Life after heart surgery: Tracking the long-term performance of several bioprosthetic aortic valves

The Perimount aortic valve is associated with better long-term outcomes than other commonly used bioprosthetic aortic valves, according to new findings in JAMA Network Open.[1]

“Since bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement was first described in the 1960s, a wide range of different bioprosthetic models have been developed to improve patient outcomes,” wrote first author Michael Persson, MD, of the department of molecular medicine and surgery at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, and colleagues. “Different xenograft materials have been used, such as porcine or bovine pericardium or valve tissue. Efforts to optimize the hemodynamic performance of bioprosthetic valves have included the supra-annular approach, external wrapping of leaflets around stents, and stentless designs. In attempts to improve the longevity of valves, different methods of tissue preservation and anticalcification treatments were developed.”

Persson et al. examined data from the SWEDEHEART registry to compare the long-term performance of some of Sweden’s most common bioprosthetic aortic valves. The team’s analysis included nearly 17,000 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve from 2003 to 2018. Patients who had undergone a previous cardiac surgery were excluded. The mean patient age was 72.6 years old, and 62.9% of patients were men. The mean follow-up period was 7.1 years.

The study’s primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of reintervention, which included an additional SAVR procedure or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). All-cause mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure were secondary outcomes the authors also evaluated.

Overall, the authors reported, the Perimount aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences) delivered the best long-term performance with a 10-year reintervention rate of 3%. The 10-year reintervention rates of other valves included in the study were 3.5% for the Mosaic/Hancock valves (Medtronic), 3.7% for the Biocor/Epic valves (Abbott), 9.2% for the Mitroflow/Crown valves (LivaNova) and 9.3% for the Soprano (LivaNova) valve.

No 10-year data on the Trifecta valve (Abbott) was available, but its five-year reintervention rate of 2.2% landed it in the middle of the pack.

In addition, the authors found that the Perimount valve had the lowest all-cause mortality after 10 years (44%). The highest all-cause mortality rate after 10 years, meanwhile, was the 70% seen in the Mitroflow/Crown valves.

Also, looking specifically at hospitalizations for heart failure, the Perimount valve had the lowest rate after 10 years (14%) and the Mitroflow/Crown valves had the highest (25.9%).

“These findings support the extensive use of the Perimount valve and suggest the need for increased clinical vigilance in patients who receive either a Soprano valve or a Mitroflow/Crown valve,” the authors wrote.

Related Structural Heart Disease Content:

When infective endocarditis after TAVR is most likely to be fatal

How modified bioprosthetic heart valves could limit calcification, reduce need for TAVR

Recurrent MR after TEER: Tracking data from nearly 700 MitraClip patients

Late-breaking clinical trials announced for ACC.22

 

Reference:

1. Michael Persson, MD, Natalie Glaser, MD, PhD, Johan Nilsson, MD, PhD, et al. Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e220962.

 

Michael Walter
Michael Walter, Managing Editor

Michael has more than 18 years of experience as a professional writer and editor. He has written at length about cardiology, radiology, artificial intelligence and other key healthcare topics.

Around the web

Ron Blankstein, MD, professor of radiology, Harvard Medical School, explains the use of artificial intelligence to detect heart disease in non-cardiac CT exams.

Eleven medical societies have signed on to a consensus statement aimed at standardizing imaging for suspected cardiovascular infections.

Kate Hanneman, MD, explains why many vendors and hospitals want to lower radiology's impact on the environment. "Taking steps to reduce the carbon footprint in healthcare isn’t just an opportunity," she said. "It’s also a responsibility."