Search

Background: Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a treatment for aortic bioprosthesis failure in case of prohibitive risk for redo surgery. However, clinical evaluation of valve-in-valve TAVI remains limited by the number of patients analysed., Aim: To evaluate outcomes of valve-in-valve TAVI compared with native aortic valve TAVI at a nationwide level in France., Methods: Based on the French administrative hospital discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients treated with TAVI for aortic stenosis or with isolated valve-in-valve TAVI for aortic bioprosthesis failure between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes., Results: A total of 44,218 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 2749 patients were analysed in each arm. At 30 days, no significant differences were observed regarding the occurrence of major clinical events (composite of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, major or life-threatening bleeding and conversion to open heart surgery) (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.01; P=0.32). During follow-up (mean 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the valve-in-valve TAVI and native TAVI groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.13; P=1.00)., Conclusion: We observed that valve-in-valve TAVI was associated with good short- and long-term outcomes. No significant differences were observed compared with native valve TAVI regarding clinical follow-up., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represent the 2 treatments for aortic bioprosthesis failure. Clinical comparison of both therapies remains limited by the number of patients analyzed., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of VIV TAVR versus redo SAVR at a nationwide level in France., Methods: Based on the French administrative hospital-discharge database, the study collected information for patients treated for aortic bioprosthesis failure with isolated VIV TAVR or redo SAVR between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score matching was used for the analysis of outcomes., Results: A total of 4,327 patients were found in the database. After matching on baseline characteristics, 717 patients were analyzed in each arm. At 30 days, VIV TAVR was associated with lower rates of the composite of all-cause mortality, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, and major or life-threatening bleeding (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 0.88; p = 0.03). During follow-up (median 516 days), the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, myocardial infarction, or rehospitalization for heart failure was not different between the 2 groups (odds ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 1.41; p = 0.26). Rehospitalization for heart failure and pacemaker implantation were more frequently reported in the VIV TAVR group. A time-dependent interaction between all-cause and cardiovascular mortality following VIV TAVR was reported (p-interaction <0.05)., Conclusions: VIV TAVR was observed to be associated with better short-term outcomes than redo SAVR. Major cardiovascular outcomes were not different between the 2 treatments during long-term follow-up., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is an ever-growing number of patients requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR). Limited data is available on the long-term outcomes and structural integrity of bioprosthetic valves in younger patients undergoing surgical AVR., Methods: The INSPIRIS RESILIA Durability Registry (INDURE) is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, international registry with a follow-up of 5 years to assess clinical outcomes of patients younger than 60 years who undergo surgical AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. INDURE will be conducted across 20-22 sites in Europe and Canada and intends to enrol minimum of 400 patients. Patients will be included if they are scheduled to undergo AVR with or without concomitant root replacement and/or coronary bypass surgery. The primary objectives are to 1) determine VARC-2 defined time-related valve safety at one-year (depicted as freedom from events) and 2) determine freedom from stage 3 structural valve degeneration (SVD) presenting as morphological abnormalities and severe haemodynamic valve degeneration at 5 years. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the haemodynamic performance of the valve, all stages of SVD, potential valve-in-valve procedures, clinical outcomes (in terms of New York Heart Association [NYHA] function class and freedom from valve-related rehospitalisation) and change in patient quality-of-life., Discussion: INDURE is a prospective, multicentre registry in Europe and Canada, which will provide much needed data on the long-term performance of bioprosthetic valves in general and the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve in particular. The data may help to gather a deeper understanding of the longevity of bioprosthetic valves and may expand the use of bioprosthetic valves in patients under the age of 60 years., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03666741 (registration received September, 12th, 2018).

Objectives: Mitral valve replacement using a bioprosthesis remains controversial in young patients because data on long-term outcomes are missing. This study evaluated the long-term results of the PERIMOUNT pericardial mitral bioprosthesis in patients aged 65 years or younger., Methods: From 1984 to 2010, 148 Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT mitral bioprostheses were implanted in 148 patients aged 65 years or younger. Baseline clinical, perioperative and follow-up data were recorded prospectively. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was defined by strict echocardiographic assessment., Results: The mean follow-up period was 8.6 ± 5.5 years, for a total of 1269 valve-years. Operative mortality rate was 2.0%. Fifty-one late deaths occurred (linearized rate 4.0% per valve-year). Actuarial survival rates averaged 70 ± 4%, 53 ± 6% and 31 ± 7% after 10, 15 and 20 years of follow-up, respectively. Actuarial freedom from SVD at 10, 15 and 20 years was 78 ± 5%, 47 ± 7% and 19 ± 7%, respectively. Reoperation was associated with no operative mortality. Actuarial freedom from reoperation due to SVD at 10, 15 and 20 years was 82 ± 4%, 50 ± 6% and 25 ± 8%, respectively. Competing risk analysis demonstrated an actual risk of explantation secondary to SVD at 20 years of 44 ± 5%. Expected valve durability was 14.2 years for this age group., Conclusions: In the selected patients aged 65 years or younger undergoing mitral valve replacement with a pericardial bioprosthesis, the expected valve durability was 14.2 years. Reoperation for SVD was associated with a low risk of mortality.

