The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve

Abstract: The third-generation bovine pericardium Freedom SOLO (FS) stentless valve emerged in 2004 as a modified version of the Pericarbon Freedom stentless valve and as a very attractive alternative to stented bioprostheses. The design, choice of tissue, and anticalcification treatment fulfill most, if not all, requirements for an ideal valve substitute. The FS combines the single-suture, subcoronary implantation technique with the latest-generation bovine pericardial tissue and novel anticalcification treatment. The design allows imitation of the native healthy valve through unrestricted adaption to the patient's anatomy, reproducing a normal valve/root complex. However, despite hemodynamic performance superior to stented valves, we are approaching a critical observation period as superior durability, freedom from structural valve deterioration, and nonstructural failure has not been proven as expected. However, optimal performance and freedom from structural valve deterioration depend on correct sizing and perfect symmetric implantation, to ensure low leaflet stress. Any malpositioning can lead to tissue fatigue over time. Furthermore, the potential for better outcomes depends on optimal patient selection and observance of the limitations for the use of stentless valves, particularly for the FS. Clearly, stentless valve implantation techniques are less reproducible and standardized, and require surgeon-dependent experience and skill. Regardless of whether or not stentless valve durability surpasses third-generation stented bioprostheses, they will continue to play a role in the surgical repertoire. This review intends to help practitioners avoid pitfalls, observe limitations, and improve patient selection for optimal long-term outcome with the attractive FS stentless valve.

The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve: Single-center experience, outcome and long-term durability

Abstract Objectives We report our institutional experience and long-term results with the Sorin Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless bioprosthesis. Methods Between January 2005 and November 2009, 149 patients (mean age 73.6±8.7 years, 68 [45.6%] female) underwent isolated (n=75) or combined (n=74) aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the SOLO in our institution. Follow-up was 100% complete with an average follow-up time of 5.9±2.6 years (maximum 9.6 years) and a total of 885.3 patient years. Results Operative (30-day) mortality was 2.7% (1.3% for isolated AVR [n=1] and 4.0% for combined procedures [n=3]). All causes of death were not valve-related. Preoperative peak (mean) gradients of 74.2±23.0 mmHg (48.6 ± 16.3 mmHg) decreased to 15.6±5.4 (8.8±3.0) after AVR, and remained low for up to 9 years. The postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.6 ±0.57 cm2, 1.90±0.45 cm2, 2.12±0.48 cm2 and 2.20±0.66 cm2 for the valve sizes 21, 23, 25 and 27, respectively; with absence of severe prosthesis-patient-mismatch (PPM) and 0.7% (n=1) moderate PPM. During follow-up, Twenty-six patients experienced structural valve deterioration (SVD) and 14 patients underwent explantation. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from death, explantation and SVD at 9 years averaged 0.57 [0.47‒0.66], 0.82 [0.69‒0.90] and 0.70 [0.57‒0.79], respectively. Conclusions The Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve is safe to implant and shows excellent early and mid-term hemodynamic performance. However, SVD was observed in a substantial number of patients after only 5 ̶ 6 years and the need for explantation increased markedly, suggesting low durability.

Clinical experience with the freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve in 277 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND The Sorin Freedom SOLO (FS) bovine pericardial stentless valve prosthesis is designed for supraannular, subcoronary implantation. We report our experience and results with 277 consecutively implanted FS bioprostheses. METHODS 277 patients (mean age, 74.2 ± 7.3 years; 139 (50.2%) female) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the FS stentless bioprosthesis. The hemodynamic performance was investigated with transthoracic echocardiography at discharge, 6 months later, and yearly thereafter. Follow-up was 100% complete, with an average observation time of 2.6 ± 1.7 years and a total of 697.3 patient-years. RESULTS The overall 30-day mortality was 4.3%. The mortalities for isolated AVR and combined procedures were 1.9% and 7.3%, respectively. No causes of death were valve-related. Preoperative peak (74.2 ± 23.0 mm Hg) and mean (48.6 ± 16.3 mm Hg) gradients decreased to 15.6 ± 5.4 mm Hg and 8.8 ± 3.0 mm Hg postoperatively and remained unchanged for as long as 5 years. The postoperative mean effective orifice area (EOA) for valve sizes 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 were 1.49 ± 0.32 cm(2), 1.67 ± 0.40 cm(2), 1.92 ± 0.38 cm(2), 2.01 ± 0.42 cm(2), and 2.13 ± 0.36 cm(2), respectively. Severe prosthesis-patient mismach (PPM) was completely absent, and moderate PPM occurred in 17 patients (6.1%). In isolated AVR, 0.8% of patients with preoperative sinus rhythm required a permanent pacemaker before hospital discharge. There was 100% freedom from structural valve deterioration, 99.6 % freedom from endocarditis and reoperation, and 97.3% freedom from thromboembolism at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS The FS stentless aortic valve is safe to implant, and it shows excellent hemodynamic performance and early and midterm results. Owing to the favorable EOA, the valve appears particularly attractive for patients at risk for PPM.

Decision-making in aortic root surgery in Marfan syndrome: bleeding, thromboembolism and risk of reintervention after valve-sparing or mechanical aortic root replacement†

OBJECTIVES Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is thought to reduce the rate of thromboembolic and bleeding events compared with aortic root replacement using a mechanical aortic root replacement (MRR) with a composite graft by avoiding oral anticoagulation. But as VSRR carries a certain risk for subsequent reinterventions, decision-making in the individual patient can be challenging. METHODS Of 100 Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients who underwent 169 aortic surgeries and were followed at our institution since 1995, 59 consecutive patients without a history of dissection or prior aortic surgery underwent elective VSRR or MRR and were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS VSRR was performed in 29 (David n = 24, Yacoub n = 5) and MRR in 30 patients. The mean age was 33 ± 15 years. The mean follow-up after VSRR was 6.5 ± 4 years (180 patient-years) compared with 8.8 ± 9 years (274 patient-years) after MRR. Reoperation rates after root remodelling (Yacoub) were significantly higher than after the reimplantation (David) procedure (60 vs 4.2%, P = 0.01). The need for reinterventions after the reimplantation procedure (0.8% per patient-year) was not significantly higher than after MRR (P = 0.44) but follow-up after VSRR was significantly shorter (P = 0.03). There was neither significant morbidity nor mortality associated with root reoperations. There were no neurological events after VSRR compared with four stroke/intracranial bleeding events in the MRR group (log-rank, P = 0.11), translating into an event rate of 1.46% per patient-year following MRR. CONCLUSION The calculated annual failure rate after VSRR using the reimplantation technique was lower than the annual risk for thromboembolic or bleeding events. Since the perioperative risk of reinterventions following VSRR is low, patients might benefit from VSRR even if redo surgery may become necessary during follow-up.

Impact of mitral regurgitation on clinical outcomes of patients with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND Up to 1 in 6 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) present with low-ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis and concomitant relevant mitral regurgitation (MR) is present in 30% to 55% of these patients. The effect of MR on clinical outcomes of LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 606 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI, 113 (18.7%) patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis (mean gradient ≤40 mm Hg, aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) were analyzed. LEF-LG patients were dichotomized into ≤mild MR (n=52) and ≥moderate MR (n=61). Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. No differences in mortality were observed at 30 days (P=0.76). At 1 year, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR had an adjusted 3-fold higher rate of all-cause mortality (11.5% versus 38.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-8.15]; P=0.011), as compared with LEF-LG patients with ≤mild MR. Mortality was mainly driven by cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.62; P=0.005). As compared with LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR assigned to medical therapy, LEF-LG patients with ≥moderate MR undergoing TAVI had significantly lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.019-0.75) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Moderate or severe MR is a strong independent predictor of late mortality in LEF-LG patients undergoing TAVI. However, LEF-LG patients assigned to medical therapy have a dismal prognosis independent of MR severity suggesting that TAVI should not be withheld from symptomatic patients with LEF-LG severe aortic stenosis even in the presence of moderate or severe MR.

Mitral valve replacement in patients under 65 years of age: mechanical or biological valves?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW There is controversy regarding the optimal choice of prosthetic valves in patients less than 65 years of age requiring mitral valve replacement (MVR). Recently, trends for valve replacement are moving towards biological prosthesis also in younger patients, which is justified by the fact that a later valve-in-valve procedure is feasible in the case of degeneration of the tissue valve. This strategy is increasingly recommended in aortic valve surgery but is questionable for MVR. The purpose of this review is to evaluate current guidelines and analyse evidence for biological MVR in patients under 65 years. RECENT FINDINGS There are differences between guidelines of the American Heart Association and those of the European Society of Cardiology concerning the choice of prostheses in patients undergoing MVR. Although the European Society of Cardiology recommends a mechanical mitral valve in patients under 65 years of age, the American Heart Association does not provide detailed advice for these patients. Mitral valve replacement with biological valves in patients under 65 years is associated with higher rates of reoperation due to structural valve deterioration. In addition, several studies showed a decreased survival after biological MVR. SUMMARY Evidence for biological MVR in patients less than 65 years without comorbidities or contraindication for oral anticoagulation does not exist. Recommendations for patients less than 65 years of age should not be blurred by current 'en-vogue' methods for promising but not yet proven valve-in-valve strategies.

Aortic valve replacement and concomitant procedures with the Perceval valve: results of European trials.

BACKGROUND The Perceval (Sorin Group, Milan, Italy) is a self-anchoring sutureless aortic valve prosthesis. We report the short- to midterm results of combined aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant procedures in elderly patients undergoing operation as part of 3 consecutive prospective multicenter European studies. METHODS From April 2007 to February 2013, 243 patients (mean age, 79.7 ± 5.1 years; female patients, 61%; median EuroSCORE, 9%) underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (182 cases), septal myectomy (21 cases), CABG + other procedures (18 cases), and 22 other procedures. Primary and secondary end points included implant feasibility and safety (for mortality and morbidity) and efficacy (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class improvement and hemodynamic results) of the prosthesis at the different follow-up periods. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for survival analysis. RESULTS Mean aortic cross-clamp and extracorporeal circulation (ECC) times were 50.7 ± 22.8 minutes and 78.9 ± 32.3 minutes, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1%. Mean postoperative gradient and effective orifice area were 10.1 ± 4.7 mm Hg and 1.5 ± 0.4 cm(2) and 8.9 ± 5.6 mm Hg and 1.6 ± 0.4 cm(2), respectively, at 1 year. There were early explantations, 4 of which resulted from paravalvular leaks. One additional valve explantation resulted from aortic root bleeding, probably caused by excessively extensive decalcification. In the late period, there was 1 mild paravalvular leak and no intravalvular insufficiency. No migration, dislodgement, or degeneration of the valve occurred during follow-up. Median follow-up was 444 days. CONCLUSIONS These trials confirm the safety and efficacy of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve, especially in elderly patients requiring AVR + concomitant procedures. In this patient group, sutureless valves may be advantageous compared to transcatheter valve implantations as concomitant procedures other than percutaneous coronary artery angioplasty are not always possible in the latter.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a lung transplant recipient.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a feasible therapeutic option for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis and high or prohibitive risk for standard surgery. Lung transplant recipients are often considered high-risk patients for heart surgery because of their specific transplant-associated characteristics and comorbidities. We report a case of successful transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a lung transplant recipient with a symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, severe left ventricular dysfunction, and end-stage renal failure 9 years after bilateral lung transplantation.