Mid-term hemodynamic results of bioprosthetics of the aortic valve with a prosthesis with a unique “easy change” system

Aim: To assess the hemodynamic results of using the xenopericardial biological prosthesis “MedEng-BIO” with the “easy change” system in the aortic position in the mid-term period.

Material and Methods. In the cardiac surgery department No. 1 of Cardiology Research Institute, Tomsk NRMC, from October 2016 to January 2024, 341 patients (155 women and 186 men) underwent aortic valve replacement surgery using an innovative “MedEng-BIO” bioprosthesis with the “easy change” system. The average age of the patients was 67.6 ± 6.6 years. The study included 190 patients (88 women and 102 men) who underwent aortic valve replacement using the innovative “MedEng-BIO” bioprosthesis with the “easy change” system in the period from January 2017 to January 2022. The average age of the patients was 67.6 ± 6.6 years. The average pressure gradient on the aortic valve before surgery was 48.2 ± 13.5 mmHg. The effective area of the aortic valve opening averaged (EАO) – 0.72 ± 0.2 cm2 . Control echocardiographic studies of left ventricular (LV) function and aortic bioprosthesis after surgery were performed on the 10th–14th day after surgery and 3–5 years after discharge using Vivid 7, GE and IE 33 (Philips) devices.

Results. Control echocardiographic studies conducted in the mid-term period allowed us to establish that the hemodynamic characteristics of “MedEng-BIO” aortic prostheses in the aortic position remain satisfactory. The average pressure gradient on the “MedEng-BIO” prostheses of 21 sizes was 22.6 mmHg, 23 with a size of – 15.1 mmHg and 25 with a size of 10.3 mmHg.

Conclusion. Based on the data obtained, it can be concluded that xenopericardial “MedEng-BIO” bioprostheses with the “easy change” system correct intracardiac hemodynamics well over a follow-up period of more than 3 years and show no signs of degeneration.

1. Goldbarg S.H., Elmariah S., Miller M.A., Fuster V. Insights into degenerative aortic valve disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2007;50(13):1205–1213. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.024.

2. Vahanian A., Beyersdorf F., Praz F., Milojevic M., Baldus S., Bauersachs J. ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur. Heart J. 2022;43(7):561–632. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395.

3. Shipulin V.M., Pryakhin A. S., Andreev S.L., Shipulin V.V., Kozlov B.N. Surgical treatment of ischemic cardiomyopathy: Current state of the problem. Cardiology. 2019;59(9):71–82. DOI: 0.18087//cardio.2019.9.n329.

4. Goldstone A.B., Chiu P., Baiocchi M., Lingala B., Patrick W.L., Fischbein M.P. et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valvereplacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;377(19):1847–1857. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613792.

5. Reynolds M.R., Magnuson E.A., Lei Y., Wang K., Vilain K., Li H. et al. PARTNER Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: Results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012;60(25):2683–2692. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.018.

6. Kozlov B.N., Petlin K.A., Kosovskikh E.A., Pryakhin A.S., Shipulin V.M., Vrublevsky A.V. et al. The results of using the frame xenopericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position with the “easy change” system 12 months after implantation. Clin. Experiment. Surg. Petrovsky J. 2020;8(2):45–50. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.33029/2308-1198-2020-8-2-45-50.

7. Goldstone A.B., Chiu P., Baiocchi M., Lingala B., Patrick W.L., Fischbein M.P. et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;377(19):1847–1857. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613792.

8. Côté N., Pibarot P., Clavel M.A. Incidence, risk factors, clinical impact, and management of bioprosthesis structural valve degeneration. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 2017;32(2):123–129. DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000372.

9. Otto C.M., Nishimura R.A., Bonow R.O., Carabello B.A., Erwin J.P. 3rd, Gentile F. et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e35–e71. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000932.

10. Peters A.S., Duggan J.P., Trachiotis G.D., Antevil J.L. Epidemiology of valvular heart disease. Surg. Clin. North. Am. 2022;102(3):517–528. DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2022.01.008.

11. Kozlov B.N., Petlin K.A., Kosovskikh E.A., Shipulin V.M., Panfilov D.S., Chernykh Yu.N. Immediate results of using a frame-mounted xeno-pericardial bioprosthesis in mitral position with an Easy Change System. Siberian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2020;35(1):54–60 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.29001/2073-8552-2020-35-1-54-60.

12. Petlin K.А., Kosovskikh E.А., Tomilin V.А., Arsenyeva Y.А., Kozlov B.N. Midterm results of using the frame xenopericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position with the easy-change system: Four-year experience of implantation. Siberian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2021;36(1):117–122. DOI: 10.29001/2073-8552-2021-36-1-117-122.