Technical Details of Aortic Valve Replacement using Carpentier–Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis in a Sexagenarian Patient with Severe Calcific Aortic Stenosis: A Video Presentation

Introduction

The current guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC) from 2014, and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) from 2012 uniformly recommend mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients under 60 years of age and biologic aortic valve replacement in patients over 70 years of age.[1] [2] The recommendations are conflicting for patients between 60 and 70 years of age. The ESC guidelines recommend biologic prosthesis from the age of 65 years onward, whereas the newer AHA/ACC guidelines only recommend biological valves starting 70 years of age. Over the past 20 years, there is a shift away from a clear-cut age limit toward patient’s wish and lifestyle considerations.[3]

The number of surgical aortic valve replacements using a bioprosthesis is increasing according to the annual surveys of thoracic surgery in 2013 and 2014 by the Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery, which states that bioprostheses are used in three-quarters of all aortic valve replacements procedures.[4] In addition, the age limit for implantation of an aortic bioprosthesis is continuously being shifted down with bioprostheses used for aortic valve replacements in 60% of sexagenarian patients and 90% of septuagenarian or octogenarian patients.[3] [4] [5] [6] This may be related to the enhanced durability of new-generation bioprostheses, improved outcomes of redo valve replacement surgery, or the development of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation.[3] [4] [5] [6]

Randomized trials comparing biological and mechanical valve replacements are scanty. In 2009, Stassano and associates randomized 310 patients between 55 and 70 years of age into a mechanical and a biological prosthesis group to undergo aortic valve replacement. At a mean follow-up of 4 years, they found similar mortality and other adverse prosthesis-related events, namely, thromboembolic complications, bleeding, endocarditis, and structural valvular deterioration in the two group of patients.[7]

In 2008, Brown and associates analyzed outcome after aortic valve replacement with mechanical versus biological prosthesis in patients aged between 50 and 70 years at operation. Freedom from reoperation was 98% for mechanical valve and 91% for bioprosthesis (p = 0.06). Rehospitalization for hemorrhagic events occurred in 15% of patients with mechanical valves and 7% of patients with bioprosthesis (p = 0.001). The 5- and 10-year unadjusted survivals were 87% and 68% for mechanical valves and 72% and 50% for bioprosthesis, respectively.[8] The reported incidence of survival following mechanical mitral valve replacement in the published literature at 10, 20, and 30 years was 61 to 75%, 36.5 to 39% and 22.6%, respectively.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

The Carpentier–Edwards pericardial prosthesis commercially available since 1980 is the bioprosthesis, which is the most used worldwide. As a second-generation pericardial bioprosthesis, the Carpentier–Edwards pericardial valve was designed to minimize structural valvular deterioration, which plagued the first-generation prosthesis while retaining the hemodynamic superiority conferred by pericardial valve substitutes.[14] [15] [16] [17] Published literature documents excellent long-term outcomes with the Carpentier–Edwards pericardial valve ([Table 1]).[15] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Table 1 Long-term outcomes assessment for structural valve deterioration with Carpentier–Edwards stented bioprosthesis

Model	Author	Follow-up maximum, mean (years)	Time of structural valve deterioration estimate (years)	Age (years)	Freedom from structural valve deterioration estimate (%)
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval.
Carpentier–Edwards	Poirier et al[15]	15, 4.8	14	Mean (not reported) < 60 60–69 ≥70	79.9 ± 5.0 84.7 87.9 100
Carpentier–Edwards	Neville et al[18]	12, 4.7	12	Mean 68 < 60 ≥60	94 (CI: 90–98) 89 (CI: 80–98) 98 (CI: 96–100)
Carpentier–Edwards	Banbury et al[19]	17, 12	15	Mean 65 < 50 50–70 ≥70	77 (CI: 74–82) 48 80 90
Carpentier–Edwards	Dellgren et al[22]	14, 5	12	Mean 71 > 65	86 ± 9.0 100
Carpentier–Edwards	Biglioli et al[20]	18, 6.0	18	Mean 67 < 65 ≥65	52.9 ± 9.9 35.8 ± 10.7 83.7 ± 8.9
Carpentier–Edwards	McClure et al[21]	17, 6.0	15	Mean 74 < 65 65–75 ≥75	82.3 (CI: 67–91) 34.7 CI: 6–67) 99.5 (CI: 97–99.9) 99.5 (CI: 97–99.0)

The PERIMOUNT Magna Ease which is a further development of the PERIMOUNT Magna prosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) belongs to the latest generation of aortic valve prostheses. The manufacturers points the following advantages: lower profile, contoured and complaint sewing rings, and larger effective orifice areas, which would result in easier insertion and higher coronary ostial clearance; further, it lowers transprosthetic gradients and avoids prosthesis-patient mismatch; also, lower gradients together with an anticalcification technology prevents early structural valve deterioration.[23] [24] [25]

Although the Carpentier–Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease valve is a bioprosthesis with documented excellent hemodynamics and other advantages as stated above, the valve has a gap between the cobalt-chromium-nickel alloy stent and silicone sewing ring. This gap, which is widest just below each of the three commissural struts, lacks silicone and leaves the two-layer polytetrafluoroethylene fabric unprotected. The passage of a needle through this weak area may result in fabric tear, resulting in a true cuff leakage and not the usual paravalvular leakage. To date, there are four case reports of cuff leakage in the literature diagnosed by transesophageal echocardiography. Three patients with cuff leakage were managed conservatively, and in one patient, it was sutured using polypropylene suture.[26] [27] [28] [29] Pledgeted mattress sutures like we have used in our case in this manuscript have been advocated by other authors to prevent this complication.[29]

We report herein a 61-year-old male patient (body surface area 1.7 m²) diagnosed with severe calcific aortic stenosis, with a peak systolic left ventricle-to-aortic gradient of 110 mm Hg and normal coronaries undergoing aortic valve replacement using a 21 mm Carpentier–Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease aortic prosthesis under moderately hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass, St. Thomas (II)-based cold blood cardioplegia and iced normal saline. Postoperative recovery was uneventful.