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The objectives of this study were to describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with definite and possible infective endocarditis (IE) involving prosthetic heart valve, and to identify prognostic factors for long-term mortality, using data from an unselected cohort of consecutive patients. We studied data from 133 consecutive patients with IE involving prosthetic heart valve seen in an academic institution between 1990 and 2012. Patients were classified according to the modified Duke criteria for IE: patients with possible IE (n = 47, 35%) and patients with definite IE (n = 86, 65%). Overall, 55 patients died over a mean ± SD follow-up of 3.6 ± 4.1 years (median 1.8, interquartile range 4.4 years). Patients with definite IE had a higher risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 4.17 p = 0.01). Independent predictors of long-term mortality were increasing age (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.08, p = 0.002), Staphylococcus aureus infection (HR 3.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 11.76; p = 0.05), infection with unknown microorganism (HR 12.50, 95% CI 2.97 to 52.63; p = 0.0006), and definite IE (HR 8.70, 95% CI 3.55 to 21.28; p <0.0001), whereas infection on pacemaker or defibrillator (HR 0.30, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.87; p = 0.03) was associated with a better prognosis. Patients with definite IE and those with possible IE who underwent surgery had a nonsignificantly better prognosis than their counterparts with no surgery. In conclusion, patients with definite IE (Duke criteria) on a prosthetic heart valve independently had a worse prognosis than those with possible IE., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Vitamin K antagonists are currently recommended in patients with 'valvular' atrial fibrillation (AF), e. g. those having mitral stenosis or artificial heart valves. We compared thromboembolic risk in patients with 'non valvular' AF and in those with AF and biological valve replacement (valve bioprosthesis). Among 8962 AF patients seen between 2000 and 2010, a diagnosis of 'non-valvular AF' was found in 8053 (94 %). Among patients with 'valvular' AF, 549 (6 %) had a biological prosthesis. The patients with bioprosthesis were older and had a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score than those with non valvular AF. After a follow-up of 876 ± 1048 days (median 400 days, interquartile range 12-1483), the occurrence of thromboembolic events was similar in AF patients with bioprosthesis compared to those with 'non valvular' AF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.45, p=0.52, adjusted HR 0.93, 95 %CI 0.68-1.25, p=0.61). Factors independently associated with increased risk of stroke/TE events were older age (HR 1.25, 95 %CI 1.16-1.34 per 10-year increase, p< 0.0001) and higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (HR 1.35, 95 %CI 1.24-1.46, p< 0.0001) whilst female gender (HR 0.75, 95 %CI 0.62-0.90, p=0.002), use of vitamin K antagonist (HR 0.83, 95 %CI 0.71-0.98, p=0.03) were independently associated with a lower risk of stroke/TE. Neither the presence of bioprosthesis nor the location of bioprosthesis was independent predictor for TE events. In conclusion, AF patients with bioprosthesis had a non-significantly higher risk of stroke/TE events compared to patients with non-valvular AF. Second, the CHA2DS2-VASc score was independently associated with an increased risk of TE events, and was a valuable determinant of TE risk both in AF patients with non-valvular AF as well as those with bioprosthesis, whether treated or not treated with OAC.

Objectives: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a bioprosthesis remains controversial for patients aged 50-65 years. This cohort study reports the very long-term outcomes of AVR using Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis in this age group., Methods: From 1984 to 2008, 522 Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial aortic bioprostheses were implanted in 516 patients aged 50-65 years (mean age, 60 ± 4 years; 19% female). Multiple valve replacements were excluded fro m our cohort. Baseline demographic, perioperative and follow-up data were recorded prospectively. Mean follow-up was 9 ± 6 years, for a total of 4428 valve-years. Follow-up was complete for 97% of patients included., Results: Operative mortality rate was 2%. One hundred and forty-six late deaths occurred for a linearized rate of 3%/valve-year. Actuarial survival rates averaged 73 ± 2, 59 ± 3 and 35 ± 5% after 10, 15 and 20 years of follow-up, respectively. Mortality rate associated with reoperation was 2%. Actuarial freedom from reoperation rates due to structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 10, 15 and 20 years was respectively of 91 ± 2, 76 ± 3 and 50 ± 6%. Competing risk analysis demonstrated an actual risk of explantation secondary to SVD at 20 years of 30 ± 3%. Expected valve durability was 19 years for this age group. Age was not a significant risk factor for SVD in this middle-aged population., Conclusions: In patients aged 50-65 years undergoing AVR with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis, the expected valve durability was 19 years. Age was not a significant risk factor for SVD within this age group. Patient selection and attention to timing of reintervention may be determinants of long-term outcomes., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic valve replacement using a bioprosthesis remains controversial for patients younger than 60 years because of missing data on long-term outcomes in this age group., Methods: From 1984 to 2008, 383 Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial aortic bioprostheses were implanted in 373 patients 60 years or younger (mean age, 51.0 ± 9.2 years; 19% female). Multiple valve replacements were excluded