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.
How to select the most appropriate valve substitute?
Dr. Vitanova
Aortic Highlights course, 2023
Dr. Patrick Klein
MVT Aortic 2022, vol.2
– Listen to what he has to say about total aortic root replacement.
– How can we assess the durability and avoid adverse valve-related events when using mechanical and biological valves?
– Hear about his personal experience using new-generation biological valves in patients 57 ± 7 years old.
Prof. Gino Gerosa
MVT Aortic 2022, vol.1
– From small, to mini, to micro: it’s how technology evolves nowadays, and cardiac surgery is no exception
– When embracing technology, don’t forget to keep ethics in mind and be unbiased
– Keep an open mind and embrace new developments, but don’t forget to critically analyze the data and make your own logical conclusions
Prof. Marco Di Eusanio
MVT Aortic 2022, vol.1
Prof. Augusto d’Onofrio
MVT Aortic 2022, vol.1
– Valve-in-valve, TAVI in TAVI, SAVR after TAVI… familiarize yourself with the mid-to-long-term data for each valve type combination, and transparently inform the patients of not only the benefits but also the risks
– Even the experts say, extracting an infected TAVI is extremely difficult, so be sure to choose the original valve wisely
Prof. Bart Meuris
MVT Aortic 2022, vol.1
- Shorter hospital stays, less anticoagulation, long-term financial savings? Hear about the data of an expert’s personal experience.
- With advanced anti-calcification treatment, the future of bioprostheses is promising not only for patient outcomes, but even from a financial perspective
Dr. Douglas Johnston
STS annual meeting 202
Dr. Mangino – MVT Intermediate 2021
Prof. D’Onofrio – EACTS 2021
Prof. Kocher – EACTS 2021
The recently updated ESC/EACTS Guidelines contain two key changes in the recommendations for prosthetic valve selection:1
- A new Class IIb recommendation for bioprostheses in patients already on long-term NOACs
- An upgraded Class I recommendation for bioprostheses in patients for whom good-quality anticoagulation is unlikely or contraindicated, and in patients whose life-expectancy is lower than the presumed durability of the valve
Importantly, the desire of the informed patient remains central to prosthetic valve selection. Valve durability in young patients is an important consideration, but long-term data on bioprosthetic SAVR have been limited.
INDURE registry
INDURE is a prospective, open-label, multicentre registry that is tackling this issue head-on. INDURE has enrolled over 400 patients aged up to 60 years who are undergoing SAVR with the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve in 21 sites across Europe and Canada. Patients are being followed up for five years, with echocardiograms analysed by Echo Core Laboratory at years one and five.2,3
One-year results from the first 435 patients were reported at the 2021 EACTS Annual Meeting. Younger patients (up to 50 years old) in the registry were more likely to have a bicuspid aortic valve or aortic valve regurgitation at baseline than patients aged 51–60 years, but were less likely to have aortic stenosis, hypertension or diabetes.3
Excellent haemodynamic outcomes at 1 year
The excellent haemodynamic outcomes were comparable in the younger and older patient groups.
Plus, preliminary safety outcomes demonstrated low all-cause mortality and no confirmed cases of valve-related mortality up to one year. Rates of endocarditis and stroke were low (<1%). There were no cases of stage 3 SVD.
The INDURE registry will continue to provide clinical evidence on the use of the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve in young patients for the next 5 years.
References
1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021.
2. Meuris B, Borger MA, Bourguignon T et al. Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients under the age of 60 years – rationale and design of the international INDURE registry. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020; 15: 119.
3. De Paulis R. Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients under 60 years old: A prospective, multicentre real-world registry in Europe and Canada. EACTS 2021.
For professional use. For a listing of indications, contraindications, precautions, warnings, and potential adverse events, please refer to the instructions for Use (consult eifi.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, INSPIRIS, 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-3060 v1.0
Edwards Lifesciences • Route de l’Etraz 70, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland • edwards.com
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
The highly anticipated 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease have finally landed.
We are excited to bring you a summary of the main updates, plus the new materials coming soon to support you and your teams in understanding and implementing the changes.
