Aortic valve neocuspidisation using xenologous pericardium versus bioprosthetic valve replacement.

Abstract Background Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic valve stenosis (AS) patients with small aortic root is associated with a higher rate of prosthesis-patient mismatch and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Aortic valve neocuspidisation using xenologous pericardium (xAVNeo) has shown favorable hemodynamic performance. The aim was to compare 6-year clinical outcomes of xAVNeo with SAVR. Methods Between 2003-2018, 412 patients with severe AS and small aortic root received either xAVNeo (N=114) or bioprosthesis (N=298). After propensity matching, the cohort included 222 patients. The primary endpoints were early-, 6-year mortality and freedom from reoperation. Mean follow-up averaged 3.4±3.1 years and was 95% complete. Results Early mortality was 8.1% for the SAVR group vs 9.9% for the xAVNeo group, OR 1.25 [CI95% 0.51-2.89]. The estimated survival probabilities at 6 years for the SAVR and xAVNeo cohorts were 89.9% and 88.8%, respectively, OR 1.07 [0.49-2.34]. Progressive degeneration of the neo-cusps resulted in mean gradients increase from 6.1±2.3 mmHg to 22.7±11.5 mmHg ( p Conclusions Early clinical outcome and 6-year survival following xAVNeo and SAVR was comparable. However, xAVNeo using bovine pericardium was associated with a higher rate of structural valve deterioration and inferior freedom from reoperation when compared to SAVR.