Hemodynamic Comparison between the Avalus and the Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis up to 5 Years

 

 Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background We aimed to compare hemodynamic performance of the Avalus (Medtronic) and the Perimount Magna Ease (PME, Edwards Lifesciences) bioprosthesis up to 5 years by serial echocardiographic examinations.

Methods In patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, 58 received PME prostheses between October 2007 and October 2008, and another 60 received Avalus prostheses between October 2014 and November 2015. To ensure similar baseline characteristics, we performed a propensity score matching based on left ventricular ejection fraction, age, body surface area, and aortic annulus diameter measured by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. Thereafter, 48 patients remained in each group. Mean age at operation was 67 ± 6 years and mean EuroSCORE-II was 1.7 ± 1.1. Both values did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Results At 1 year the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 15.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.32). The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.65 ± 0.45 cm² in the PME group and 1.62 ± 0.45 cm² in the Avalus group (p = 0.79). At 5 years the MPG was 16.6 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 7.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.20). The EOA was 1.60 ± 0.49 cm² in the PME group and 1.51 ± 0.40 cm² in the Avalus group (p = 0.38). Five-year survival was 88% in the PME group and 91% in the Avalus group (p = 0.5). In the PME group, there were no reoperations on the aortic valve, whereas in the Avalus group three patients required a reoperation due to endocarditis.

Conclusion Both bioprostheses exhibit similar hemodynamic performance during a 5-year follow-up.

Authors' Contribution

N.B. and M.B. performed data collection, analysis, and writing of the manuscript together, and thus contributed equally to the manuscript.

^* These authors contributed equally.

Publication History

Received: 01 August 2022

Accepted: 30 September 2022

Article published online:
03 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Beckmann A, Meyer R, Lewandowski J, Markewitz A, Gummert J. German heart surgery report 2020: the annual updated registry of the German society for thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 69 (04) 294-307
  Google Scholar
• 2 Guenzinger R, Fiegl K, Wottke M, Lange RS. Jude Medical Biocor Bioprosthesis in the Aortic Position. Twenty-seven-year experience with the St. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100 (06) 2220-2226
  Google Scholar
• 3 Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo AL, Candolfi P. et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99 (03) 831-837
  Google Scholar
• 4 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
  Google Scholar
• 5 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
  Google Scholar
• 6 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
  Google Scholar
• 7 Kiaii BB, Moront MG, Patel HJ. et al. Outcomes of surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged ≤65 and >65 years. Ann Thorac Surg 2023; 116 (03) 483-490
  Google Scholar
• 8 Généreux P, Piazza N, Alu MC. et al; VARC-3 WRITING COMMITTEE. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur Heart J 2021; 42 (19) 1825-1857
  Google Scholar
• 9 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
  Google Scholar
• 10 Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP. et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96 (02) 486-493
  Google Scholar
• 11 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
  Google Scholar
• 12 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
  Google Scholar
• 13 Bleiziffer S, Eichinger WB, Hettich I. et al. Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on exercise capacity in patients after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Heart 2008; 94 (05) 637-641
  Google Scholar
• 14 Swinkels BM, de Mol BA, Kelder JC, Vermeulen FE, ten Berg JM. Prosthesis–patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement: effect on long-term survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101 (04) 1388-1394
  Google Scholar
• 15 Biancari F, Valtola A, Juvonen T. et al. Trifecta versus perimount magna ease aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 2020; 110 (03) 879-888
  Google Scholar
• 16 Vriesendorp MD, de Lind van Wijngaarden RAF, Rao V. et al. An in vitro comparison of internally versus externally mounted leaflets in surgical aortic bioprostheses. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2020; 30 (03) 417-423
  Google Scholar
• 17 Lange R, Alalawi Z, Voss S, Boehm J, Krane M, Vitanova K. Different rates of bioprosthetic aortic valve failure with Perimount™ and Trifecta™ bioprostheses. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022; 8: 822893
  Google Scholar