Key points include:
Treatment recommendations for all patients with severe aortic stenosis to be made by the Heart Team
Intervention options for patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis
Bioprosthetic valves now recommended for those with life expectancy shorter than valve durability
Intervention recommended for patients with secondary mitral regurgitation, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical therapy
Use your experience of severe aortic stenosis to ensure the best patient outcomes
The choice between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) must be made following evaluation of all factors – clinical, anatomical and procedural – weighing the risks and benefits of each approach for all patients with severe aortic stenosis, and after discussion with the patient.
Treatment options have broadened for patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis, including those with systolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (LV ejection fraction <55%) without another cause.
Enable more of your patients to live the active lifestyle they desire
Bioprosthetic valves now have a Class I recommendation for patients with life expectancy lower than the durability of the valve. Now, more of your patients can live a life free from anticoagulation. In addition, bioprosthetic valves may be considered for patients already on long-term novel oral anticoagulants.
Ensure you meet your patients’ high expectations by offering them the best valve technologies.
Be courageous, be experienced, be ethical… according to the guidelines!
Join us from the comfort of your office for a virtual symposium discussing the changes and what they mean for your practice. Eleven speakers from across Europe will cover the implications for the aortic, mitral and tricuspid valves. Click here for the full programme.
Tuesday 21 September 2021
3.00–7.45 pm CET
REGISTER NOW
Coming soon from Edwards
Edwards, Edwards Lifesciences, and the stylized E logo 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. NP–EU-0633 v1.0
Edwards Lifesciences • Route de l’Etraz 70, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland • edwards.com
Prof. Gunther Laufer
MVT Aortic 2021
Leon, Martin B., et al., Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2021) DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.12.052
Aim
Report 2-year findings from PARTNER 3, emphasizing the clinical outcomes from 1 to 2 years and using new standardized definitions of hemodynamic valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure
Methods
- 1000 patients randomly assigned (1:1) to transfemoral TAVR with SAPIEN 3 vs. SAVR
- Mean STS score: 1.9%; mean age: 73 years
- Primary endpoint: composite of death from any cause, all stroke or cardiovascular rehospitalization at 1 year
Results
- Overall, complete primary endpoint follow-up through 2 years of 96.5% (TAVR 99%, SAVR 93.8%)
- Functional status, as measured with KCCQ-OS, remained superior for TAVR at 2 years
- Mean gradients were slightly higher after TAVR vs. SAVR (13.6 vs. 11.8 mmHg, p = 0.06; n = 495 and 453 for TAVR and SAVR, respectively) Bioprosthetic valve durability determined using VARC 3 criteria was similar for the 2 groups
Conclusions
- The 2-year follow-up from the PARTNER 3 low-risk trial showed continued superiority of the primary endpoint favoring TAVR versus surgery, but more frequent deaths, strokes, and valve thrombosis events in the TAVR group between 1 and 2 years
- Disease-specific health status at 2 years was better after TAVR than surgery
- Echocardiographic findings through 2 years indicated stable valve hemodynamics and no differences in valve durability parameters
Key talking points
Is there a trend for similar outcomes after TAVR and surgery?
Primary endpoint remained significantly lower with TAVR vs. SAVR, yet the differences in death and stroke have greatly diminished at 2 years. It must be noted that 3 of the 7 deaths occurring between 1- and 2-year follow-up in the TAVR arm were of noncardiac origin (cancer, suicide and sepsis), and 3 of the 6 strokes were disabling. This more granular data points to similar rates of event between year 1 and2 for TAVR and SAVR.
Why was valve thrombosis higher in TAVR patients?
75% of the patients with clinical events committee-adjudicated valve thrombosis were asymptomatic. A computed tomography substudy is running in parallel with the PARTNER 3 trial, increasing awareness on hemodynamic changes and inflating the frequency of valve thrombosis events. The consequences at long term remain uncertain.
Is TAVR the treatment of choice in low-risk patients?
Results of the PARTNER 3 trial are not applicable to all patients at low surgical risk. Exclusion criteria such as bicuspid aortic valves, severe coronary artery disease, concomitant valve disease or vascular disease precluding transfemoral access limit application of these results in these cohorts. Longer follow-up is also needed to assess valve’s durability in younger patients with severe AS.
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, PARTNER, PARTNER 3, SAPIEN and SAPIEN 3 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-1734 V1.0
Edwards Lifesciences • Route de l’Etraz 70, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland • edwards.com
