Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2199-2087
Original Cardiovascular

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

Suk Ho Sohn
1   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Yoonjin Kang
1   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Ji Seong Kim
1   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Jae Woong Choi
1   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Jae Hang Lee 
2   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
,
Jun Sung Kim
2   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
,
Cheong Lim   *
2   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea
,
Ho Young Hwang   *
1   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

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).

Keywords

aortic valve replacement - bioprosthesis - outcome - hemodynamics

Note

This study was simultaneously conducted at two institutions, and H.Y.H and C.L took equal responsibility for completing this study as principal investigators at each institution. Thus, H.Y.H and L.C were presented with equal contribution to this study.


Authors' Contribution

Conceptualization was done by S.H.S., C.L., and H.Y.H. Data curation was done by S.H.S., Y.K., J.S.K., J.W.C., J.H.L., J.S.K., C.L., and H.Y.H. Statistical analysis was done by S.H.S. and H.Y.H. Methodology was developed by C.H. and H.Y.H. Validation was done by C.L. and H.Y.H. Writing of the original draft was done by S.H.S., while H.Y.H. was responsible for reviewing and editing the manuscript.


* These authors contributed equally to the study.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 11 April 2023

Accepted: 25 October 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
26 October 2023

Article published online:
05 December 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO. et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2021; 143 (05) e72-e227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2017; 38 (36) 2739-2791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Klautz RJM, Kappetein AP, Lange R. et al; PERIGON Investigators. Safety, effectiveness and haemodynamic performance of a new stented aortic valve bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 52 (03) 425-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Klautz RJM, Dagenais F, Reardon MJ. et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented pericardial bioprosthesis: 5-year outcomes. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (03) ezac374 , In press
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sohn SH, Kim JS, Choi JW. et al. Preliminary report from a randomized controlled trial comparing two bovine pericardial valves. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rennie D. How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276 (08) 649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI. et al; Councils of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Standardizing Definitions of Prosthetic Heart Valve Morbidity. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135 (04) 732-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Fiegl K, Deutsch MA, Rondak IC, Lange R, Guenzinger R. Matched comparison of two different biological prostheses for complete supra-annular aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 63 (06) 459-466
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wendt D, Thielmann M, Plicht B. et al. The new St Jude Trifecta versus Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna and Magna Ease aortic bioprosthesis: is there a hemodynamic superiority?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (05) 1553-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wyss TR, Bigler M, Stalder M. et al. Absence of prosthesis-patient mismatch with the new generation of Edwards stented aortic bioprosthesis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010; 10 (06) 884-887 , discussion 887–888
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J. et al; EAE/ASE. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. Eur J Echocardiogr 2009; 10 (01) 1-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brown JM, O'Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (01) 82-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Thourani VH, Suri RM, Gunter RL. et al. Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99 (01) 55-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dalmau MJ, González-Santos JM, Blázquez JA. et al. Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011; 39 (06) 844-852 , discussion 852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Head SJ, Mokhles MM, Osnabrugge RL. et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J 2012; 33 (12) 1518-1529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Glaser N, Jackson V, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Survival after aortic valve replacement with bovine or porcine valve prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67 (04) 282-290
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sabik III JF, Rao V, Lange R. et al; PERIGON Investigators. One-year outcomes associated with a novel stented bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 156 (04) 1368-1377.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dagenais F, Moront MG, Brown WM. et al. Safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis: Two-year analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 160 (02) 371-381.e4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Klautz RJM, Vriesendorp MD, Dagenais F. et al. Antithrombotic therapy and bleeding events after aortic valve replacement with a novel bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 161 (01) 66-75.e4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tadokoro N, Fukushima S, Shimahara Y. et al. Comparison of safety and haemodynamic performance between the Avalus™ stented aortic valve bioprosthesis and Magna™ valve in Japanese patients. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 69 (07) 1060-1069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Thorp SD, Khazaal J, Yu G, Parker JL, Timek TA. Magna ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2021; 32 (06) 839-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Meuris B, De Praetere H, Strasly M. et al. A novel tissue treatment to reduce mineralization of bovine pericardial heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 156 (01) 197-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee H, Hwang HY, Sohn SH. et al. Hemodynamic performance of pericardial bioprostheses in the aortic position. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 53 (05) 285-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bleiziffer S, Eichinger WB, Hettich I. et al. Prediction of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch prior to aortic valve replacement: which is the best method?. Heart 2007; 93 (05) 615-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36 (04) 1131-1141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar