Structural valve deterioration in the Mitroflow biological heart valve prosthesis

OBJECTIVES Concern has been raised regarding the long-term durability of the Mitroflow biological heart valve prosthesis. Our aim was to assess the incidence of structural valve degeneration (SVD) for the Mitroflow bioprosthesis in a nationwide study in Denmark including all patients alive in Denmark who had received a Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis since 2000. METHODS Patients alive in Denmark with a Mitroflow bioprosthesis implanted since January 2000 were invited to participate in a nationwide cross-sectional study with a predefined definition of SVD. Of 1552 patients, 861 patients had died and 47 patients had been reoperated with 40 reoperations due to SVD. The remaining 644 patients were invited for evaluation; 574 patients accepted and were evaluated for SVD. The incidence of SVD was calculated using competing risk regression analysis with death as the competing event. RESULTS A total of 173 patients were diagnosed with SVD by echocardiography. Of these, 64 (11%) patients had severe SVD and 109 (19%) patients moderate SVD. Severe SVD was associated with the age of the prosthesis and small prosthesis size [Size 21: hazard ratio (95% confidence interval, CI) 2.72 (0.97-8.56), P = 0.06; Size 19: 6.26 (1.63-24.06), P = 0.008]. The cumulative incidences of reoperation or severe SVD at Year 9 were 12.5% for Size 19, 7.6% for Size 21 and 3.1 (1.2-6.4)% for Size 23. Median survival in patients with prosthesis Sizes 23-29 was 6.4 (95% CI 5.7-7.0) years, with Size 21 it was 6.5 (95% CI 5.9-7.1) years and with Size 19 it was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.2) years (P = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS The incidence of undetected severe SVD was as high as the incidence of operated SVD. The overall risk for SVD is high for the Mitroflow bioprosthesis, especially if the prosthesis is small and older than 5 years.

[1]  L. G. Wolf,et al.  The fate of small‐size pericardial heart valve prostheses in an older patient population , 2017, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[2]  I. Modrau,et al.  Durability after aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow versus the Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis: a single-centre experience in 2393 patients. , 2016, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[3]  J. Muñiz,et al.  Long‐Term Outcomes and Durability of the Mitroflow Aortic Bioprosthesis , 2016, Journal of cardiac surgery.

[4]  N. Smedira,et al.  Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. , 2015, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[5]  T. Bourguignon,et al.  Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. , 2015, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  Victor Mor-Avi,et al.  Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. , 2015, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[7]  J. Serfaty,et al.  Early Structural Valve Deterioration of Mitroflow Aortic Bioprosthesis: Mode, Incidence, and Impact on Outcome in a Large Cohort of Patients , 2014, Circulation.

[8]  P. D. del Nido,et al.  Accelerated Degeneration of a Bovine Pericardial Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve in Children and Young Adults , 2014, Circulation.

[9]  J. Després,et al.  Lp‐PLA2 is associated with structural valve degeneration of bioprostheses , 2014, European journal of clinical investigation.

[10]  O. Alfieri,et al.  [Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). The Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)]. , 2013, Giornale italiano di cardiologia.

[11]  N. Weissman,et al.  Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis 5-year follow-up: north american prospective multicenter study. , 2012, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  O. Alfieri,et al.  Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). , 2012, European heart journal.

[13]  R. Lorusso,et al.  The Italian study on the Mitroflow postoperative results (ISTHMUS): a 20-year, multicentre evaluation of Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis. , 2011, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[14]  J. Bavaria,et al.  A North American, prospective, multicenter assessment of the Mitroflow aortic pericardial prosthesis. , 2010, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[15]  S. Rahimtoola,et al.  Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults an update. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  Bart Meuris,et al.  Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Predicts Structural Valve Degeneration in Bioprosthetic Heart Valves , 2010, Circulation.

[17]  F. Gudé,et al.  Early calcification of the aortic Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis in the elderly. , 2009, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[18]  Roland Hetzer,et al.  Mitroflow aortic pericardial bioprosthesis--clinical performance. , 2009, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[19]  J. Després,et al.  Lipid‐mediated inflammation and degeneration of bioprosthetic heart valves , 2009, European journal of clinical investigation.

[20]  R. Suri Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: Durability results up to 21 years , 2009 .

[21]  J. Pomar,et al.  CarboMedics Mitroflow Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis - Performance in Patients Aged 60 Years and Older after 15 Years , 2008, The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon.

[22]  Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. , 2008, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[23]  A. Kaltoft,et al.  Stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death after drug-eluting and bare-metal stent coronary interventions. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  J. González-Juanatey,et al.  Left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement with the new Mitroflow 12A pericardial bioprosthesis. , 2006, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[25]  Philippe Pibarot,et al.  Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Cardiac Events and Midterm Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Stenosis , 2006, Circulation.

[26]  R. Körfer,et al.  Mitroflow synergy prostheses for aortic valve replacement: 19 years experience with 1,516 patients. , 2005, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[27]  R. Hetzer,et al.  Seventeen-year clinical results of 1,037 Mitroflow pericardial heart valve prostheses in the aortic position. , 2005, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[28]  Philippe Pibarot,et al.  Impact of Valve Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Short-Term Mortality After Aortic Valve Replacement , 2003, Circulation.

[29]  M. Fishbein,et al.  Tissue characterization and calcification potential of commercial bioprosthetic heart valves. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[30]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  E. Godehardt,et al.  Mitroflow pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: an analysis of long-term outcome and prognostic factors. , 2000, The Journal of heart valve disease.