Propensity Matched Comparison Between Inspiris Resilia and Mechanical Valves in Aortic Position in a Young Patient Cohort

Objective Mechanical prosthetic valves are the main option for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the young population. Inspiris Resilia tissue valves with a novel tissue treatment technology are slowly taking the place of mechanical valves in many centers across the world. We compared the early outcomes between Inspiris Resilia and mechanical valves in a propensity-matched cohort of young patients undergoing AVR. Methods Using retrospective data collection, we compared 95 patients with an Inspiris valve (I) with 69 patients receiving a mechanical bileaflet valve (M). Propensity matching gave rise to 40 matched patients in each group. Results Mean age of the patients was 56 years in both matched cohorts. Preoperative and operative characteristics of the matched groups of patients showed no significant difference. The in-hospital mortality was 0% in both groups, but a significantly longer hospital stay was observed in the M-group ( p = .038). During the follow-up, a higher incidence of bleeding (12.5% vs 2.5%) and systemic embolization (5% vs 2.5%) was seen in the M-group. Both were not significant due to the low event numbers. Last follow-up echocardiographic data showed slightly higher (but non-significant) peak and mean gradients in the I-group compared to the M-group (25 vs 19 mmHg, p = .09) and (16 vs 10 mmHg, p = .06), respectively. Conclusion The Inspiris Resilia could be a good alternative to the mechanical valves in aortic position, with less postoperative hospital stay, less risk of mid-term thromboembolic and bleeding complications. Randomized controlled studies and registries with longer follow-up are needed for more reliable results.