Long-term durability of Edwards bioprosthetic aortic valves

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Allan Stewart, MD. , Jonathan A. Yang, MD; Mark J

Advertisements

METAΛΛΙΚΗ ΠΡΟΣΘΕΤΙΚΗ ΒΑΛΒΙΔΑ-ΑΥΤΟΝΟΜΗ ΝΟΣΟΣ? Γ.ΔΡΟΣΟΣ Καρδιοχειρουργική Κλινική ΓΝΘ Γ. Παπανικολάου, Θεσσαλονίκη.

AVR: Choice of Prosthesis Tirone E. David University of Toronto.

Are Stented Bioprostheses Appropriate for Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Patients ? Frank A. Pigula MD Senior Associate Cardiac Surgery Children’s Hospital.

Mitral Valve Surgery: Lessons from New York State Joanna Chikwe, MD Professor of Cardiovascular Surgery Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Chairman.

© 2012 EuroIntervention. All rights reserved. EuroIntervention 2009;5: A comparison of patient characteristics and 30-day mortality outcomes after.

How I Would Like By Bicuspid Valve and Aneurysms Treated Thoralf M. Sundt,MD AATS Skills April 25,2015.

Evolving treatment strategies for aortic coarctation and late complications in teens and adults Eric E. Roselli, MD, Akshat C. Pujara, BA, Lars G. Svensson,

Date of download: 5/27/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring for.

Date of download: 6/23/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Choice of Prosthetic Heart Valve in Adults: An Update.

Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Choice of Prosthetic Heart Valve in Adults: An Update.

W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD, Clifton T. P. Lewis, MD, Marc P

Figure 1: A PRISMA schematic of search strategy

Thierry MESANA, MD, PhD President and CEO Professor Cardiac Surgery

Benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIS-AVR)

Keith Dawkins MD FRCP FACC FSCAI Global Chief Medical Officer

Longevity of transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients with severe aortic stenosis and lower surgical risk Lars Sondergaard,

Fig. 1 Log-rank test comparing survival in patients undergoing surgical repair with those treated with TEVAR. Black line: TEVAR; grey line: surgical repair.

The fate of small-size pericardial heart valve prostheses in an older patient population Ruggero De Paulis, MD, Salvatore D'Aleo, MD, Alessandro Bellisario,

Figure 1: IPW-adjusted cumulative incidence function of cardiac death at 12 years, with non-cardiac death as competing risk. IPW: inverse probability of.

Very Long-Term Outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Aortic Valve in Patients Aged 60 or Younger Thierry Bourguignon, MD, Rym El Khoury, MD, Pascal.

Figure 3: Mean gradient according to valve size, 6 weeks after surgery

Fig. 3 Summary estimates of the relative risks for the different surgical techniques for late mortality. Comparing the two main techniques, EVR showed.

Late Follow-Up from the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry

Nat. Rev. Cardiol. doi: /nrcardio

Comparison between Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of Bristol aortic valve surgery patients and the Monte Carlo-based generated Kaplan-Meier curve using.

Sorin Bicarbon: 17 years of clinical use

Figure 4 Valve-in-valve implantations in degenerated surgical valves

Lars G. Svensson, MD, PhD, Lillian H. Batizy, MS, Eugene H

Fate of aortic bioprostheses: An 18-year experience

Hancock II Bioprosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement: The Gold Standard of Bioprosthetic Valves Durability? Tirone E. David, MD, Susan Armstrong, MS,

Joanna Chikwe et al. JACC 2017;69:

Usefulness of microsimulation to translate valve performance into patient outcome: Patient prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier–Edwards.

When is the Ross operation a good option to treat aortic valve disease? Tirone E. David, MD, Anna Woo, MD, Susan Armstrong, MSc, Manjula Maganti, MSc

Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: Changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society.

Long-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with Edwards Prima Plus stentless bioprostheses in patients younger than 60 years of age Torsten Christ,

Aortic valve replacement with the biocor PSB stentless xenograft

Surgical Management of Aortic Regurgitation Associated With Takayasu Arteritis and Other Forms of Aortitis Osamu Adachi, MD, Yoshikatsu Saiki, MD, Junetsu.

The fate of small-size pericardial heart valve prostheses in an older patient population Ruggero De Paulis, MD, Salvatore D'Aleo, MD, Alessandro Bellisario,

Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age Alberto.

Reoperative “valve-in-valve” transapical transcatheter mitral valve replacement in a high-risk patient with a recent transapical transcatheter aortic.

Factors Affecting Survival After Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients With Prosthesis– Patient Mismatch Abdulhameed Aziz, MD, Jennifer S. Lawton, MD,

Early Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Deterioration in an Octogenarian

Long-Term Outcomes of the Mosaic Bioprosthesis

Durability of Homografts Used to Treat Complex Aortic Valve Endocarditis Willem Flameng, MD, PhD, Willem Daenen, MD, Ramadan Jashari, MD, Paul Herijgers,

Suggested pathway for assessment of aortic valve replacement dysfunction. Suggested pathway for assessment of aortic valve replacement dysfunction. Transthoracic.

Sam Chitsaz, MD, Nicolas Jaussaud, MD, Edward Chau, MD, Kimberly S

Actuarial versus actual risk of porcine structural valve deterioration

Nancy J. O Birkmeyer, PhD, John D Birkmeyer, MD, Anna N

Long-term evaluation of biological versus mechanical prosthesis use at reoperative aortic valve replacement Vincent Chan, MD, MPH, B-Khanh Lam, MD, MPH,

Outcomes after mechanical aortic valve replacement in children and young adults with congenital heart disease Patrick O. Myers, MD, Suyog A. Mokashi,

Edward R. Nowicki, MD, MS, Gösta B. Pettersson, MD, PhD, Nicholas G

W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD, Clifton T. P. Lewis, MD, Marc P

Structural deterioration of the Freestyle aortic valve: Mode of presentation and mechanisms Siamak Mohammadi, MD, Richard Baillot, MD, Pierre Voisine,

Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: Durability results up to 21 years Charles A. Yankah, MD, PhD, Miralem Pasic, MD,

Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: A propensity-matched analysis

Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in nonelderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration.

Redo Aortic Valve Replacement in Children

David valve-sparing aortic root replacement: Equivalent mid-term outcome for different valve types with or without connective tissue disorder John-Peder.

Commentary: Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A high standard of comparison for transcatheter aortic valve implantation Aaron Martin, MD, Michael.

Douglas R. Johnston, MD, Edward G

Distribution of relative percentage change ((post-AVR−pre-AVR)/pre-AVR) in the patients’ absolute pVO2 values between pre-AVR and post-AVR after 9 months.

Younger age and valve oversizing are predictors of structural valve deterioration after pulmonary valve replacement in patients with tetralogy of Fallot

Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis Michael K Banbury, MD, Delos M Cosgrove,

Arnt E Fiane, MD, Odd R Geiran, MD, PhD, Jan L Svennevig, MD, PhD

Twenty-Five Year Outcomes of Tricuspid Valve Replacement Comparing Mechanical and Biologic Prostheses Andrea Garatti, MD, Giovanni Nano, MD, Giuseppe.

The CarboMedics Valve: Experience With 1,049 Implants

Durability and outcome of aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair versus double valve replacement Masaki Hamamoto, MD, Ko Bando, MD, Junjiro.

Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves

Kaplan-Meier curves showing the probability of symptom-free survival according to the rate of heart rate rise during exercise testing in (A) for the whole.

Presentation transcript:

Long-term durability of Edwards bioprosthetic aortic valves Evidence from large, long-term follow-up studies

Excellent long-term durability (1/2) Expected valve durability:*1–3 17.6 years for patients aged ≤60 years at implantation 19 years for patients aged 50–65 years at implantation 22.1 years for patients aged 60–70 years at implantation Expected valve durability* according to age at implantation1–3 *Defined as median survival time without echocardiographically-assessed structural valve deterioration Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 831–7 Bourguignon T et al. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 49: 1462–68 Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 100: 853–9

Excellent long-term durability (2/2) Expected valve durability exceeded life expectancy post-AVR for all age groups examined1 Comparison of expected valve durability, life expectancy after aortic valve replacement and relative life expectancy of the general population in France1 AVR: aortic valve replacement PERIMOUNT is a trademark or service mark of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. © 2017 Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. All right reserved. Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 831–7

Low risk of reoperation due to SVD Risk of reoperation due to SVD in a very long-term follow-up of 12,569 patients post-AVR was 5.4% at 20 years1 Younger age at implantation was associated with an increased risk of reoperation due to SVD1,2 Cumulative risk of reoperation due to SVD for different age groups2 AVR: aortic valve replacement; SVD: structural valve deterioration Johnston DR et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 1239–47 Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 831–7

Freedom from reoperation due to SVD In long-term follow up studies in various post-AVR populations, long-term freedom from reoperation at 15 years ranged from 78.3% to 87.5%1–3 Again, younger age was a risk factor for reoperation due to SVD2–5 Freedom from reoperation due to SVD for different age groups at 5, 10 and 15 years post-implantation1 AVR: aortic valve replacement; SVD: structural valve deterioration Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 831–7 Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 100: 853–9. McClure RS et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 89: 1410–16 Bourguignon T et al. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 49: 1462–8 Minakata K et al. Circ J. 2014; 78: 882–9

Key learnings Several recent studies have examined the long-term durability of Edwards bioprosthetic aortic valves1–9 Expected valve durability (defined as median survival time without echocardiographically-assessed SVD), is 17.6 years for patients aged ≤60 years, 19 years for patients aged 50–65 years and 22.1 years patients aged 60–70 years1-3 20-year probability of explant due to SVD across all age groups is 5.4%4 Younger age at implantation is associated with a higher risk of SVD, but durability is good even in these younger patients1,4,5,8,9 SVD: structural valve deterioration Minakata K et al. Circ J. 2014; 78: 882–9 Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 831–7 Minakata K et al. J Card Surg. 2015; 30: 405–13 Bourguignon T et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 100: 853–9 Forcillo J et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 97: 1526–32 Bourguignon T et al. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 49: 1462–8 Forcillo J et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 96: 486–93 Johnston DR et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99: 1239–47 McClure RS et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 89: 1410–16