Stentless Pericarbon Freedom Versus Stented Perimount Aortic Bioprosthesis: Propensity-Matched Long-Term Follow-Up

Abstract

Objective

Stentless aortic valves have shown superior hemodynamic performance and faster left ventricular mass regression compared to stented bioprostheses. Yet, controversies exist concerning the durability of stentless valves. This case-matched study compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes of stentless LivaNova-Sorin Pericarbon Freedom™ (SPF) and stented Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CEP) aortic prostheses.

Methods

From 2003 through 2006, 134 consecutive patients received aortic valve replacement with SPF at our institution. This cohort was matched, according to 20 preoperative clinical parameters, with a control group of 390 patients who received CEP prosthesis during the same time. The resulting 55 + 55 matched patients were analyzed for perioperative results and long-term clinical outcomes.

Results

Early mortality was 0% for both groups. Lower transvalvular gradients were found in the SPF group (10.6 ± 2.9 versus 15.7 ± 3.1 mmHg, P < 0.001). Overall late mortality (mean follow-up: 10.03 years) was similar for both groups (50.1% versus 42.8%, P = 0.96). Freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) at 13 years was similar for both groups (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 73.9%, P = 0.06). Freedom from aortic valve reinterventions did not differ (SPF = 92.3%, CEP = 93.5%, P = 0.55). Gradients at 13-year follow-up remained significantly lower in SPF group (10.0 ± 4.5 versus 16.2 ± 9.5 mmHg, P < 0.001). Incidence of acute bacterial endocarditis (ABE) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was similar.

Conclusions

SPF and CEP demonstrated comparable long-term outcomes related to late mortality, SVD, aortic valve reinterventions, and incidence of ABE and MACCE. Superior hemodynamic performance of SPF over time can make this valve a suitable choice in patients with small aortic root and large body surface area.

Keywords

aortic valve replacement stentless valve stented valve propensity matching

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Durko

AP.

Head

SJ.

Pibarot

et al. Characteristics of surgical prosthetic heart valves and problems around labeling: a document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)-The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Valve Labelling Task Force. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 158: 1041–1054.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.04.001

31084981

Dvir

Bourguignon

Otto

et al. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation 2018; 137: 388–399.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030729

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29358344

Ali

Halstead

JC.

Cafferty

et al. Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Circulation 2006; 114(1 Suppl): I-535–I-530.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.000950

16820633

Perez de Arenaza

Lees

Flather

et al. Randomized comparison of stentless versus stented valves for aortic stenosis: effects on left ventricular mass. Circulation 2005; 112: 2696–2702.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.521161

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16230487

Gulbins

Reichenspurner

. Which patients benefit from stentless aortic valve replacement? Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88: 2061–2068.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.06.060

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19932303

Narang

Satsangi

DK.

Banerjee

et al. Stentless valves versus stented bioprostheses at the aortic position: midterm results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 136: 943–947.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.06.016

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954634

van der Straaten

EPJ.

Rademakers

LM.

van Straten

AHM

et al. Mid-term haemodynamic and clinical results after aortic valve replacement using the Freedom Solo stentless bioprosthesis versus the Carpentier Edwards Perimount stented bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 1174–1180.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv255

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26224338

Wollersheim

LW.

WW.

Kaya

et al. Stentless vs stented aortic valve bioprostheses in the small aortic root. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 28: 390–397.doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2016.02.012

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28043449

Repossini

Fischlein

Santarpino

et al. Pericardial stentless valve for aortic valve replacement: long-term results. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102: 1956–1965.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.080

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27544291

10.

Kunadian

Vijayalakshmi

Thornley

et al. Meta-analysis of valve hemodynamics and left ventricular mass regression for stentless versus stented aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 84: 73–78.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.02.057

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17588387

11.

Dvir

Bourguignon

Otto

et al. Standardized definition of structural valve degeneration for surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves. Circulation 2018; 137: 388–399.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030729

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29358344

12.

Koene

BM.

Soliman Hamad

MA.

Bouma

et al. Can postoperative mean transprosthetic pressure gradient predict survival after aortic valve replacement? Clin Res Cardiol 2014; 103: 133–140.doi:10.1007/s00392-013-0629-3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24136290

13.

Flameng

Herregods

M-C.

Vercalsteren

et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation 2010; 121: 2123–2129.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.901272

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439787

14.

Bleiziffer

Eichinger

WB.

Hettich

et al. Impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on exercise capacity in patients after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Heart 2008; 94: 637–641.doi:10.1136/hrt.2007.116673

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17686803

15.

Bakhtiary

Schiemann

Dzemali

et al. Stentless bioprostheses improve postoperative coronary flow more than stented prostheses after valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131: 883–888.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.10.055

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16580448

16.

Wilbring

Alexiou

Schumann

et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus-a high-risk group on long-term follow-up. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 61: 379–385.doi:10.1055/s-0032-1331577

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23258763

17.

Borger

MA.

Carson

SM.

Ivanov

et al. Stentless aortic valves are hemodynamically superior to stented valves during mid-term follow-up: a large retrospective study. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 2180–2185.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.05.055

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16305867

18.

Dunning

Graham

RJ.

Thambyrajah

et al. Stentless vs. stented aortic valve bioprostheses: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 2369–2374.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm327

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17670757

19.

Ali

Halstead

JC.

Cafferty

et al. Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after stented and stentless aortic valve replacement: results from a randomized controlled trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83: 2162–2168.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.01.021

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17532416

20.

Cheng

Pepper

Martin

et al. Stentless versus stented bioprosthetic aortic valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Innovations 2009; 4: 61–73.doi:10.1097/IMI.0b013e3181a3484b

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22436986

21.

Schaefer

Dickow

Schoen

et al. Stentless vs. stented bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: a case matched comparison of long-term follow-up and subgroup analysis of patients with native valve endocarditis. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0191171.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191171

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29338037

22.

Stanger

Bleuel

Reineke

et al. Pitfalls and premature failure of the Freedom SOLO stentless valve. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 48: 562–570.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu473

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25543174

23.

Carrel

. Mid-term haemodynamic is important after implantation of a tissue valve but long-term durability is what makes the difference. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49: 1180–1181.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv284

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26362427

24.

Stacchino

Bona

Rinaldi

et al. Design and performance characteristics of the Pericarbon Stentless valve. J Heart Valve Dis 1995; 4(Suppl 1): S102–S105.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8581203

25.

Bourguignon

Bouquiaux-Stablo

A-L.

Candolfi

et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99: 831–837.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.09.030

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25583467

26.

Miraldi

Spagnesi

Tallarico

et al. Sorin stentless pericardial valve versus Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis: is it worthwhile to struggle? Int J Cardiol 2007; 118: 253–255.doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.164

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045674

27.

Fries

Wendler

Schieffer

et al. Comparative rest and exercise hemodynamics of 23-mm stentless versus 23-mm stented aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 69: 817–822.doi:10.1016/S0003-4975(99)01409-5

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10750766

28.

Stefanelli

Pirro

Olaru

et al. Long-term outcomes using the stentless LivaNova-Sorin Pericarbon Freedom™ valve after aortic valve replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2018; 27: 116–123.doi:10.1093/icvts/ivy012

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29481624

29.

Ejiofor

JI.

Yammine

Harloff

et al. Reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter valve-in-valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102: 1452–1458.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.086

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27526654

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.37 MB

0.00 MB