedom from stage 3 structural valve degeneration (SVD) presenting as morphological abnormalities and severe haemodynamic valve degeneration at 5 years. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the haemodynamic performance of the valve, all stages of SVD, potential valve-in-valve procedures, clinical outcomes (in terms of New York Heart Association [NYHA] function class and freedom from valve-related rehospitalisation) and change in patient quality-of-life.

DISCUSSION

INDURE is a prospective, multicentre registry in Europe and Canada, which will provide much needed data on the long-term performance of bioprosthetic valves in general and the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve in particular. The data may help to gather a deeper understanding of the longevity of bioprosthetic valves and may expand the use of bioprosthetic valves in patients under the age of 60 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03666741 (registration received September, 12th, 2018).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes comparing mechanical valve replacement and bioprosthetic valve replacement in infective endocarditis

Background

Infective endocarditis (IE) is an infection involving either native or prosthetic heart valves, the endocardial surface of the heart or any implanted intracardiac devices. IE is a rare condition affecting 3-15 patients per 100,000 population. In-hospital mortality rates in patients with IE remain high at around 20% despite treatment advances. There is no consensus recommendation favoring either bioprosthetic valve or mechanical valve implantation in the setting of IE; patient age, co-morbidities and preferences should be considered selecting the replacement prosthesis.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the outcomes of patients undergoing bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement for infective endocarditis with data extracted for overall survival, valve reinfection rates and valve reoperation.

Results

Eleven relevant studies were identified, with 2,336 patients receiving a mechanical valve replacement and 2,057 patients receiving a bioprosthetic valve replacement. There was no significant difference for overall survival between patients treated with mechanical valves and those treated with bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.21, P=0.62]. There was no significant difference in reoperation rates between patients treated with a bioprosthetic valve and those treated with a mechanical valve (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.34-1.98, P=0.66) and there was no significant difference in the rate of valve reinfection rates (HR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.48-1.89, P=0.89).

Conclusions

The presence of infective endocarditis alone should not influence the decision of which type of valve prosthesis that should be implanted. This decision should be based on patient age, co-morbidities and preferences.