Key result
Inspiris Resilia matches other bioprostheses for SAVR outcomes and shows potential cost-effectiveness over mechanical valves.
Why the study?
The study aimed to critically revise the published literature on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the Inspiris Resilia valve.
Does surgical aortic valve replacement using the Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to other bioprosthetic or mechanical valves?
Meta-Analysis
Yes
Does surgical aortic valve replacement using the Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to other bioprosthetic or mechanical valves?
The Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis demonstrates comparable safety and clinical efficacy to other bioprosthetic valves, with potential long-term cost savings compared to mechanical valves.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports consideration of Inspiris Resilia for SAVR to avoid anticoagulation; extends comparative evidence on bioprosthetic options and costs.
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to critically revise the published literature on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Inspiris Resilia valve. METHODS: This work was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Full text research articles discussing clinical or cost-effectiveness aspects of Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis published in English were included in this analysis. Studies were excluded if they weren't exclusively conducted on patients submitted to surgical aortic valve replacement using the Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis. RESULTS: The technical success rate was almost perfect in all studies. Reported complications included severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, reoperation, endocarditis, and paravalvular leak. In almost all studies, there were significant improvement of NYHA at the end of follow up as compared to baseline. In all studies, there were significant improvement of one or more hemodynamic parameters at the end of follow up as compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical aortic valve replacement using Inspiris Resilia tissue valve appears to be safe and effective with low rate of aortic valve and systemic complications and mortality. Its performance appears to be equal to or better than many other bioprosthetic valves. As compared to mechanical valves, its use is suggested to be more cost-effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Aortic valve disease requiring surgical aortic valve replacement. Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis vs. Other bioprosthetic valves (e.g., Magna Ease, Avalus) or mechanical valves was evaluated on Early and late clinical outcomes (including thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality) and cost-effectiveness. Surgical aortic valve replacement using the Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis demonstrated low rates of complications and mortality, comparable performance to other bioprostheses, and potential cost-effectiveness compared to mechanical valves.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: