Propensity score matching analysis of the aortiv valve replacement with the xenopericardial semi-framed prosthesis “T-Ara” and the framed xenopericardial prosthesis “UniLine”. Short-term results

Highlights. It is the first pseudorandomized comparative study of xenopericardial frame and half-frame bioprostheses treated with diepoxin in the aortic position use and its direct results.

Aim. A comparative assessment using the Propensity Score Matching method of the in-hospital clinical and hemodynamic results of the semi-framed epoxy-treated xenopericardial prosthesis “T-ara” and the framed epoxy-treated xenopericardial prosthesis “UniLine” (“NeoKor”, Kemerovo, Russia) for isolated aortic valve replacement implantation.

Methods. 33 recipients of the “UniLine” prosthesis were selected by Propensity Score Matching method in a ratio of 1:1 to 33 observations from the “T-ara” group according to the compliance criteria: gender, age, body surface area, end-diastolic volume of the left ventricle (LV) and the pre-operative presence/absence of the aortic regurgitation.

Results. Hospital mortality in the “T-ara” and “UniLine” groups was 3.03 (n = 1) and 6.06% (n = 2), respectively, p = 0.920. Non-fatal complications in the “T-ara” and “UniLine” groups was 7 (21.2%) and 18 (54.6%), p = 0.163. The incidence of postoperative heart failure and arrhythmias was higher in “UniLine” recipients (p = 0.001). The average stay in the intensive care unit was longer in the “UniLine” group than in the “T-ara” group, p = 0.05. Postoperative end-systolic and end-diastolic dimensions and volumes (and the corresponding indexes) of the LV,       as well as the myocardial mass and its index in both groups had no statistically significant changes in relation to preoperative data. The comparative assessment of left ventricular remodeling parameters depending on the prosthetic size revealed no significant differences. The average pressure gradient in the “T-ara» and “UniLine” group of size 21mm was 12.2±7.4 and 12.2±5.0 mm Hg. (p>0.050). The average pressure gradient in the group “T-ara” and “UniLine” size 23–25 mm was 10.2±4.1 and 9.9±0.3 mm Hg, p>0.050. The regression degree of LV myocardial mass index in the groups did not have significant differences.

Conclusion. At the hospital stage, the semi-framed epoxy-treated biological prosthesis “T-ara” has a similar clinical and hemodynamic profile with the framed biological prosthesis “UniLine”. The frequency of postoperative heart  failure  and cardiac arrhythmias is statistically significantly higher in the “UniLine” group (framed bioprostheses).

1. Bockeria L. A., Gudkova R. G., Milewska E. B., Kuzaeva Vladimir, Pryanishnikov V. V. Cardiovascular surgery -2017. Diseases and congenital anomalies of the circulatory system. Moscow: NMITSSSH them. A.N. Bakulev; 2018. (In Russian)

2. Bockeria L. A., Gudkova R. G., Milewska E. B., Kuzaeva Vladimir, Pryanishnikov V. V. cardiovascular surgery-2018. Diseases and congenital anomalies of the circulatory system. Moscow: NMITSSSH them. A.N. Bakulev; 2019. (in Russian)

3. Isaacs A.J., Shuhaiber J., Salemi A., Isom O.W., Sedrakyan A. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(5):1262-9. e3. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.052.

4. Beckmann А., Meyer R., Lewandowski J., Markewitz A., Harringer W. German Heart Surgery Report 2019: The Annual Updated Registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;68:263– 276. doi https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1710569.

5. Akins C., Miller C., Turina M.I., Kouchoukos N.T., Blackstone E.H., Grunkemeier C.L., Takkenberg J.J.M.. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:732-8. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.12.002.

6. Stanger О., Tevaearai Н., Carrel Т. The Freedom SOLO bovine pericardial stentless valve. Research Reports in Clinical Cardiology 2014:5 349–361. doi:10.2147/RRCC.S72978

7. Astapov D., Demidov D., Semenova Y., Zheleznev S., Zorina I., Syrtseva Y. The first experience with the implantation of the prosthesis xenopericardial frame variable stiffness "Tiara" in the aortic position. Patologiya Krovoobrashcheniya I Kardiokhirurgiya. 2013; 17(2): 73–75. doi:10.21688/1681-3472-2013-2-73-75 (In Russian)

8. Shultz1 B.N., Timek T., Davis A.T., Heiser J., Murphy E., Willekes C., Hooker R. A propensity matched analysis of outcomes and long term survival in stented versus stentless valves. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2017;12:45. doi 10.1186/s13019-017-0608-2.

9. Kirali К. Stentless Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement in Calcific Aortic Stenosis.In: Aikawa E, editor. Calcific Aortic Valve Disease. London: IntechOpen; 2013. P. 411–419. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/46239.

10. Altintas G., Diken A.I., Hanedan O., Yurdakok O., Ozyalcin S., Kucuker S.A., Ozatik M.A. The Sorin Freedom SOLO Stentless Tissue Valve Early Outcomes after Aortic Valve Replacement.Tex Heart Inst J. 2013;40(1):50-5.

11. Wollersheim L.W., Li W.W., Bouma B.J., Repossini A., Meulen J., Mol B.A. Aortic Valve Replacement With the Stentless Freedom SOLO Bioprosthesis: A Systematic Review. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1496–504. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.06.048.

12. Karas'kov A.M., Zhuravleva I.Iu., Astapov D.A., Stasev A.N., Demidov D.P., Odarenko Iu.N., Barbarash L.S. Clinical and hemodynamic results of bioprostheses UniLine using in aortic position. Kardiologiya i Serdechno-Sosudistaya Khirurgiya. 2014;7(4):87 91. (In Russian)

13. Kozlov B.N., Petlin K.A., Pryakhin A.S., Shchedrin A.V., Panfilov D.S., Shipulin V.M. First clinical experience of composite stented xenopericardial bioprosthesis deployment in aortic position. Kardiologiya i Serdechno-Sosudistaya Khirurgiya. 2018;11(3):41 49. (In Russian) doi:10.17116/kardio201811341

14. Ruggieri V.G., Flecher E., Donal E. Early Hemodynamic and Clinical Results of Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis (100 Patients). In: 6th Biennial Meeting of the Society for Heart Valve Disease. Barcelona; 2011. http://shvd.org/abstracts/2011/P53.cgi.

15. Cheung A., Carbonneau E., Fradet G. et al. Early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of a new aortic bioprosthesis (Trifecta): a multicentre study. Canad Cardiovasc Congr. 2010. http://www.pulsus.com/ccc2010/abs/242.htm.

16. Permanyer E., Estigarribia A.J., Ysasi A., Herrero E., Semper O., Llorens R. St. Jude Medical Trifecta™ aortic valve perioperative performance in 200 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17(4):669-72. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt270.

17. Thalmann M., Kaiblinger J., Krausler R., Pisarik H., Veit F., Taheri N., Kornigg K., Dinges C., Grabenwöger M., Stanger O. Clinical experience with the freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve in 277 consecutive patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(4):1301-7. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.089.

18. Grubitzsch H., Wang S., Matschke K., Glauber M., Heimansohn D., Tan E., Francois K., Thalmann M. Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 804 patients receiving the Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve: results from an international prospective multicentre study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47(3):e97-104. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu471.