Citations

Abstract OBJECTIVES Safety, efficacy and durability are important considerations when selecting a bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study assessed 7-year clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance of the Avalus bioprosthesis. METHODS Patients indicated for surgical AVR were enrolled in this prospective, nonrandomized trial, conducted across 39 sites globally. The primary end-point of this analysis was freedom from surgical explant or percutaneous valve-in-valve reintervention due to structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 7 years of follow-up, determined using Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis. We also evaluated a composite end-point of SVD and/or severe haemodynamic dysfunction requiring reintervention. Survival, valve-related safety events and haemodynamic performance were assessed. Deaths and safety events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS A total of 1132 patients underwent surgical AVR. Mean age was 70 years; 854 patients (75%) were men. The mean STS risk of mortality was 2.0 ± 1.4%, and 659 patients (58%) had a New York Heart Association classification of I/II. One or more concomitant procedures were performed in 577 patients (51%). At 7 years, the Kaplan–Meier rate of freedom from SVD/severe haemodynamic dysfunction requiring reintervention was 1.2% (0.5–2.5%) with no cases adjudicated as SVD. The survival rate was 82.6% (79.5–85.0%). The KM event rate was 5.7% (4.3–7.7%) for reintervention, 6.3% (4.9–8.3%) for endocarditis and 0.4% (0.1–1.1%) for valve thrombosis. Mean aortic gradient, dimensionless velocity index and effective orifice area were 13.8 ± 5.9 mmHg, 0.42 ± 0.09 and 1.99 ± 0.53 cm2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This analysis demonstrated excellent durability of the Avalus valve with good clinical outcomes and stable haemodynamic performance through 7 years of follow-up.

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses.