At 5 years, COMMENCE results indicate a favourable safety profile and stable haemodynamic performance of a bioprosthetic valve with RESILIA tissue. Ten-year data in an extended follow-up cohort and the RESILIENCE trial with 11-year follow-up are forthcoming.
SAVR outcomes: a benchmarking perspective
Dr. Vinod Thourani
Aortic Highlights 2024
Prof. Borger
Aortic Highlights course, 2023
Live Case filmed at Hezrklinik Hirslanden, with:
- Prof. Dr. Med. Jürg Grünenfelder
- PD Dr. Med. Patric Biaggi
Prof. Bart Meuris
Be courageous, be experienced, be ethical … according to the Guidelines!
The 2021 update of the ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease, recommends treating patients with severe aortic stenosis younger than 75 years and low risk with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), simplifying the initial patient treatment pathway and preferred mode of intervention. The implication is that valve durability is now even more important because of younger patients’ greater longevity.
Edwards Lifesciences has two ongoing trials, COMMENCE and EU Feasibility, that are evaluating the longevity of a bioprosthetic valve with novel RESILIA tissue. Both trials have demonstrated a favourable safety profile and good haemodynamic performance at 5 years, with additional follow-up to be conducted up to 10 years.1,2
The COMMENCE trial
Safety endpoints, probability event-free:
COMMENCE is an FDA pivotal trial designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the INSPIRIS bioprosthetic aortic valve with the novel RESILIA tissue.1 The 5-year data are now available:
· All-cause mortality 89.2%
· Major paravalvular leak 99.5%
· Endocarditis 97.8%
Improved haemodynamic performance from baseline
The absence of structural valve deterioration through 5 years* and the presence of stable gradients, plus freedom from regurgitation support durability over the observational period.
*One case of structural valve deterioration was diagnosed at postoperative Day 1,848.
The RESILIA EU Feasibility study
The RESILIA EU Feasibility study has investigated the safety and performance in aortic valve replacement patients of the bioprosthesis with the novel RESILIA tissue at 5 years.2 Here, we summarise the results at 5 years:
Stable haemodynamic performance:
Mean gradient was 14.8 ± 7.6 mmHg
Average effective orifice area was 1.4 ± 0.5 cm2
Zero structural valve deterioration events and stable transvalvular gradients were observed at 5 years.
At 5-years, results from the EU Feasibility study represent the longest follow-up of aortic valve replacement patients with RESILIA tissue and demonstrate excellent haemodynamic performance and safety outcomes.1
Recommended resources
https://edwardseducation.com/edwardsmasters/the-latest-tissue-valve-technology-responding-to-the-unmet-needs-in-avr/
References
1. Bavaria J, Griffith B, Heimansohn DA et al. Five-year outcomes of the COMMENCE trial investigating aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis. Presented at the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Annual Meeting, January 29-31, 2021.
2. Bartus K, Litwinowicz R, Bilewska A et al. Final 5-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 59: 434–41.
No clinical data are available that evaluate the long-term impact of RESILIA tissue in patients.
For professional use. For a listing of indications, contraindications, precautions, warnings, and potential adverse events, please refer to the Instructions for Use (consult eifu.edwards.com where applicable).
Edwards devices placed on the European market meeting the essential requirements referred to in Article 3 of the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC bear the CE marking of conformity.
Edwards, Edwards Lifesciences, the stylized E logo, COMMENCE, INSPIRIS, INSPIRIS RESILIA, and RESILIA are trademarks or service marks of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation or its affiliates. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2021 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. All rights reserved. PP–EU-2948 v1.0
Edwards Lifesciences • Route de l’Etraz 70, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland • edwards.com
With the publication of the 2021 update to ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease, new guidance should be considered when caring for patients with severe aortic stenosis.1
Three key recommendations stand out:
Early intervention is recommended for asymptomatic patients with a LVEF below 55% without another cause
An emphasis on Heart Team collaboration to provide the optimal treatment while informing and involving patients in their decision-making
A clear age delineation that patients younger than 75 years of age with severe aortic stenosis receive SAVR, and patients older receive TAVI
It is established that the durability of modern surgical bioprosthetic valves is over 10 years,2 and in recent years there has been a trend towards a greater use of bioprosthetic valves.3 On the other hand, mechanical valves continue to be associated with bleeding risks because of the need for lifelong anticoagulation therapy, leading to lifestyle changes.4-6
Several large, long-term studies have demonstrated up to 20-year durability for the bioprosthetic Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT
aortic valve.2,7,8
Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT valve
Two ongoing trials, COMMENCE and EU Feasibility, are evaluating the longevity of bioprosthetic aortic valves with novel RESILIA tissue after five-year implantation. Five-year results from these studies have demonstrated a favourable safety profile and good haemodynamic performance.9,10
INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve
Another study found that the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve reduced the length of hospital stay compared with mechanical valves (6.6 days versus 10.3 days).11 Selecting the right treatment for the patient requires many considerations, most importantly the desire of the informed patient.
Additionally, the Heart Team needs to consider the age, estimated life expectancy, comorbidities, and anatomical and procedural characteristics of the patient; relative risks and long-term outcomes associated with SAVR or TAVI; prosthetic heart valve durability; feasibility of transfemoral TAVI; and local experience and outcome data to achieve optimal outcomes for patients.1
Recommended resources
References
1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2021: doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395.
2. Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: Implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 1239–47
3. Bartus K, Sadowski J, Litwinowicz R et al. Changing trends in aortic valve procedures over the past ten years—from mechanical prosthesis via stented bioprosthesis to TAVI procedures—analysis of 50,846 aortic valve cases based on a Polish National Cardiac Surgery Database. J Thorac Dis. 2019; 11: 2340–9.
4. Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38: 2183–91.
5. Reul RM, Ramchandani MK, Reardon MJ. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve procedure in patients with bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovasc J. 2017; 13: 132.
6. Swinkels B, Ten Berg J, Kelder J et al. What can we learn from the past by means of very long-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement? J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 3925.
7. Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo A-L, Candolfi P et al.Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 831–7.
8. Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 96: 486–93.
9. Bartus K, Litwinowicz R, Bilewska A et al. Final 5-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2021; 59: 434–41.
10. Bavaria J, Griffith B, Heimansohn DA et al. Five-year outcomes of the COMMENCE trial investigating aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis. Presented at the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Annual Meeting 2021.
11. Meuris B. Innovation in anticalcification technology in heart valves leads to lower hospital stay in adults undergoing aortic valve replacement. Oral Presentation at HTAi 2021 virtual congress.
No clinical data are available that evaluate the long-term impact of RESILIA tissue in patients.
For professional use. For a listing of indications, contraindications, precautions, warnings, and potential adverse events, please refer to the Instructions for Use (consult eifu.edwards.com where applicable).
Edwards devices placed on the European market meeting the essential requirements referred to in Article 3 of the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC bear the CE marking of conformity.
Edwards, Edwards Lifesciences, the stylized E logo, Carpentier-Edwards, Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT, COMMENCE, INSPIRIS, INSPIRIS RESILIA, PERIMOUNT, and RESILIA are trademarks or service marks of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation or its affiliates. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2021 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. All rights reserved. PP–EU-2950 v1.0
Edwards Lifesciences • Route de l’Etraz 70, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland • edwards.com
Prosthetic valve choice and mode of intervention for aortic valve replacement in younger patients have been controversial because of concerns about long-term durability. The 2021 update to the ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease makes recommendations for patients with severe aortic stenosis, based on available evidence and
valve replacement innovation.1
In patients with severe aortic stenosis, age is now a key determining factor in the initial
choice between SAVR or TAVI. This change simplifies the initial patient treatment pathway
and preferred mode of intervention for patients with severe aortic stenosis.
The guidelines emphasise that while the durability of surgical bioprosthetic valves
beyond 10 years is well established, evidence supporting the durability of TAVI valves is
more limited.
As valve durability is a key consideration in younger patients (<75 years) at low surgical risk, SAVR (if feasible) is the preferred treatment option. SAVR is also recommended for patients who are unsuitable for transfemoral TAVI and operable.
The guidelines recommend TAVI for older patients (≥75 years) and those who are inoperable or high risk for surgery (particularly if feasible via the transfemoral approach).
SAVR or TAVI are recommended for remaining patients according to individual
clinical, anatomical and procedural characteristics.
Prosthesis selection: Tissue or mechanical valve?
If the Heart Team and patient agree that SAVR is the way forward, the choice between mechanical and biological valves comes to the fore. Key factors for the Heart Team to consider are:
- The patient’s life expectancy
- Lifestyle and environmental factors
- Bleeding and thromboembolic risk related to anticoagulation
- Potential for surgical or transcatheter reintervention
- Informed patient choice
The evidence continues to support the use of aortic bioprostheses for patients over 65 years of age, but just how durable are bioprostheses?
Latest recommendations are supported by real-world evidence and consistent clinical outcomes
Several large, long-term studies have demonstrated the excellent long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT aortic valve.2–9
Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT valve
Overall expected valve durability of the PERIMOUNT aortic valve is 19.7 years.2-4
- Broken down by age, durability was
- 17.6 years for patients aged ≤60 years
- 19 years for patients aged 50–65 years
- 22.1 years for patients aged 60–70 years
- Twenty-year probability of explant due to SVD across all age groups is 5.4%7
- Younger age at implantation is associated with a higher risk of structural valve deterioration,2,6-9 but durability is good even in these younger patients2,6-9
Recommended resources
References
1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2021:
2. Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo A-L, Candolfi P et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 831–7.
3. Bourguignon T, El Khoury R, Candolfi P et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve in patients aged 60 or younger. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 100: 853–9.
4. Bourguignon T, Lhommet P, El Khoury R et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve in patients aged 50–65 years. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2016; 49: 1462–8.
5. Forcillo J, El Hamamsy I, Stevens LM et al. The Perimount valve in the aortic position: Twenty-year experience with patients under 60 years old. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 97: 1526–32.
6. Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 96: 486–93.
7. Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: Implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 1239–47.
8. McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 89: 1410–6.
9. Minakata K, Tanaka S, Okawa Y et al. Long-term outcome of the Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial valve in the aortic position in Japanese Patients. Circ J. 2014; 78: 882–9.
For professional use. For a listing of indications, contraindications, precautions, warnings, and potential adverse events, please refer to the Instructions for Use (consult eifu.edwards.com where applicable).
Edwards devices placed on the European market meeting the essential requirements referred to in Article 3 of the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC bear the CE marking of conformity.
Edwards, Edwards Lifesciences, the stylized E logo, Carpentier-Edwards, Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT, INSPIRIS, INSPIRIS RESILIA, Magna, Magna Ease, PERI, PERIMOUNT, RESILIA and SAPIEN are trademarks of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2021 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. All rights reserved. PP–EU-2949 v1.0
Edwards Lifesciences • Route de l’Etraz 70, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland • edwards.com
Dr. Martin Andreas
