Immediate results of implantation of a modified composite frame xenopericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the immediate hemodynamic
characteristics of the biological modified prosthesis MedInzh-BIO with the
"easy change" system.
Material and
methods. From October 2016
to December 2018 81 patients underwent surgery - aortic valve replacement using
the MedInzh-BIO biological xenopericardial prosthesis (group 1). From January
2019 to January 2020, 44 patients underwent implantation of the modified
MedInzh-BIO bioprosthesis (group 2). The effective orifice area (EPO) of the
affected aortic valve in degenerative lesions did not exceed, as a rule,
1.0 cm2. The peak pressure gradient was increased to an average
of 85.8±29.6 and 79.0±23.6 mm Hg, average gradient up to 50.1±18.7 and 45.9±15.5
mm Hg in group 1 and group 2, respectively. The combined interventions for
aortic valve replacement in both groups did not differ significantly.
Results. When comparing hemodynamic parameters in patients in
the group with modified prostheses, the peak and average gradients were
significantly lower. EPO of MedInzh-BIO valves in group 1, size 21, was
0.91 cm2, size 23 - 1.2 cm2, size 25 - 1.3 cm2.
In patients in the group after modification of the MedInzh-BIO 21
prosthesis, the EPO size was 1.02 cm2, size 23 - 1.3 cm2,
size 25 - 1.6 cm2.
Conclusion. Comparative statistical analysis shows that in the
group of patients with modified Meding-BIO prostheses, hemodynamic parameters
are reliably better, prostheses have a higher EPO and iEPO than in
patients with a prosthesis before modification.
Keywords:aortic valve, aortic valve replacement, bioprosthesis
Funding. The reported study
was funded by RFBR, project number 20-315-90079/20.
Conflict of
interest. The authors declare no
conflict of interest.
For
citation: Kozlov B.N., Petlin K.A.,
Kosovskikh E.A., Vrublevsky A.V., Arsenyeva Yu.A. Immediate results of
implantation of a modified composite frame xenopericardial bioprosthesis in the
aortic position. Clinical and Experimental Surgery. Petrovsky Journal.
2021; 9 (2): 7-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33029/2308-1198-2021-9-2-7-13 (in Russian)
References
1. Yadgir S., Johnson C.O., Aboyans V., et al. Global, regional, and national burden of calcific aortic valve and degenerative mitral valve diseases, 1990-2017. Circulation. 2020; 141 (21): 1670-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043391
2. Baumgartner H., Falk V., Bax J.J., et al. 2017 ESC/ EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38 (36): 2739-91.
3. Goldstone A.B., Chiu P., Baiocchi M., et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1847-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792
4. Brown J.M., O’Brien S.M., Wu C., Sikora J.A., Griffith B.P., Gammie J.S. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 137: 82-90.
5. Bokeriya L.A., Gudkova R.G. Cardiovascular surgery-2018. Diseases and congenital anomalies of the circulatory system. Moscow, 2019. (in Russian)
6. Brennan J.M., Edwards F.H., Zhao Y., O’Brien S., Booth ME., Dokholyan R.S., et al.; DEclDE AVR (Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness - Aortic Valve Replacement) Research Team. Long-term safety and effectiveness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. Circulation. 2013; 127 (16): 1647-55. Epub 2013 Mar 28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002003
7. Roselli E.E., Pettersson G.B., Blackstone E.H., Brizzio M.E., Houghtaling P.L., Hauck R., et al. Adverse events during reoperative cardiac surgery: frequency, characterization, and rescue. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008; 135 (2): 316-23.e1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.08.060
8. 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 bioprosthesis deployment in aortic position. Kardiologiya i serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya [Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery]. 2018; 11 (3): 41-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17116/kardio201811341 (in Russian)
9. Ruel M., Kulik A., Lam B.K., Rubens F.D., Hendry PJ., Masters R.G., et al. Long-term outcomes of valve replacement with modern prostheses in young adults. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005; 27 (3): 425-33. Epub 2004 Dec 30. PMID: 15740951.
10. Kozlov B.N., Petlin K.A., Kosovskikh E.A., Pryakhin A.S., Shipulin V.M., Vrublevsky A.V., et al. The results of using the frame xenopericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position with the «easy change» system 12 months after implantation. Klinicheskaya i eksperimental’naya khirurgiya. Zhurnal imeni aka-demika B.V. Petrovskogo Clinical and Experimental Surgery. Petrovsky Journal. 2020; 8 (2): 45-50. https://doi.org/10.33029/2308-1198-2020-8-2-45-50 (in Russian)
11. Tsubota H., Sakaguchi G., Marui A. Incidence and influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after reoperative aortic valve replacement: a retrospective singlecenter study. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020; 15 (1): 53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-020-01094-2
12. Christiansen S., Schmid M., Autshbach R. Perioperative risk of redo aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 15 (2): 105-10. PMID: 19471224.
13. Chang H.W., Kim W.S., Ahn J.H., Carriere K.C., Jeong D.S., Cho Y.H., et al. Late clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves. J Thorac Dis. 2019; 11 (12): 5372-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.11.65