Long-Term Outcomes of Replica-Based Upsizing for Epic Supra Aortic Bioprosthesis

Abstract

Background

Different techniques allow implantation of biological aortic valve prostheses larger than associated with classic annulus sizing. We described a replica-based technique (upsizing) before that utilizes the patient's root anatomy. We here evaluate the safety and efficacy of upsizing compared with standard sizing using the Epic Supra bioprosthesis.

Methods

We assessed 958 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Epic Supra bioprosthesis between 2010 and 2023. Upsizing was defined as implantation of a prosthesis larger than the measured annular size without enlarging the annulus. We assessed hemodynamic and standard outcome parameters. Mean follow-up was 44.5 ± 31.2 months. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline differences.

Results

Patient anatomy allowed upsizing in 62% of patients. Demographics and outcomes (perioperative mortality, reoperation, bleeding, and pacemaker implantation) were comparable between the matched groups. Immediate postoperative and long-term pressure gradients were consistently and significantly lower in the upsizing groups across all annular sizes (upsizing vs. control: 23 mm; 12.9 ± 8.2 vs. 14.0 ± 5.6 mm Hg, p = 0.029; 25 mm; 10.8 ± 4.0 vs. 13.0 ± 4.4 mm Hg, p < 0.001; 27 mm; 10.8 ± 4.0 vs. 13.0 ± 4.4 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Differences persisted at long-term follow-up but were less pronounced for the 25-mm annular size and greatest in the 27-mm group (8.5 ± 4.5 vs. 12.5 ± 5.5 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Long-term survival was numerically higher in the upsizing groups with statistical significance in annular size 25 mm.

Conclusion

Implanting a larger Epic Supra prosthesis than classically recommended (“upsizing”) is safe and associated with improved immediate- and long-term hemodynamics without increasing pacemaker, perioperative, or long-term mortality risks.

Keywords

aortic valve and root - cardiac - heart valve surgery

^* These authors contributed equally to this work.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 09. Juni 2025

Angenommen: 29. August 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. Oktober 2025

• References

• 1 Iung B, Delgado V, Rosenhek R. et al; EORP VHD II Investigators. Contemporary presentation and management of valvular heart disease: the EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease II Survey. Circulation 2019; 140 (14) 1156-1169
• 2 Harken DE, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA. et al. Aortic valve replacement with a caged ball valve. Am J Cardiol 1962; 9: 292-299
• 3 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
• 4 Kirov H, Caldonazo T, Doenst T. Treatment of valvular heart disease in young patients-“early evidence” versus “latest fashion”. J Card Surg 2022; 37 (08) 2375-2377
• 5 Lim GB. Valvular disease: mechanical versus biological valve prostheses. Nat Rev Cardiol 2018; 15 (01) 4-4
• 6 Doenst T, Amorim PA, Al-Alam N, Lehmann S, Mukherjee C, Faerber G. Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (05) 1180-1187
• 7 Gonzalez-Lopez D, Faerber G, Diab M, Amorim P, Zeynalov N, Doenst T. Replica sizing strategy for aortic valve replacement improves haemodynamic outcome of the epic supra valve. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017; 25 (04) 509-512
• 8 Tkebuchava S, Färber G, Sponholz C. et al. Minimally-invasive parasternal aortic valve replacement-a slow learning curve towards improved outcomes. J Card Surg 2020; 35 (03) 544-548
• 9 Tasca G, Mhagna Z, Perotti S. et al. Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on cardiac events and midterm mortality after aortic valve replacement in patients with pure aortic stenosis. Circulation 2006; 113 (04) 570-576
• 10 Nardi P, Russo M, Saitto G, Ruvolo G. The prognostic significance of patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 51 (03) 161-166
• 11 Jahanyar J, Said SM, de Kerchove L. et al. Aortic root anatomy: insights into annular and root enlargement techniques. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2024; 13 (03) 244-254
• 12 Yen Y, Hung K-C, Chan YH. et al. Association of valve size and hemodynamic performance with clinical outcomes in aortic valve replacement. A long-term follow-up in an Asian population. Circ J 2024; 88 (04) 559-567
• 13 Li C, Tang D, Yao J. et al. Bioprosthetic valve size selection to optimize aortic valve replacement surgical outcome: a fluid-structure interaction modeling study. CMES. Comput Model Eng Sci 2020; 127: 159-174
• 14 House CM, Nelson WB, Kroshus TJ, Dahiya R, Pibarot P. Manufacturer-provided effective orifice area index charts and the prevention of prosthesis-patient mismatch. J Heart Valve Dis 2012; 21 (01) 107-111
• 15 Amorim PA, Diab M, Walther M. et al. Limitations in the assessment of prosthesis-patient mismatch. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 68 (07) 550-556
• 16 Pibarot P, Simonato M, Barbanti M. et al. Impact of pre-existing prosthesis-patient mismatch on survival following aortic valve-in-valve procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11 (02) 133-141
• 17 Sá MP, Jacquemyn X, Serna-Gallegos D. et al. Long-term outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived data. Am J Cardiol 2024; 212: 30-39
• 18 Johnston DR, Mehta C, Malaisrie SC. et al. Implanted size and structural valve deterioration in the Edwards Magna bioprosthesis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2024; 13 (03) 275-282
• 19 Kirov H, Caldonazo T, Mukharyamov M. et al. Cardiac surgery 2024 reviewed. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2025; 73 (05) 332-345
• 20 Kirov H, Caldonazo T, Mukharyamov M. et al. Cardiac surgery 2023 reviewed. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2024
• 21 Rocha RV, Manlhiot C, Feindel CM. et al. Surgical enlargement of the aortic root does not increase the operative risk of aortic valve replacement. Circulation 2018; 137 (15) 1585-1594
• 22 Yang B. Aortic valve replacement vs aortic valve replacement + annular enlargement: apples to oranges?. Ann Thorac Surg 2024; 117 (02) 479-480
• 23 Mukharyamov M, Kirov H, Caldonazo T, Doenst T. Impact of age on the relationship between cross-clamp time and mortality in cardiac surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2024; 72 (07) 539-541