Mid-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier Edwards Magna Ease prosthesis

Rajab, Taufiek Konrad; Ali, Jason M.; Hernández-Sánchez, Jules; Mackie, Jennifer; Grimaudo, Vincenzo; Sinichino, Silvia; Mills, Christine; Rana, Bushra S.; Dunning, John; Abu‐Omar, Yasir

doi:10.1186/s13019-020-01248-2

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…34 Early generations of this valve have been in clinical use since the 1980s, and subsequent generations have the same general design but with small modifications to ease supra-annular placement and to improve tissue preservation. 35 Hemodynamic performance and long-term follow-up of the Perimount valve have provided satisfactory results. 12,13,34,[36][37][38] A recent study by Lam and colleagues 34 reported an 8-year cumulative incidence of reintervention of 0.7% compared with a 10-year cumulative incidence of reintervention of 3% in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEThe performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves is usually assessed in single valve models or head-to-head comparisons. National databases or registries offer the opportunity to investigate all available valve models in the population and allows for a comparative assessment of their performance. OBJECTIVETo analyze the long-term rates of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization associated with commonly used bioprosthetic aortic valves and to identify valve model groups with deviation in clinical performance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This population-based, nationwide cohort study included all adult patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery or ascending aortic surgery) in Sweden between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Patients were identified from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Patients with concomitant valve surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and previous transcatheter valve replacement were excluded. Follow-up was complete for all participants. Data were analyzed from March 9, 2020, to October 12, 2021.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…None of the patients had required reintervention. This highlights the durability of modern bioprostheses 12 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…As such, we have mid‐ and long‐term performance data on the development of SVD. At our center, we recently published a study where we followed 100 consecutive patients receiving the Carpentier‐Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (CEPME) prosthesis (implanted in 76.6% of patients in the present series) 12 . At a median of 5.1 years, none of the patients had evidence of significant SVD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Aortic valve replacement in patients over 60: Real‐world surgical outcomes

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has come an expectation that there will be a decline in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This has been fueled by trials comparing outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in lower‐risk patients. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes following SAVR in patients over the age of 60. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study observed 1005 patients ≥60 who underwent isolated primary SAVR from January 2015 to December 2018. The cohort was stratified by surgical risk, defined as European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II < 4 versus ≥4. The cohort was also divided by age (60–69, 70–79, ≥80) for additional comparisons. Outcomes included in‐hospital complications and patient survival. Results The median age and EuroSCORE II were 75 years and 1.6, respectively. The overall 30‐day mortality was 1.7% and increased significantly with surgical risk (p = .007). The 30‐day mortality of elective patients was 1.1%. Overall, 1‐ and 2‐year survival rates were 94.3% and 91.7%, respectively, which significantly decreased with surgical risk (p < .001) and age (p = .002, p = .003). The rates of postoperative stroke and pacemaker implantations were 1.2% and 3.6%, respectively. Conclusions SAVR can be performed in patients ≥60 years old with excellent outcomes, which compare favorably with outcomes from TAVI trials, with their highly selected patient cohorts. SAVR remains a reliable, tried and tested, treatment option in these patients.

show abstract

“…The study on the Edwards PERIMOUNT aortic valve bioprostheses used in the aortic position and concerned the progenitor of INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve, demonstrated a low rate of valve‐related events and SVD, especially in patients aged over 60 years. In a 3‐year follow‐up of 580 patients who underwent AVR using a Carpentier‐Edwards PERIMOUNT valve, there was no evidence of SVD 26 . Although these midterm results are promising, long‐term follow‐up in 12,569 patients with PERIMOUNT valve at 10, 15, and 20 years showed that the actuarial estimates of risk for explant for SVD were 5.6%, 20%, and 45%, respectively, in patients <60 years and 1.5%, 5.1%, and 8.1%, respectively, in patients 60–80 years old 27 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of a novel bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve in a German high‐volume center

Ahmad

Giammarino

Salamate

et al. 2022

Journal of Cardiac Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim Bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is increasingly adopted in younger patients. We aimed to analyze mid‐term follow‐up data after SAVR to assess the performance of the prosthesis. Methods Data were collected from a single‐center series of 154 patients, who underwent SAVR with a bioprosthetic heart valve with the RESILIA tissue at our Heart Centre in Siegburg. All procedural and midterm patient outcomes were documented. Results Patients had a mean age of 56.8 ± 9.9 years, 35.7% were female, and the mean logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) was 3.4 ± 3.6%. Diabetes (12.3%), atrial fibrillation (10.4%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (5.8%) were common comorbidities. The mean surgery duration was 163.8 ± 73.4 min, with the 23 mm (34.4%) and 25 mm (33.8%) heart valves being most frequently implanted. At 3‐year follow‐up, mean pressure gradient was 13.9 ± 5.9 mmHg, peak gradient was 23.6 ± 7.7 mmHg, and effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.9 ± 0.4 cm². No patient died during the operation, 3 (2.1%) patients within 30 days, and 4 (2.7%) thereafter with an overall mortality of n = 7. Of the surviving patients, 97.8% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I/II and none had structural valve deterioration (SVD). Conclusion Results of our single‐center study indicate favorable procedural outcomes. The safety outcomes confirm preliminary earlier results of this novel bioprosthesis but include more patients and a longer midterm follow‐up.

show abstract

Mid-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier Edwards Magna Ease prosthesis

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018

Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden From 2003 to 2018

Aortic valve replacement in patients over 60: Real‐world surgical outcomes

Clinical performance of a novel bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve in a German high‐volume center

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About