ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Clinical outcomes of 2 generations of pericardial bioprostheses in concomitant aortic valve and coronary artery bypass graft surgery were analysed. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 2 European centres and divided into 2 groups based on the type of aortic bioprosthesis used: Edwards Intuity Elite™ rapid-deployment (RD) bioprostheses or standard Edwards Magna Ease (ME). A propensity score weighting approach was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients were included: 144 (50.5%) in the RD group and 141 (49.5%) in the ME group. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (RD) and 5% (ME) (P = 0.09). Significantly shorter times of aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass were observed in the RD cohort [94 vs 120 min (P < 0.001); 128 vs 160 min (P < 0.001)]. The RD group was associated with a lower median transvalvular gradient at discharge and follow-up (both P < 0.001). However, 5-year survival was not different, being 93% in RD patients and 91% in the ME group [hazard ratio 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.38-2.09), P = 0.784]. The 5-year cumulative incidence of combined events (including percutaneous coronary interventions, endocarditis, thromboembolic events, rehospitalizations and bleeding) favoured the ME group [16.1% (RD) vs 7.3% (ME)] [hazard ratio 2.38 (95% confidence interval:1.03-5.52), P = 0.043]. However, this turned similar when the Cox model analysis was adjusted for revascularization variables (P = 0.067). CONCLUSIONS: RD and ME pericardial bioprostheses used in concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery revascularization provide equivalent clinical and haemodynamic 5-year outcomes, despite constant lower transvalvular gradients and shorter surgical operating times observed with RD technology.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , Bioprosthesis , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Aortic Valve/surgery , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Bioprosthesis/adverse effects , Coronary Artery Bypass , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Humans , Prosthesis Design , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this multicentre retrospective study was to compare long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease (CEME) bioprosthesis by patient age. METHODS: We included consecutive patients who underwent isolated and combined surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with CEME valve between January 2008 and March 2020 at 4 cardiac surgery centres in Italy. Survival distribution was evaluated at follow-up according to age and surgery type (combined or isolated AVR), together with freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD), reoperation and combined events, i.e. SVD, reoperation, endocarditis and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: A total of 1027 isolated and 1121 combined AVR were included; 776 patients were younger than 65 years whereas 1372 were 65 years or older. The 30-day Valve-Academic-Research-Consortium mortality was 2% (<65 years) and 6% (≥ 65 years) (P < 0.001), whereas it was 3% for isolated AVR and 7% for combined AVR (P < 0.001). The 12-year survival was 81% for those younger than 65 years vs 45% for those equal to or older than 65 years (P < 0.001), whereas they were 61% vs 49% for isolated and combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from combined events, excluding death, was 79% for those younger than 65 years vs 87% for those equal to or older than (P = 0.51), whereas they were 83% for isolated and 86% for combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from SVD was 93% and 93% in patients younger than 65 and those equal to or older than 65 years (P = 0.63), and the results were comparable even in cases with isolated and combined AVR (92% vs 94%, P = 0.21). A multivariable Cox analysis including gender, presence of patient-prosthesis mismatch, isolated AVR and age showed that only the age was an independent risk factor for the incidence of SVD (P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes from this large multicentre analysis demonstrated that a CEME bioprosthesis provides good clinical results and long-term durability even in patients younger than 65 years. Furthermore, the hazard for SVD has been shown to be lower for older age. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 105n/AO/21.
