Results of a propensity score-matched comparison of the Perimount Magna and Mosaic Ultra aortic valve prostheses.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY Hemodynamic function and clinical outcomes were compared between the bovine pericardial Edwards Perimount Magna (EPM) and the porcine Medtronic Mosaic Ultra (MMU) aortic valve prostheses. METHODS Between January 2003 and June 2007, a total of 227 consecutive patients was prospectively enrolled, and received either the EPM (n = 125) or the MMU (n = 102) aortic valve prosthesis. The primary study end-point was the mean transvalvular gradient after surgery, at discharge and at six months follow up, as measured echocardiographically. The secondary study end-points were 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). RESULTS The intraoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradients were 9.4 +/- 4.6 mmHg in the EPM group compared to 17.7 +/- 6.7 mmHg in the MMU group (p < 0.001), and these remained essentially unchanged at hospital discharge (11.2 +/- 4.2 mmHg versus 19.1 +/- 6 mmHg; p < 0.001) and at six months' follow up (10 +/- 5 mmHg versus 20 +/- 7 mmHg; p < 0.001). A multivariable risk-adjusted analysis of covariance revealed the MMU valve (p < 0.0001) to be strongly associated with elevated postoperative mean transvalvular gradients during the six-month follow up. In addition, renal insufficiency, concomitant valve surgery and reoperation were identified as being significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.3-8.1; OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.4-9.8; OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.1-10.2, respectively) and major adverse cardiac events (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.7; OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.7-8.2; OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-7.2, respectively). To further control for selection bias, the propensity score was computed based on the major risk factors of 12 patients. An analysis of covariance model, adjusted for the propensity score, also confirmed the MMU prosthesis to be strongly associated with elevated mean transvalvular gradients during the six-month follow up period (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION The study results clearly demonstrated a favorable hemodynamic function as shown by lower transvalvular gradients of the bovine pericardial Edwards Perimount Magna compared to the porcine Medtronic Mosaic Ultra aortic valve prosthesis.

[1]  Philippe Pibarot,et al.  Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of percutaneous and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  Peter Kleine,et al.  Hydrodynamic comparison of biological prostheses during progressive valve calcification in a simulated exercise situation. An in vitro study. , 2008, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[3]  A. Galloway,et al.  High-risk aortic valve replacement: are the outcomes as bad as predicted? , 2008, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[4]  Peter Kleine,et al.  Opening and closing kinematics of fresh and calcified aortic valve prostheses: an in vitro study. , 2007, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[5]  M. Borger,et al.  Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valve versus Medtronic Hancock II: a matched hemodynamic comparison. , 2007, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  T. Bové,et al.  Stentless and stented aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: Factors affecting midterm clinical and hemodynamical outcome. , 2006, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[7]  Susan Armstrong,et al.  Twenty-year results of the Hancock II bioprosthesis. , 2006, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[8]  Pasquale Totaro,et al.  Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna bioprosthesis: a stented valve with stentless performance? , 2005, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[9]  R. Bauernschmitt,et al.  Hemodynamic Performance and Incidence of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch of the Complete Supraannular Perimount Magna Bioprosthesis in the Aortic Position , 2005, The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon.

[10]  R. Bauernschmitt,et al.  Hemodynamic comparison of bioprostheses for complete supra-annular position in patients with small aortic annulus. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  G. Deeb,et al.  Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography after aortic valve replacement does not predict subsequent transvalvular gradients. , 2004, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[12]  E. Wolner,et al.  Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis. , 2004, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[13]  F. Botzenhardt,et al.  Mid-term hemodynamic and clinical results of the stented porcine medtronic mosaic valve in aortic position. , 2004, The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon.

[14]  O. Lund,et al.  Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy during 10 years after valve replacement for aortic stenosis is related to the preoperative risk profile. , 2003, European heart journal.

[15]  R. Günzinger,et al.  The Mosaic bioprosthesis in the aortic position: seven years' results. , 2003, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[16]  S. Rahimtoola,et al.  Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  Susan Armstrong,et al.  Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. , 2002, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[18]  Harvey Feigenbaum,et al.  Recommendations for a standardized report for adult transthoracic echocardiography: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Nomenclature and Standards Committee and Task Force for a Standardized Echocardiography Report. , 2002, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[19]  C. Peniston,et al.  Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: midterm investigational trial results. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[20]  W. Jamieson,et al.  Hemodynamic comparison of second- and third-generation stented bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[21]  A. Bernstein,et al.  Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients: determinants of in-hospital mortality. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[22]  F. Mohr,et al.  Prospectively randomized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biological aortic valves: impact on early regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. , 1999, Circulation.

[23]  R. D'Agostino.  Adjustment Methods: Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non‐Randomized Control Group , 2005 .