A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 contemporary bioprosthetic aortic valves: Should hemodynamic performance influence device selection?

Rakesh M. Suri, Hector I Michelena, Harold M. Burkhart, Kevin L. Greason, Richard C. Daly, Joseph A. Dearani, Soon J. Park, Lyle D. Joyce, John M. Stulak, Thoralf M. Sundt, Zhuo Li, Hartzell V Schaff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Latest generation biologic aortic valve prostheses were designed to improve hemodynamic performance. We sought to determine whether there are clinically important early differences among these devices. Methods: Three hundred adults with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive the Edwards Magna, Sorin Mitroflow, or St. Jude Epic bioprostheses (n = 100, n = 101, n = 99, respectively). Early hemodynamic performance was studied by echocardiography. Results: Mean patient age was 76 ± 8 years and there were 203 men (68%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among implant groups. Early mortality was 1.7%, and there were no differences in early adverse events. Postoperative echocardiography showed small but statistically significant differences overall between the Magna, Mitroflow, and Epic valves in mean gradient (14.2 mm Hg, 16.3 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg, respectively; P = .011), aortic valve area (2.05 cm2, 1.88 cm2, 1.86 cm2, respectively; P = .012), and indexed aortic valve area (1.05 cm 2/m2, 0.97 cm2/m2, 0.95 cm 2/m2, respectively; P = .012). Prosthetic performance was similar among all with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. Patients who received the Magna device with a 23-mm annulus had slightly greater indexed aortic valve area; those with >23 mm had a slightly lower transprosthetic gradient. Analogous trends were found when data were stratified by either commercial implant size or echocardiography-determined aortic annulus size. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was infrequent overall and was similarly low among devices (P value not significant). Conclusions: This prospective, randomized comparison reveals that there are small but consistent early postoperative hemodynamic differences among current third-generation porcine and pericardial aortic valve prostheses. The 3 valves studied performed equally well in patients with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. The Magna valve had a slightly lower mean gradient in those with larger annular size (>23 mm). Longitudinal follow-up of these randomized cohorts is essential to determine late clinical implications of these early postoperative findings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1387-1398
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume144
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2012

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve
Hemodynamics
Equipment and Supplies
Prostheses and Implants
Echocardiography
Bioprosthesis
Aortic Valve Stenosis
Swine
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 contemporary bioprosthetic aortic valves : Should hemodynamic performance influence device selection? / Suri, Rakesh M.; Michelena, Hector I; Burkhart, Harold M.; Greason, Kevin L.; Daly, Richard C.; Dearani, Joseph A.; Park, Soon J.; Joyce, Lyle D.; Stulak, John M.; Sundt, Thoralf M.; Li, Zhuo; Schaff, Hartzell V.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 144, No. 6, 12.2012, p. 1387-1398.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Suri, Rakesh M. ; Michelena, Hector I ; Burkhart, Harold M. ; Greason, Kevin L. ; Daly, Richard C. ; Dearani, Joseph A. ; Park, Soon J. ; Joyce, Lyle D. ; Stulak, John M. ; Sundt, Thoralf M. ; Li, Zhuo ; Schaff, Hartzell V. / A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 contemporary bioprosthetic aortic valves : Should hemodynamic performance influence device selection?. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 144, No. 6. pp. 1387-1398.
@article{6b3e9c156eaf475f8d76aa32062abf65,
title = "A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 contemporary bioprosthetic aortic valves: Should hemodynamic performance influence device selection?",
abstract = "Objective: Latest generation biologic aortic valve prostheses were designed to improve hemodynamic performance. We sought to determine whether there are clinically important early differences among these devices. Methods: Three hundred adults with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive the Edwards Magna, Sorin Mitroflow, or St. Jude Epic bioprostheses (n = 100, n = 101, n = 99, respectively). Early hemodynamic performance was studied by echocardiography. Results: Mean patient age was 76 ± 8 years and there were 203 men (68{\%}). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among implant groups. Early mortality was 1.7{\%}, and there were no differences in early adverse events. Postoperative echocardiography showed small but statistically significant differences overall between the Magna, Mitroflow, and Epic valves in mean gradient (14.2 mm Hg, 16.3 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg, respectively; P = .011), aortic valve area (2.05 cm2, 1.88 cm2, 1.86 cm2, respectively; P = .012), and indexed aortic valve area (1.05 cm 2/m2, 0.97 cm2/m2, 0.95 cm 2/m2, respectively; P = .012). Prosthetic performance was similar among all with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. Patients who received the Magna device with a 23-mm annulus had slightly greater indexed aortic valve area; those with >23 mm had a slightly lower transprosthetic gradient. Analogous trends were found when data were stratified by either commercial implant size or echocardiography-determined aortic annulus size. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was infrequent overall and was similarly low among devices (P value not significant). Conclusions: This prospective, randomized comparison reveals that there are small but consistent early postoperative hemodynamic differences among current third-generation porcine and pericardial aortic valve prostheses. The 3 valves studied performed equally well in patients with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. The Magna valve had a slightly lower mean gradient in those with larger annular size (>23 mm). Longitudinal follow-up of these randomized cohorts is essential to determine late clinical implications of these early postoperative findings.",
author = "Suri, {Rakesh M.} and Michelena, {Hector I} and Burkhart, {Harold M.} and Greason, {Kevin L.} and Daly, {Richard C.} and Dearani, {Joseph A.} and Park, {Soon J.} and Joyce, {Lyle D.} and Stulak, {John M.} and Sundt, {Thoralf M.} and Zhuo Li and Schaff, {Hartzell V}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.105",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "144",
pages = "1387--1398",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective, randomized comparison of 3 contemporary bioprosthetic aortic valves