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 November 2020 (online)

• References

• 1 Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO. et al. AHA/ACC guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014; 129: 521-643
• 2 Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F. et al. Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 2012; 33 (19) 2451-2496
• 3 Kaneko T, Cohn LH, Aranki SF. Tissue valve is the preferred option for patients aged 60 and older. Circulation 2013; 128 (12) 1365-1371
• 4 Nakano K, Hirahara N, Motomura N, Miyata H, Takamoto S. Current status of cardiovascular surgery in Japan, 2013 and 2014: A report based on the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database. 4. Valvular heart surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66 (01) 13-18
• 5 Reineka D, Gisler F, Englberger L, Carrel T. Mechanical versus biological aortic valve replacement strategies. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2016; 14 (04) 423-30
• 6 Gozdek M, Raffa GM, Suwalski P. et al. SIRIO-TAVI group. Comparative performance of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation versus conventional surgical redo aortic valve replacement in patients with degenerated aortic valve bioprostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 53 (03) 495-504
• 7 Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M. et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54 (20) 1862-1868
• 8 Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD. et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135 (04) 878-884, discussion 884
• 9 John S, Ravikumar E, Jairaj PS, Chowdhury U, Krishnaswami S. Valve replacement in the young patient with rheumatic heart disease. Review of a twenty-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990; 99 (04) 631-638
• 10 Ikonomidis JS, Kratz JM, Crumbley AJ III. et al. Twenty-year experience with the St Jude Medical mechanical valve prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 126 (06) 2022-2031
• 11 Gödje OL, Fischlein T, Adelhard K, Nollert G, Klinner W, Reichart B. Thirty-year results of Starr-Edwards prostheses in the aortic and mitral position. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63 (03) 613-619
• 12 Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, Briët E. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. Circulation 1994; 89 (02) 635-641
• 13 Chowdhury UK, Sharma P, Kumari LS, Hasija S, Narang R. Manikalaivani. Thromboembolic and bleeding complications following St. Jude Medical valve replacement. Annals of Short Reports 2018; 1: 1009
• 14 Chowdhury UK, Rizvi A, Narang R. et al. Mitral valve replacement using Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in patients with rheumatic heart disease aged below 40 years: 17-year results. Heart Lung Circ 2018; 27 (07) 864-871
• 15 Poirer NC, Pelletier LC, Pellerin M, Carrier M. 15-year experience with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66 (Suppl. 06) S57-S61
• 16 Walley VM, Keon WJ. Patterns of failure in Ionescu-Shiley bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987; 93 (06) 925-933
• 17 Trowbridge EA, Lawford PV, Crofts CE, Roberts KM. Pericardial heterografts: why do these valves fail?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988; 95 (04) 577-585
• 18 Neville PH, Aupart MR, Diemont FF, Sirinelli AL, Lemoine EM, Marchand MA. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in aortic or mitral position: a 12-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66 (Suppl. 06) S143-S147
• 19 Banbury MK, Cosgrove III DM, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RWM, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 72 (03) 753-757
• 20 Biglioli P, Spampinato N, Cannata A. et al. Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: effect of patient age. J Heart Valve Dis 2004; 13 (Suppl. 01) S49-S51
• 21 McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E. et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89 (05) 1410-1416
• 22 Dellgren G, David TE, Raanani E, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, Rakowski H. Late hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 124 (01) 146-154
• 23 Wyss TR, Bigler M, Stalder M. et al. Absence of prosthesis-patient mismatch with the new generation of Edwards stented aortic bioprosthesis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010; 10 (06) 884-887, discussion 887–888
• 24 Wendt D, Thielmann M, Plicht B. et al. The new St Jude Trifecta versus Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna and Magna Ease aortic bioprosthesis: is there a hemodynamic superiority?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (05) 1553-1560
• 25 Marx P, Kowalczyk W, Demircioglu A. et al. The fluid dynamical performance of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease prosthesis. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 5429594
• 26 Kunisawa T, Takahashi K, Suzuki A, Takahata O, Iwasaki H. Mild nonpara-/nontransvalvular leakage of a stented porcine valve implanted in the mitral position decreased after the administration of protamine and disappeared after surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2008; 22 (05) 799-800
• 27 Kunisawa T, Sasakawa T, Kishi M, Suzuki A, Takahata O, Iwasaki H. Transvalvular leakage after the implantation of stented bovine pericardial valves is not only central. J Anesth 2009; 23 (04) 639-640
• 28 Kuroda M, Sudo T, Koizuka S, Nishikawa K, Kadoi Y, Saito S. Regurgitant leak from the area between the stent post and the sewing ring of a stented bovine pericardial valve implanted in the aortic valve position. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2010; 8: 52
• 29 Tokunaga S, Cho T, Izubuchi R, Masuda M. Cuff leakage, not paravalvular leakage, in the Carpentier Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease aortic bioprosthesis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015; 21 (06) 796-797