Why the study?
This trial was designed to compare 1-year hemodynamic performances and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a recently introduced bovine pericardial bioprosthesis versus a worldwide used one.
Does the AVALUS bovine pericardial bioprosthesis provide noninferior 1-year mean pressure gradients compared to the CEPME bioprosthesis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Does the AVALUS bovine pericardial bioprosthesis provide noninferior 1-year mean pressure gradients compared to the CEPME bioprosthesis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
The AVALUS bovine pericardial bioprosthesis provides noninferior 1-year hemodynamic performance compared to the widely used CEPME valve for aortic valve replacement.
AVALUS offers a noninferior alternative to CEPME for AVR; confirms comparable 1-year hemodynamics in an RCT.
Background This randomized controlled trial was designed to compare 1-year hemodynamic performances and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a recently introduced (the AVALUS group) and worldwide used (the CEPME group) bovine pericardial bioprostheses. Methods Patients were screened to enroll 70 patients in each group based on a noninferiority design. The primary endpoint of the trial was the mean pressure gradient across the aortic valve (AVMPG) at 1 year after surgery. One-year echocardiographic data were obtained from 92.1% (129 of 140 patients) of the study patients. Results There were no differences in baseline characteristics, including sex and body surface area (1.64 ± 0.18 vs. 1.65 ± 0.15 m2) between the groups. The AVMPG on 1-year echocardiography was 14.0 ± 4.3 and 13.9 ± 5.1 mmHg in the AVALUS and CEPME groups, respectively (the p-value for noninferiority was 0.0004). In the subgroup analyses for the respective size of the prostheses, AVMPG of the 19-mm prostheses was significantly lower in the AVALUS group than in the CEPME group (14.0 ± 4.3 vs. 20.0 ± 4.7 mmHg, p = 0.012), whereas those of the other sizes were not significantly different between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the effective orifice area (1.49 ± 0.40 vs. 1.53 ± 0.38 cm2, p = 0.500) or effective orifice area index (0.91 ± 0.22 vs 0.93 ± 0.23 cm2/m2, p = 0.570) in all the patients, or in the subgroup analysis for the 19-mm prosthesis. There were no differences in the 1-year clinical outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion The 1-year hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the AVALUS group were noninferior to those of the CEPME group (NCT03796442).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sohn et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: