Implications of five-year outcomes of PERIGON trial for bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement_Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Authors：

PAN Sun ,  WANG Chunsheng

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

WANG Chunsheng, Email: wang.chunsheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn

Keywords：

Bioprosthesis valve; surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR); structural valve deterioration; transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)

DOI：

10.7507/1007-4848.202210047

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

For patients with aortic valve disease who require replacement of their native valve, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard of care. Due to the hemorrhage and thromboembolic risks of long-term anticoagulation therapy for mechanical prosthesis, bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) has a trend to be used in younger patients, which raising the concern for the durability of bioprosthetic valves. The newly published 5-year outcomes of PERIGON trial, with no structural valve deterioration, again demonstrated the favorable durability of the new generation bioprosthetic valves, further providing the evidence of using bioprosthetic AVR in younger patients. At the meantime, the rapid progress of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has brought a new treatment option. For younger patients with low risks, choosing SAVR or TAVI becomes a critical decision. This paper reviews the outcomes of PERIGON trial and its implications to the clinical practice and research of bioprosthetic AVR.

Citation： PAN Sun, WANG Chunsheng. Implications of five-year outcomes of PERIGON trial for bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2023, 30(1): 17-24. doi: 10.7507/1007-4848.202210047 Copy

1.	Dagenais F, Moront MG, Brown WM, et al. Safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis: Two-year analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2020, 160(2): 371-381.
2.	Klautz RJM, Dagenais F, Reardon MJ, et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented pericardial bioprosthesis: 5-year outcomes. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2022, 62(3): ezac374.
3.	Okita Y, Fujita T, Zaikokuji K, et al. Two-year results of the 17-mm avalus aortic valve in the PERIGON Japan trial. Circ J, 2021, 85(7): 1035-1041.
4.	Kiaii BB, Moront MG, Patel HJ, et al. Outcomes of surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged ≤65 and >65 years. Ann Thorac Surg, 2022, S0003-4975(22): 00062-5.
5.	Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J, 2022, 43(7): 561-632.
6.	Writing Committee, Otto CM, Nishimura RA, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2021, 77(4): e25-e197.
7.	Yongue C, Lopez DC, Soltesz EG, et al. Durability and performance of 2298 trifecta aortic valve prostheses: A propensity-matched analysis. Ann Thorac Surg, 2021, 111(4): 1198-1205.
8.	Bavaria JE, Griffith B, Heimansohn DA, et al. Five-year outcomes of the COMMENCE trial investigating aortic valve replacement with RESILIA tissue. Ann Thorac Surg, 2022, S0003-4975(22): 00063-7.
9.	Freitas-Ferraz AB, Tirado-Conte G, Dagenais F, et al. Aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus. Circulation, 2019, 139(23): 2685-2702.
10.	Ohira S, Miyata H, Doi K, et al. Risk model of aortic valve replacement after cardiovascular surgery based on a National Japanese Database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2017, 51(2): 347-353.
11.	Rodés-Cabau J, Pibarot P, Suri RM, et al. Impact of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: Insights from the PARTNER Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2014, 7(5): 701-711.
12.	Okamoto Y, Yamamoto K, Sugimoto T, et al. Early and late outcomes of aortic valve replacement with aortic annular enlargement: A propensity analysis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2016, 64(5): 410-417.
13.	Celiento M, Ravenni G, Tomei L, et al. Excellent durability of the mosaic porcine aortic bioprosthesis at extended follow up. J Heart Valve Dis, 2018, 27(1): 97-103.
14.	张永会, 姜胜利, 张林, 等. 右胸肋间、胸骨上段与胸骨正中切口主动脉瓣置换术比较. 中华胸心血管外科杂志, 2019, 35(2): 94-98.
15.	Zallé I, Son M, El-Alaoui M, et al. Minimally invasive and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement: A comparative early operative outcomes. Pan Afr Med J, 2021, 40: 68.
16.	Carroll JD, Mack MJ, Vemulapalli S, et al. STS-ACC TVT registry of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020, 76(21): 2492-2516.
17.	Abdelghani M, Landt M, Traboulsi H, et al. Coronary access after TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis: Insights from computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 709-722.
18.	Ochiai T, Chakravarty T, Yoon SH, et al. Coronary access after TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 693-705.
19.	De Backer O, Landes U, Fuchs A, et al. Coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR as evaluated by multidetector computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(21): 2528-2538.
20.	Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(18): 1695-1705.
21.	Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(18): 1706-1715.

1. Dagenais F, Moront MG, Brown WM, et al. Safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis: Two-year analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2020, 160(2): 371-381.
2. Klautz RJM, Dagenais F, Reardon MJ, et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented pericardial bioprosthesis: 5-year outcomes. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2022, 62(3): ezac374.
3. Okita Y, Fujita T, Zaikokuji K, et al. Two-year results of the 17-mm avalus aortic valve in the PERIGON Japan trial. Circ J, 2021, 85(7): 1035-1041.
4. Kiaii BB, Moront MG, Patel HJ, et al. Outcomes of surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged ≤65 and >65 years. Ann Thorac Surg, 2022, S0003-4975(22): 00062-5.
5. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J, 2022, 43(7): 561-632.
6. Writing Committee, Otto CM, Nishimura RA, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2021, 77(4): e25-e197.
7. Yongue C, Lopez DC, Soltesz EG, et al. Durability and performance of 2298 trifecta aortic valve prostheses: A propensity-matched analysis. Ann Thorac Surg, 2021, 111(4): 1198-1205.
8. Bavaria JE, Griffith B, Heimansohn DA, et al. Five-year outcomes of the COMMENCE trial investigating aortic valve replacement with RESILIA tissue. Ann Thorac Surg, 2022, S0003-4975(22): 00063-7.
9. Freitas-Ferraz AB, Tirado-Conte G, Dagenais F, et al. Aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus. Circulation, 2019, 139(23): 2685-2702.
10. Ohira S, Miyata H, Doi K, et al. Risk model of aortic valve replacement after cardiovascular surgery based on a National Japanese Database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2017, 51(2): 347-353.
11. Rodés-Cabau J, Pibarot P, Suri RM, et al. Impact of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement: Insights from the PARTNER Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2014, 7(5): 701-711.
12. Okamoto Y, Yamamoto K, Sugimoto T, et al. Early and late outcomes of aortic valve replacement with aortic annular enlargement: A propensity analysis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2016, 64(5): 410-417.
13. Celiento M, Ravenni G, Tomei L, et al. Excellent durability of the mosaic porcine aortic bioprosthesis at extended follow up. J Heart Valve Dis, 2018, 27(1): 97-103.
14. 张永会, 姜胜利, 张林, 等. 右胸肋间、胸骨上段与胸骨正中切口主动脉瓣置换术比较. 中华胸心血管外科杂志, 2019, 35(2): 94-98.
15. Zallé I, Son M, El-Alaoui M, et al. Minimally invasive and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement: A comparative early operative outcomes. Pan Afr Med J, 2021, 40: 68.
16. Carroll JD, Mack MJ, Vemulapalli S, et al. STS-ACC TVT registry of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2020, 76(21): 2492-2516.
17. Abdelghani M, Landt M, Traboulsi H, et al. Coronary access after TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis: Insights from computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 709-722.
18. Ochiai T, Chakravarty T, Yoon SH, et al. Coronary access after TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(6): 693-705.
19. De Backer O, Landes U, Fuchs A, et al. Coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR as evaluated by multidetector computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020, 13(21): 2528-2538.
20. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(18): 1695-1705.
21. Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(18): 1706-1715.

Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Implications of five-year outcomes of PERIGON trial for bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content