Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 71(08): 648-655
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1753494
Original Cardiovascular

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

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

Abstract

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)

Keywords

aortic valve replacement - bioprosthesis - outcome - hemodynamics

* These authors contributed equally to the study.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 28 January 2022

Accepted: 08 June 2022

Article published online:
02 August 2022

© 2022. 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 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
  • 5 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
  • 6 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 2019; 161: 66-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rennie D. How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276 (08) 649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lancellotti P, Pibarot P, Chambers J. et al. Recommendations for the imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging endorsed by the Chinese Society of Echocardiography, the Inter-American Society of Echocardiography, and the Brazilian Department of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016; 17 (06) 589-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI. et al; Councils of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, European Assoication 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
  • 10 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
  • 11 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
  • 12 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
  • 13 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
  • 14 Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C. et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2006; 114 (05) e84-e231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J. et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use—an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (04) 776-782.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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
  • 17 Ruzicka DJ, Hettich I, Hutter A. et al. The complete supraannular concept: in vivo hemodynamics of bovine and porcine aortic bioprostheses. Circulation 2009; 120 (Suppl. 11) S139-S145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
  • 19 Mayr B, Burri M, Vitanova K. et al. Serial echocardiographic evaluation of the Perimount Magna Ease prosthesis. J Thorac Dis 2021; 13 (07) 4104-4113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
  • 21 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
  • 22 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