from our cohort. Baseline clinical, perioperative, and follow-up data were recorded prospectively. The mean follow-up was 8.6 ± 5.9 years, for a total of 3,299 valve-years. Follow-up was complete for 95.3% of patients included., Results: Operative mortality rate was 1.3%. Eighty-five late deaths occurred, for a linearized rate of 2.6%/valve-year. Actuarial survival rates averaged 78.1% ± 2.6%, 65.6% ± 3.5%, and 46.8% ± 6.0% after 10, 15, and 20 years of follow-up, respectively. Mortality rate associated with reoperation was 2.3%. Actuarial freedom from reoperation rates attributable to structural valve deterioration at 10, 15, and 20 years were, respectively, 88.3% ± 2.4%, 70.8% ± 4.1%, and 38.1% ± 5.6%. Competing risk analysis demonstrated an actual risk of explantation secondary to structural valve deterioration at 20 years of 41.6% ± 4.1%. Expected valve durability was 17.6 years for this age group., Conclusions: In selected patients 60 years or younger undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis, the expected valve durability was 17.6 years. Reoperation for structural valve deterioration was associated with a low risk of mortality., (Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) has demonstrated good long-term outcomes, but its durability remains unclear depending on age at implantation. We report our 20-year experience with the Perimount valve implanted in the aortic position, with particular attention to the probability and time to reoperation required due to bioprosthesis deterioration., Methods: From 1984 to 2008 at our center, 2,659 patients (mean age, 70.7 ± 10.4 years) underwent aortic valve replacement using the Perimount pericardial bioprostheses. Patients were prospectively followed on an annual basis (mean 6.7 ± 4.8 years, range 0 to 24.6 years) with an echocardiogram at the time of follow-up. Cumulative follow-up was 18,404 valve-years. Bioprosthesis structural valve deterioration was determined by strict echocardiographic assessment., Results: Overall operative mortality was 2.8%. Actuarial survival rates including early deaths averaged 52.4% ± 1.2%, 31.1% ± 1.4%, and 14.4% ± 1.7% after 10, 15, and 20 years of follow-up, respectively. Age-stratified freedom from reoperation due to structural valve deterioration at 15 and 20 years was 70.8% ± 4.1% and 38.1% ± 5.6%, respectively, for the group aged 60 years or less, 82.7% ± 2.9% and 59.6% ± 7.6% for those 60 to 70 years, and 98.1% ± 0.8% at 15 years and above for the oldest group. Expected valve durability is 19.7 years for the entire cohort., Conclusions: With a low rate of valve-related events at 20 years, and particularly a low rate of structural valve deterioration, the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis remains a reliable choice for a tissue valve in the aortic position, especially in patients over 60 years of age., (Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the very-long-term results of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in the mitral position., Methods: From 1984 to 2011, 450 Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial mitral bioprostheses were implanted in 404 consecutive patients (mean age, 68 years; 53% female). Patients undergoing multiple valve replacements were excluded. The clinical, operative, and follow-up data were prospectively recorded. The mean follow-up was 7.2±5.1 years, for a total of 3258 valve-years. The follow-up data were 97.8% complete., Results: The operative mortality rate was 3.3%. A total of 188 late deaths occurred, for a linearized rate of 5.8%/valve-year. At 20 years, the overall actuarial survival rate was 16.9%±3.9%. Age at implantation, preoperative New York Heart Association class III or IV, and redo procedure were significant risk factors affecting late survival. The actuarial freedom from complications at 20 years was thromboembolism, 83.9%±7.6%; hemorrhage, 80.2%±10.8%; endocarditis, 94.8%±1.4%; structural valve deterioration, 23.7%±6.9%; and explantation owing to structural valve deterioration, 40.5%±8.0%. The competing risk analysis demonstrated an actual risk of explantation owing to structural valve deterioration at 20 years of 25.5%±2.9%. The expected valve durability was 16.6 years for the entire cohort (11.4, 16.6, and 19.4 years for patients aged <60, 60 to 70, and >70 years, respectively)., Conclusions: With a low rate of valve-related events at 20 years and, in particular, a low rate of structural valve deterioration, the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprosthesis remains a reliable choice for a mitral tissue valve, especially in patients >60 years old., (Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Data of 401 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis between 1984 and 2009 were evaluated. Their mean age was 68.1 ± 10.4 years (range, 22-90 years) and 54.9% were female. The most common etiology was degenerative disease (33.2%) and 62.1% of patients had mitral insufficiency. Follow-up was 3,178 patient-years, and 96.8% complete; the mean follow-up was 8.9 ± 3.1 years. Overall survival at 25 years was 10.2% ± 3%. Late mortality was 2.48% per patient-year, and valve-related deaths occurred at 1.62% per patient-year. The actuarial freedom from reoperation due to structural valve deterioration at 20 years was 24.3% ± 2% for degenerative disease and 15% ± 1.4% for non-degenerative disease. For degenerative valve disease, the freedom from structural valve deterioration at 18-years was 39% ± 1% for recipients <60-years old and 66% ± 2% for those ≥60-years old. Our data confirm the excellent durability and low mortality associated with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount for mitral valve replacement. The rate of calcification of the valve was unrelated to degenerative valve disease, but our findings suggest that this prosthesis gives better results in recipients ≥60-years old than in younger patients.