Midterm outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with the INSPIRIS RESILIA from a multicenter AVR registry

BACKGROUND

There have been few reports on the mid- to long-term safety and efficacy validation of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, CA, USA) in Japan. Herein, we report the mid-term results of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis using INSPIRIS and evaluate the hemodynamics compared to the CEP Magna series from the multicenter AVR registry (the ACTIVIST registry).

METHODS

Of the 1967 patients who underwent surgical or transcatheter AVR from the ACTIVIST registry, 66 patients who underwent isolated surgical AVR with INSPIRIS by December 2020 were included in this study, and the early and mid-term results were evaluated. Hemodynamics were evaluated by comparing 272 patients undergoing isolated surgical AVR with the Magna group using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The mean age was 74.0 ± 7.8 years, and 48.5 % were women. In-hospital mortality was 1.5 %, and the survival rates at 1- and 2-years were 95.2 % and 95.2 %, respectively. After propensity score matching, echocardiographic findings at discharge demonstrated that peak velocity and mean pressure gradient in the INSPIRIS group were comparable, while the effective orifice area in the INSPIRIS group was significantly larger than those in the Magna group (p = 0.048). A patient-prosthesis mismatch at discharge was significantly lower in the INSPIRIS group (11.8 %) than in the Magna group (36.4 %) (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical AVR with INSPIRIS was performed safely and the mid-term results were satisfactory. The hemodynamics of INSPIRIS were comparable to those of Magna.

Three-Year Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation According to Annular Size

Data on the association between annular size and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) outcomes beyond 1 year are limited. The present study assessed the association between the aortic annulus size and TAVI clinical and hemodynamic outcomes at 3 years of follow-up. Patients were classified according to the aortic annulus size as having small, intermediate, and large annuli (size <400, 400 to 574, and ≥575 mm², respectively). The co-primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Further, the changes in hemodynamic outcomes over the follow-up period (median 37, interquartile range: 26 to 45 months) were assessed. The present analysis included 850 patients, with 182 patients (21.4%), 538 patients (63.3%), and 130 patients (15.3%) in the small, intermediate, and large-sized aortic annulus groups, respectively. The groups had comparable age and pre-TAVI pressure gradients; however, patients with small annuli had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores. Adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that compared to patients with intermediate-sized annuli, patients with small and large annuli had similar all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 1.69 and HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16, respectively) and heart failure hospitalization rates (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.69 and HR = 1.26, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.17, respectively). However, patients with small annuli had consistently higher mean and peak pressure gradients and a higher risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. The risks of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and structural valve deterioration were similar between the three groups. In conclusion, although patients with small annuli had higher transvalvular gradients, there was no significant association between the aortic annulus size and TAVI clinical outcomes at 3 years of follow-up. Future studies should compare the performance of transcatheter valve types in patients with different aortic annulus sizes.

Successful aortic root enlargement procedure in low resource setting: Two rare cases

BACKGROUND

Small aortic root is an unexpected incident during surgical aortic valve replacement in which the prosthesis valve size does not match the case being treated.

CASE PRESENTATION

Two patient-prosthesis mismatches with aortic valve problems underwent surgical aortic valve replacement. Based on calculating the body surface area (BSA) and effective orifice area (iEOA), the selection of prosthesis valve size was determined. When minor aortic root surgery was performed, it was discovered that the procedure of aortic root enlargement had to be conducted. The surgery went smoothly, but both patients had different outputs. The first patient was dead, while the second patient had a better quality of life.

DISCUSSION

Every surgical aortic valve replacement preparation of aortic root enlargement procedure needs to be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

CONCLUSION

Aortic root enlargement procedure must be anticipated in aortic valve replacement, especially for the patients with small aortic roots, both isolated and with concomitant valve procedure.

Mid-term clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes for the Trifecta bioprosthesis

Background

The Trifecta valve has been reported to have excellent hemodynamics. Controversy exists on occurrence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and data on mid-term outcome is sparse. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for the Trifecta valve has not been reported before. The aim of this study was to report the mid-term clinical and HRQoL outcomes in patients undergoing Trifecta valve implantation at our institution.

Methods

In this prospective, observational study, patients undergoing an aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Trifecta valve were included. Data collection was retrospective from prospectively collected institutional database. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected prospectively during follow-up. Quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire.

Results

Forty-seven patients were included in the study of which 9 (19%) were women. Isolated AVR was carried out in 33 (70%) patients. In-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were 1 (2.1%) and 2 (4.2%), respectively. With a mean indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) 0.96 ± 0.1, none of the patients had severe PPM. Moderate PPM was seen in 19%. The mean follow-up was 3 ± 1.7 years. The 5-year survival estimate was 83.2% in the overall cohort, 81.4% in the isolated and 87.5% in the concomitant procedure group. Freedom from re-operation and structural valve degeneration at 5 years was 95.7% and 97.8%. The mean physical health composite was 69.24 ± 2 and the mean mental health composite was 69.7 ± 25, indicating excellent mental and physical well-being among patients.

Conclusion

The Trifecta valve provides satisfactory hemodynamics, survival and freedom from re-operation and excellent HRQoL at mid-term follow-up.

Impact of the Trifecta bioprosthetic valve in patients with low-flow severe aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valve disorder in advanced age. Previous reports have shown that low-flow status of the left ventricle is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality after surgery. The Trifecta bioprosthesis has recently shown favorable hemodynamic performance. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Trifecta bioprosthesis, which has a large effective orifice area, in patients with low-flow severe AS who have a poor prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 94 consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients were divided into two groups according to the stroke volume index (SVI): low-flow (LF) group (SVI < 35 ml/m², n = 22) and normal-flow (NF) group (SVI ≥ 35 ml/m², n = 72). Patients’ characteristics and early and mid-term results were compared between the two groups. There were no differences in patients’ characteristics, except for systolic blood pressure (LF:NF = 120:138 mmHg, p < 0.01) and the rate of atrial fibrillation between the groups. A preoperative echocardiogram showed that the pressure gradient was higher in the NF group than in the LF group, but aortic valve area was similar. The Trifecta bioprosthesis size was similar in both groups. The operative outcomes were not different between the groups. Severe patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (< 0.65 cm²/m²) was not observed in either of the groups. There were no significant differences in mid-term results between the two groups. The favorable hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta bioprosthesis appears to have the similar outcomes in the LF and NF groups. AVR with the Trifecta bioprosthesis should be considered for avoidance of PPM, particularly in AS patients with LV dysfunction.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch is an independent predictor of congestive heart failure after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We reported previously an increased risk of PPM with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (S3-THV).

AIMS

To investigate the association of PPM with 1-year outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) implanted with S3-THV.

METHODS

Moderate PPM was defined by an indexed effective orifice area (iEOA)≤0.85cm²/m², and severe PPM by an iEOA<0.65cm²/m². Inclusion criteria were severe symptomatic AS and implantation with S3-THV. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 1 year; the secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 208 consecutive patients were included between 2016 and 2018. Male sex was prevalent (53.8%), mean age was 81.9±6.2 years, mean EuroSCORE II was 4.35±3.37, mean LVEF was 57.9±13%. Moderate and severe PPM were observed in 69 (33.2%) and 10 (4.8%) patients. Patients with PPM were younger (80.4±7 vs 82.8±5.41 years; P=0.006), had a larger BSA (1.84±0.19 vs 1.77±0.19 m²; P=0.01), a lower iEOA (0.73±0.08 vs 1.11±0.22 cm²/m²; P<0.001) and a higher mean gradient (14±4.6 vs 11.9±3.9mmHg; P<0.001). CHF occurred in 16.5% vs 7% (P=0.03). By multivariable analysis, PPM was independently associated with CHF (hazard ratio [HR] 3.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17 to 8.55; P=0.032), especially in patients with mitral regurgitation≥2/4 (HR>100, 95%CI>100 to>1000; P<0.01). PPM did not correlate with all-cause mortality (HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.22 to 3.03; P=0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

PPM after S3-THV implantation is strongly associated with CHF at 1 year, but is not correlated with overall mortality.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Mitral Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis

The effect of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on late outcomes after mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains unclear. We evaluated the impact of PPM after MVR on the late survival using propensity score matching analysis. From 2007 to 2018, 660 consecutive MVRs were performed. Effective orifice areas were obtained from a literature review of in vivo echocardiographic data, and mitral PPM was defined as an effective orifice area index of ≤1.2 cm²/m². Propensity score matching yielded a cohort of 126 patients with PPM and 126 patients without PPM. Mitral PPM was found in 37.8% of the patients. In the whole matched patients, there were no differences in late survival (log-rank test, P = 0.629) between 2 groups. Patients aged ≤70 years and those aged >70 years had no differences in late survival (log-rank test, P = 0.073 and 0.572). The Cox proportional hazards model for the overall survival showed that mitral PPM tended to decrease survival in patients aged ≤70 years (P = 0.084, hazard ratio [HR] 2.647, 95% CI: 0.876-7.994). Mitral PPM did not adversely affect long-term survival. There may be a tendency of adverse impact on late survival in patients aged ≤70 years. Implanting a safe size rather than larger size prosthesis in mitral position may be an appropriate option in older patients.