T2 - Should hemodynamic performance influence device selection?

AU - Suri, Rakesh M.

AU - Michelena, Hector I

AU - Burkhart, Harold M.

AU - Greason, Kevin L.

AU - Daly, Richard C.

AU - Dearani, Joseph A.

AU - Park, Soon J.

AU - Joyce, Lyle D.

AU - Stulak, John M.

AU - Sundt, Thoralf M.

AU - Li, Zhuo

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Objective: Latest generation biologic aortic valve prostheses were designed to improve hemodynamic performance. We sought to determine whether there are clinically important early differences among these devices. Methods: Three hundred adults with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive the Edwards Magna, Sorin Mitroflow, or St. Jude Epic bioprostheses (n = 100, n = 101, n = 99, respectively). Early hemodynamic performance was studied by echocardiography. Results: Mean patient age was 76 ± 8 years and there were 203 men (68%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among implant groups. Early mortality was 1.7%, and there were no differences in early adverse events. Postoperative echocardiography showed small but statistically significant differences overall between the Magna, Mitroflow, and Epic valves in mean gradient (14.2 mm Hg, 16.3 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg, respectively; P = .011), aortic valve area (2.05 cm2, 1.88 cm2, 1.86 cm2, respectively; P = .012), and indexed aortic valve area (1.05 cm 2/m2, 0.97 cm2/m2, 0.95 cm 2/m2, respectively; P = .012). Prosthetic performance was similar among all with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. Patients who received the Magna device with a 23-mm annulus had slightly greater indexed aortic valve area; those with >23 mm had a slightly lower transprosthetic gradient. Analogous trends were found when data were stratified by either commercial implant size or echocardiography-determined aortic annulus size. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was infrequent overall and was similarly low among devices (P value not significant). Conclusions: This prospective, randomized comparison reveals that there are small but consistent early postoperative hemodynamic differences among current third-generation porcine and pericardial aortic valve prostheses. The 3 valves studied performed equally well in patients with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. The Magna valve had a slightly lower mean gradient in those with larger annular size (>23 mm). Longitudinal follow-up of these randomized cohorts is essential to determine late clinical implications of these early postoperative findings.

AB - Objective: Latest generation biologic aortic valve prostheses were designed to improve hemodynamic performance. We sought to determine whether there are clinically important early differences among these devices. Methods: Three hundred adults with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive the Edwards Magna, Sorin Mitroflow, or St. Jude Epic bioprostheses (n = 100, n = 101, n = 99, respectively). Early hemodynamic performance was studied by echocardiography. Results: Mean patient age was 76 ± 8 years and there were 203 men (68%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among implant groups. Early mortality was 1.7%, and there were no differences in early adverse events. Postoperative echocardiography showed small but statistically significant differences overall between the Magna, Mitroflow, and Epic valves in mean gradient (14.2 mm Hg, 16.3 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg, respectively; P = .011), aortic valve area (2.05 cm2, 1.88 cm2, 1.86 cm2, respectively; P = .012), and indexed aortic valve area (1.05 cm 2/m2, 0.97 cm2/m2, 0.95 cm 2/m2, respectively; P = .012). Prosthetic performance was similar among all with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. Patients who received the Magna device with a 23-mm annulus had slightly greater indexed aortic valve area; those with >23 mm had a slightly lower transprosthetic gradient. Analogous trends were found when data were stratified by either commercial implant size or echocardiography-determined aortic annulus size. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was infrequent overall and was similarly low among devices (P value not significant). Conclusions: This prospective, randomized comparison reveals that there are small but consistent early postoperative hemodynamic differences among current third-generation porcine and pericardial aortic valve prostheses. The 3 valves studied performed equally well in patients with a small (≤21 mm) aortic annulus. The Magna valve had a slightly lower mean gradient in those with larger annular size (>23 mm). Longitudinal follow-up of these randomized cohorts is essential to determine late clinical implications of these early postoperative findings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869036701&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869036701&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.105

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.105

M3 - Article

C2 - 23140964

AN - SCOPUS:84869036701

VL - 144

SP - 1387

EP - 1398

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 6

ER -