Background: During the past decade, the Perimount Magna Ease (PME) bioprosthesis has been implanted worldwide for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Recently, the INSPIRIS Resilia (IR) valve has been introduced as the newest generation of pericardial bioprostheses. However, few data have been reported about patients ≤70 years, and no comparisons in terms of hemodynamic performance between these two bioprostheses have been ever reported. Methods: Patients aged <70 years undergoing AVR were considered for comparison between PME (n = 238) and IR (n = 192). Propensity score (PS) matching was performed by logistic regression with adjustment for eight key baseline variables. The two prostheses were compared in terms of hemodynamic performances up to 3 years postoperatively. Sub-analysis according to prosthetic size-category was accomplished. Results: A total of 122 pairs with similar baseline characteristics were obtained from the PS-matching. The two prostheses showed comparable hemodynamic performances at one year (Gmean: 11.3 ± 3.5 mmHg vs. 11.9 ± 5.4 mmHg; p = 0.8) and at 3 years postoperatively (Gmean: 12.2 ± 7.9 mmHg vs. 12.8 ± 5.2 mmHg for; p = 0.3). The sub-analysis of size-category confirmed no statistical differences concerning the hemodynamic performances for each annulus size. Conclusions: This first PS-matched analysis demonstrated that the newly developed IR valve achieves the same safety and efficacy of the PME valve during mid-term follow-up in patients aged <70 years.

Perimount MAGNA Ease vs. INSPIRIS Resilia Valve: A PS-Matched Analysis of the Hemodynamic Performances in Patients below 70 Years of Age

Alessandra Francica
;
Filippo Tonelli;Cecilia Rossetti;Antonella Galeone;Fabiola Perrone;Giovanni Battista Luciani;Francesco Onorati
2023-01-01

Abstract

Background: During the past decade, the Perimount Magna Ease (PME) bioprosthesis has been implanted worldwide for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Recently, the INSPIRIS Resilia (IR) valve has been introduced as the newest generation of pericardial bioprostheses. However, few data have been reported about patients ≤70 years, and no comparisons in terms of hemodynamic performance between these two bioprostheses have been ever reported. Methods: Patients aged <70 years undergoing AVR were considered for comparison between PME (n = 238) and IR (n = 192). Propensity score (PS) matching was performed by logistic regression with adjustment for eight key baseline variables. The two prostheses were compared in terms of hemodynamic performances up to 3 years postoperatively. Sub-analysis according to prosthetic size-category was accomplished. Results: A total of 122 pairs with similar baseline characteristics were obtained from the PS-matching. The two prostheses showed comparable hemodynamic performances at one year (Gmean: 11.3 ± 3.5 mmHg vs. 11.9 ± 5.4 mmHg; p = 0.8) and at 3 years postoperatively (Gmean: 12.2 ± 7.9 mmHg vs. 12.8 ± 5.2 mmHg for; p = 0.3). The sub-analysis of size-category confirmed no statistical differences concerning the hemodynamic performances for each annulus size. Conclusions: This first PS-matched analysis demonstrated that the newly developed IR valve achieves the same safety and efficacy of the PME valve during mid-term follow-up in patients aged <70 years.
2023
aortic valve replacement
hemodynamic valve performance
pericardial bioprostheses
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
jcm-12-02077 (3).pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione dell'editore
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 1.12 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.12 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1088027
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact