Multicenter, propensity-weighted comparison of stented, rapid-deployment and new-generation aortic valves

Background

Conventional stented, rapid deployment and new-generation stented valves are now available for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). New-generation devices feature advanced tissue treatment for theoretical prolonged durability and a new stent design able to expand in case of future transcatheter Valve-in-Valve. Aim of this retrospective, multicenter, propensity-weighted study was to compare early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of these three different bioprostheses.

Methods

We analyzed data of 2589 patients from two national multicenter registries and one Institutional database. Study devices were Magna Ease, Intuity/Intuity Elite and Inspiris Resilia (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) and were implanted in 296 (11.4 %), 1688 (65.2 %) and 605 (23.4 %) patients, respectively. A propensity score weighting approach was employed.

Results

In isolated SAVR, aortic cross clamp (ACC) time was shorter for Intuity (Magna Ease: 87, Intuity: 55, Inspiris: 70 min; Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p < 0.001; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p < 0.001). Overall mortality was 2 %, 1.7 % and 0.5 % in Magna Ease, Intuity and Inspiris groups, respectively (Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p = 0.476; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p = 0.395); permanent pace-maker implantation rate was lower for Inspiris (Magna Ease: 6 %, Intuity: 6 %, Inspiris: 2 %; Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p = 0.679; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p < 0.001). Median mean gradients were 13, 10 and 10 mmHg for Magna Ease, Intuity and Inspiris, respectively (Magna Ease vs. Intuity: p < 0.001; Inspiris vs. Intuity: p = 0.13).

Conclusions

All study devices provide excellent early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Inspiris shows low rates of permanent pace-maker implantation and its transaortic gradients are similar to rapid-deployment valves and lower than Magna Ease.