Hemodynamic Performance of Pericardial Bioprostheses in the Aortic Position

A Controlled Trial Comparing One-Year Hemodynamics of Two Bovine Pericardial Valves

BACKGROUND

 This randomized controlled trial was designed to compare 1-year hemodynamic performances and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a recently introduced (the AVALUS group) and worldwide used (the CEPME group) bovine pericardial bioprostheses.

METHODS

 Patients were screened to enroll 70 patients in each group based on a noninferiority design. The primary endpoint of the trial was the mean pressure gradient across the aortic valve (AVMPG) at 1 year after surgery. One-year echocardiographic data were obtained from 92.1% (129 of 140 patients) of the study patients.

RESULTS

 There were no differences in baseline characteristics, including sex and body surface area (1.64 ± 0.18 vs. 1.65 ± 0.15 m2) between the groups. The AVMPG on 1-year echocardiography was 14.0 ± 4.3 and 13.9 ± 5.1 mmHg in the AVALUS and CEPME groups, respectively (the p-value for noninferiority was 0.0004). In the subgroup analyses for the respective size of the prostheses, AVMPG of the 19-mm prostheses was significantly lower in the AVALUS group than in the CEPME group (14.0 ± 4.3 vs. 20.0 ± 4.7 mmHg, p = 0.012), whereas those of the other sizes were not significantly different between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the effective orifice area (1.49 ± 0.40 vs. 1.53 ± 0.38 cm2, p = 0.500) or effective orifice area index (0.91 ± 0.22 vs 0.93 ± 0.23 cm2/m2, p = 0.570) in all the patients, or in the subgroup analysis for the 19-mm prosthesis. There were no differences in the 1-year clinical outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

 The 1-year hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the AVALUS group were noninferior to those of the CEPME group (NCT03796442).

4D-Flow MRI and Vector Ultrasound in the In-Vitro Evaluation of Surgical Aortic Heart Valves - a Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was the initial investigation of 4D-Flow MRI and Vector Ultrasound as novel imaging techniques in the in-vitro analysis of hemodynamics in anatomical models. Specifically, by looking at the hemodynamic performance of state-of-the-art surgical heart valves in a 3D-printed aortic arch.

METHODS

The mock circulatory loop simulated physiological, pulsatile flow. Two mechanical and three biological aortic valves prostheses were compared in a 3D-printed aortic arch. 4D magnetic resonance imaging and vector flow Doppler ultrasound served as imaging methods. Hemodynamic parameters such as wall shear stress, flow velocities and pressure gradients were analyzed.

RESULTS

The flow analysis revealed characteristic flow-patterns in the 3D-printed aortic arch. The blood-flow in the arch presented complex patterns, including the formation of helixes and vortices. Higher proximal peak velocities and lower flow volumes were found for biological valves.

CONCLUSION

The mock circulatory loop in combination with modern radiological imaging provides a sufficient basis for the hemodynamic comparison of aortic valves.

3D printing of heart valves

3D printing technologies have the potential to revolutionize the manufacture of heart valves through the ability to create bespoke, complex constructs. In light of recent technological advances, we review the progress made towards 3D printing of heart valves, focusing on studies that have utilised these technologies beyond manufacturing patient-specific moulds. We first overview the key requirements of a heart valve to assess functionality. We then present the 3D printing technologies used to engineer heart valves. By referencing International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) Standard 5840 (Cardiovascular implants - Cardiac valve prostheses), we provide insight into the achieved functionality of these valves. Overall, 3D printing promises to have a significant positive impact on the creation of artificial heart valves and potentially unlock full complex functionality.

Preliminary Report from a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bovine Pericardial Valves

BACKGROUND

A randomized controlled trial was designed to compare 1-year hemodynamic profiles and clinical outcomes after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a recently introduced (study group) and world-widely used (control group) bovine pericardial bioprostheses. This study evaluated early postoperative outcomes as a preliminary analysis.

METHODS

The primary end point of the trial was the mean pressure gradient across the aortic valve (AVMPG) at 1 year after surgery. Patients were screened to enroll 70 patients in each group based on a noninferiority design. Early postoperative hemodynamic and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics, including sex and body surface area (1.64 ± 0.18 vs. 1.65 ± 0.15 m2) between the two groups. The AVMPG on early postoperative echocardiography was 15.2 ± 4.6 mm Hg and 16.5 ± 6.2 mm Hg in the study and control groups, respectively (p = 0.177). Although AVMPG of the 19 mm prostheses was lower in the study group than in the control group (17.0 ± 6.3 mm Hg vs. 22.8 ± 6.6 mm Hg, p = 0.039), there were no significant differences in the effective orifice area in all patients (1.57 ± 0.41 cm2 vs. 1.53 ± 0.34 cm2, p = 0.568), and each valve size. The effective orifice area index was also similar between the two groups in overall (p = 0.352), and in each valve size. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes including operative mortality and postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative hemodynamic and clinical results after AVR using a recently introduced bovine pericardial valve were comparable with those using the control valve (NCT03796442).

Improved Early Outcomes in Women Undergoing Aortic Valve Interventions

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in female patients has been associated with higher mortality (up to 3.3-8.9%) and postoperative complication rates when compared with their male counterparts. In recent years, TAVI has been shown to provide a greater benefit than SAVR in women. We sought to assess the early outcomes of the contemporary aortic valve intervention practice (surgical and transcatheter) in patients referred to our cardiac surgery unit. The data of consecutive patients who underwent isolated aortic valve intervention for aortic valve stenosis during the 2018-2022 period were retrieved from our internal database. Several preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were analyzed, including the predicted risk of a prosthesis-patient mismatch. Nine hundred and fifty-five consecutive patients-514 women and 441 men-were included. Among them, 480 patients-276 female and 204 male-received a transcatheter procedure, and 475-238 women and 237 men-had conventional SAVR. The women were older and had higher EuroSCORE II, while the male patients presented a higher incidence of cardiovascular comorbidities. There was no difference in mortality or major postoperative complication rates after either the surgical or transcatheter procedures between the female and male populations. The availability and targeted use of different techniques and technologies have enabled the safe and effective treatment of female patients treated for severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis with similar results when compared with their male counterparts.

Rapid deployment versus its conventional counterpart in aortic valve replacement: comparison of early hemodynamic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Edwards Intuity is designed for rapid deployment based on the structure of Magna Ease. This study was conducted to compare early hemodynamic performance between the two valves.

METHODS

Patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) using Edwards Intuity or Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease in our institution from June 2016 to July 2021 were enrolled. Intuity valve was used in 215 patients, and Magna Ease valve was used in 198 patients, respectively. Early postoperative echocardiographic data were available in 99.0% (409/413) of the patients. The transvalvular mean pressure gradient, effective orifice area, and effective orifice area index were compared between the valves stratified by prosthesis size.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the proportion of female patients or body surface area between the groups. Mean pressure gradient on early postoperative echocardiography was significantly lower in Intuity valve than Magna Ease valve for 19, 21, 23, and 25 mm valves (15.5±5.0 vs. 20.8±9.1 mmHg, P=0.004; 12.7±4.2 vs. 15.6±5.3 mmHg, P=0.001; 11.5±3.3 vs. 13.4±5.8 mmHg, P=0.034; and 9.9±3.1 vs. 12.3±4.0 mmHg, P=0.029; respectively). Effective orifice area was larger in Intuity valve than Magna Ease valve for 19 mm valve (1.45±0.38 vs. 1.19±0.28 cm2, P=0.002), and effective orifice area index was also larger in Intuity valve than Magna Ease valve for 19 mm valve (0.96±0.26 vs. 0.80±0.20 cm2/m2, P=0.005). Early clinical outcomes, including operative mortality and postoperative complications, demonstrated no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Edwards Intuity demonstrated superior early hemodynamic performance compared with Magna Ease in a size-by-size comparison, and this superiority was more definite for small prostheses.