The results of using the frame xenopericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position with the “easy change” system 12 months after implantation
Abstract
The aim of this work is to study midterm results after the implantation of a frame-mounted xenopericardial bioprosthesis into aortal position with the “easy change” system.
Material and methods. 80 patients, mean age 71.4±4.2 underwent aortic valve replacement by a bioprosthesis with the “easy change” system at Cardiology Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences between October 2016 and December 2018. Aortic valve peak pressure gradient was 86.3±29.3 mm Hg preoperatively, the mean gradient was elevated up to 50.5±18.8 mm Hg. Echocardiography of the aortal prosthesis and the left ventricle (LV) was performed by Vivid 7, GE, and IE 33 systems (Philips) preoperatively, before the discharge (14th day after surgery in average), and in 6–12 months after surgery in all patients.
Results. The control echocardiography performed in 6–12 months showed that hemodynamic characteristics of MedEng-BIO aortal bioprostheses were satisfactory. There were no statistically significant changes in the LV function. The effective orifice area of MedEng-BIO valves was 0.91 cm2 for the valve size 21, 1.2 cm2 for size 23, and 1.3 cm2 for size 25 mm respectively. The peak pressure gradient decreased by 41.5% and the mean gradient decreased by 48.4% in 6 months.
Conclusions. The data mentioned above prove that MedEng-BIO aortal xenopericardial bioprosthesis considerably improve intracardiac dynamics. However, it is necessary to increase the number of cases and prolong the period of observations to make final and statistically significant conclusions about the effectiveness and feasibility of this surgical technique. At a later stage, the results of patient monitoring will be presented to assess the changes in LV function, as well as to study the likelihood of prosthesis-related specific complications.
Keywords:aortic valve, aortic valve replacement, bioprosthesis
Conflict of interests. The authors declare no conflict of interests.
For citation: Kozlov B.N., Petlin K.A., Kosovskikh E.A., Pryakhin A.S., Shipulin V.M., Vrublevsky A.V., Panfilov D.S., Katkov V.A. The results of using the frame xenopericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position with the “easy change” system 12 months after implantation. Clin Experiment Surg. Petrovsky J. 2020; 8 (2): 45–50. DOI: 10.33029/2308-1198-2020-8-2-45-50 (in Russian) Received 02.12.2019. Accepted 26.03.2020.
References
1. Bailey C. Surgical treatment of aortic stenosis // JAMA. 1952. Vol. 150, N 17. Р. 1647-1652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1952.03680170001001.
2. Murray G., Roschlau W., Lougheed W. Homologous Aortic-Valve-Segment Transplants as Surgical Treatment for Aortic and Mitral Insufficiency // Angiology. 1956. Vol. 7, N 5. P. 466-471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000331975600700509.
3. Barratt-Boyes B. Homograft Aortic Valve Replacement in Aortic Incompetence and Stenosis // Thorax. 1964. Vol. 19, N 2. P. 131-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.19.2.131.
4. Ross D. Aortic-valve replacement // Lancet. 1966. Vol. 288, N 7461. P. 461-463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(66)92769-3.
5. Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database Committee. Annual Report 1999. Durham, N.C. : STS, 2000. 52 p.
6. Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Data- base Committee. Shahian D.M, Chair, Peterson ED, Principal Investigator. Data analyses of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac Surgery Data-base. October 11,2011 (data through June 30, 2011). Durham, N.C.
7. Bokeriya L.A., Gudkova R.G. Serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya-2016. Bolezni i vrozhdennyye anomalii sistemy krovoobrashcheniya. Moscow, 2016. 208 p. (in Russian)
8. Foroutan F. et al. Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies // BMJ. 2016; 354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5065.
9. Khan S.,Trento A., DeRobertis M. et al. Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement // J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2001. Vol. 122, N 2. P. 257- 269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2001.115238.
10. Onorati F., Biancari F., De Feo M. et al. Mid-term results of aortic valve surgery in redo scenarios in the current practice: results from the multicentre European RECORD (REdo Cardiac Operation Research Database) initiative // Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2014. Vol. 47, N 2. P. 269-280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu116.
11. Akins C., Miller D., Turina M. et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions // Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2008. Vol. 33, N 4. P. 523-528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.12.055.
12. Azadani A., Tseng E. Transcatheter Heart Valves for Failing Bioprostheses: State-of-the-Art Review of Valve- in-Valve Implantation // Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2011. Vol. 4, N 6. P. 621-628. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.111.964478.
13. Siemieniuk R., Agoritsas T., Manja V. et al. Trans-catheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis // BMJ. 2016. i5130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5130.
14. Kozlov B.N., Petlin K.A., Pryakhin A.S., Shchedrin A.V., Panfilov D.S., Shipulin V.M. First clinical experience of composite stented xenopericardial bio-prosthesis deployment in aortic position. Kardiologiya i serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya [Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery]. 2018; 11 (3): 41–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio201811341. (in Russian)