Comparison of patient-prothesis mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

The aim of this study is to analyze the outcomes and incidence of postoperative patient-prothesis mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement using supra-annular bioprosthesis and transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Methods

Between January 2012 and June 2015, a total of 73 patients (37 males, 36 females; mean age 71.8±5.7 years; range, 65 to 82 years) who underwent either surgical aortic valve replacement using supraannular bioprosthesis (n=36) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (n=37) were included. Postoperative patient-prothesis mismatch was defined as absent, mild-to-moderate, and severe, if the indexed effective orifice area was >0.85 cm²/m², >0.65 to <0.85 cm²/m², and <0.65 cm²/m², respectively. Both groups were compared in terms of patient-prothesis mismatch, postoperative outcomes, and mortality.

Results

The overall incidence of mild-to-moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch was 17.8% (13/73). No severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed. Mild-to-moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch was found in three patients (8.1%) in the transcatheter group and in 10 patients (27.8%) in the surgery group (p=0.035). Body surface area was the significant predictor of patient-prosthesis mismatch (p=0.007). Diameters of bioprosthetic valves in the surgery and transcatheter groups were 21.4±2 and 23.9±2.6 mm, respectively (p=0.002). Early mortality and pacemaker implantation rates were higher in the transcatheter group (p>0.05). Postoperative outcomes were similar between the groups. Mid-term mortality at a mean follow-up of 47.7±7.3 months was similar between the groups (p=0.158).

Conclusion

In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, patientprosthesis mismatch is mild-to-moderate after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation; however, this has no effect on early mortality. Based on our study results, we suggest that the use of surgical approach for aortic valve replacement may prevent potential complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

The Prognostic Significance of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) is a controversial issue in current clinical practice. PPM has been reported to have a negative impact on patients’ prognosis after aortic valve replacement in several studies, showing increased all-cause and cardiac mortality. Moreover, a close relationship has recently been described between PPM and structural valve deterioration in biological prostheses. In patients at risk for PPM, several issues should be considered, and in the current era of cardiac surgery, preoperative planning should consider the different types of valves available and the various surgical techniques that can be used to prevent PPM. The present paper analyses the state of the art of the PPM issue.

Aortic valve replacement and prosthesis-patient mismatch in the era of trans-catheter aortic valve implantation

Objective

The treatment strategy for aortic stenosis (AS) has been changing due to newly developed valvular prostheses and trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). To determine the role of new modalities for AS with a small aortic root, papers using the concept of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) were reviewed.

Methods

First, to determine the cut-off value of the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) for defining PPM, the studies of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a follow-up longer than 5 years and a patient number larger than 500 were reviewed. Second, the papers comparing TAVI and SAVR were reviewed. Furthermore, the prevalence of PPM was reviewed, with the addition of papers on aortic root enlargement, sutureless AVR, and aortic valve reconstruction with autologous pericardium.

Results and conclusion

The results of the long-term survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) have indicated that an IEOA less than 0.65 cm²/m² should be avoided in all cases, whereas the indications for patients with an IEOA between 065 and 0.85 cm²/m² should be determined by considering multiple factors. A large body size and younger age have a significantly negative influence on the long-term survival. In Asian population, the prevalence of PPM was low, despite the fact that the size of the aortic annulus was small. The IEOA after TAVI was larger than after surgical AVR in population-matched studies. To evaluate the role of TAVI and other modalities for a small aortic root, studies with a longer follow-up and larger volume are thus warranted.

Obesity is associated with higher long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement with small prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

Although many studies have evaluated the impacts of obesity on various medical treatments, it is not known whether obesity is related to late mortality with implantation of small aortic prosthesis. This study evaluated the effect of obesity on late survival of patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with implantation of small aortic prosthesis (size ≤ 21 mm).

METHODS

From January 1998 to December 2008, 536 patients in our institution who underwent primary AVR (307 patients with smaller prostheses) survived the 30 days after surgery. Patients were categorised as normal weight if body mass index (BMI) was ≤ 25 kg/m(2), as overweight if BMI 25-30 kg/m(2), and as obese if BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2). Data were collected at the third-month (M), sixth-M, first-year (Y), third-Y, fifth-Y, and eighth-Y after operation.

RESULTS

By multivariable analysis, obesity was a significant independent factor of late mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.59; p=0.006). The obese and overweight groups of patients exhibited lower survival (p<0.001) and a higher proportion in NYHA class III/IV (p<0.01) compared with the normal group. Lower EOAI and higher left ventricular mass index were found in the obese and overweight groups, but we saw no significant variance in LVEF among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity was associated with increased late mortality of patients after AVR with implantation of small aortic prosthesis. Being obese or and overweight may also affect the NYHA classification, even in the longer term.