Key result
The Avalus aortic bioprosthesis demonstrated similar hemodynamic performance to the Perimount Magna Ease at 5 years, with a mean pressure gradient of 14.7 vs 16.6 mm Hg (p=0.20).
Why the study?
The hemodynamic performance of the Avalus bioprosthesis compared with the Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis up to 5 years was unknown.
Does the Avalus bioprosthesis provide similar hemodynamic performance compared to the Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=96)
Does the Avalus bioprosthesis provide similar hemodynamic performance compared to the Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 14.7% vs 16.6%
p-value: p=0.20
The Avalus and Perimount Magna Ease aortic bioprostheses demonstrate comparable hemodynamic performance and survival up to 5 years post-implantation.
Similar 5-year hemodynamics inform valve selection; leaves open longer-term durability in randomized trials.
Background We aimed to compare hemodynamic performance of the Avalus (Medtronic) and the Perimount Magna Ease (PME, Edwards Lifesciences) bioprosthesis up to 5 years by serial echocardiographic examinations. Methods In patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, 58 received PME prostheses between October 2007 and October 2008, and another 60 received Avalus prostheses between October 2014 and November 2015. To ensure similar baseline characteristics, we performed a propensity score matching based on left ventricular ejection fraction, age, body surface area, and aortic annulus diameter measured by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. Thereafter, 48 patients remained in each group. Mean age at operation was 67 ± 6 years and mean EuroSCORE-II was 1.7 ± 1.1. Both values did not differ significantly between the two groups. Results At 1 year the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 15.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.32). The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.65 ± 0.45 cm2 in the PME group and 1.62 ± 0.45 cm2 in the Avalus group (p = 0.79). At 5 years the MPG was 16.6 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 7.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.20). The EOA was 1.60 ± 0.49 cm2 in the PME group and 1.51 ± 0.40 cm2 in the Avalus group (p = 0.38). Five-year survival was 88% in the PME group and 91% in the Avalus group (p = 0.5). In the PME group, there were no reoperations on the aortic valve, whereas in the Avalus group three patients required a reoperation due to endocarditis. Conclusion Both bioprostheses exhibit similar hemodynamic performance during a 5-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burri et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=96). Avalus bioprosthesis vs. Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis was evaluated on Mean pressure gradient at 5 years (p=0.20). The Avalus aortic bioprosthesis demonstrated similar hemodynamic performance to the Perimount Magna Ease at 5 years, with a mean pressure gradient of 14.7 vs 16.6 mm Hg (p=0.20).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: