Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 11:14 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 8:49 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT05253469
Status:
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Last Update Posted:
2025-07-01
First Post:
2022-02-14
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Infective Endocarditis Surgery Using Conventional Prosthetic Valves Versus Cryopreserved Aortic Homograft
Sponsor:
Centre Cardiologique du Nord
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Cryopreserved Aortic Homograft Versus Conventional Prosthetic Valves for Infective Endocarditis Involving the Aortic Valve : a Propensity Score Matched Analysis
Status:
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Status Verified Date:
2025-06
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
IESCOPHO
Brief Summary:
: Evidence suggested that autologous or allogeneic tissue is more suitable to synthetic material in an infected field. Given the unwillingness of some surgeons to use artificial foreign materials, such as conventional mechanical or stent xenograft valve prostheses, cryopreserved aortic homografts (CAH) have been recommended revealing favorable outcomes in aortic valve endocarditis (AVE) surgery (1-5). This aspect is even more evident in cases involving prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) and other complex and aggressive lesions involving the aortic root and intervalvular fibrosa with abscess formation. However, most of these reports are fixed on single-arm observational studies without comparing CAH with conventional prostheses.
The key question of this study is to establish the difference in treatment failure (death, recurrent aortic valve regurgitation and reoperation), all-cause and cause-specific (cardiac vs noncardiac) mortality, hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up (structural/non structural valve deterioration, thromboembolism and recurrent endocarditis) in patients who received the CAH vs conventional mechanical or stent xenograft valve prostheses for aortic valve replacement (AVR) secondary to infective endocarditis (IE)
The key question of this study is to establish the difference in treatment failure (death, recurrent aortic valve regurgitation and reoperation), all-cause and cause-specific (cardiac vs noncardiac) mortality, hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up (structural/non structural valve deterioration, thromboembolism and recurrent endocarditis) in patients who received the CAH vs conventional mechanical or stent xenograft valve prostheses for aortic valve replacement (AVR) secondary to infective endocarditis (IE)
Detailed Description:
The target population enrolled in the study includes patients with aortic-valve endocarditis at risk of embolization, heart failure and uncontrolled infection undergoing AVR with the use of CAH or conventional mechanical or stent xenograft valve prostheses. Individuals were adequately treated per applicable standards, including for the treatment of infection, LV dysfunction and heart failure. Patients enrolled in the studies were NYHA functional class II, III, or outpatient NYHA IV.
Three groups of patients are included in the study. Patients who were managed with CAH, patients who received AVR with conventional stented xenograft and recipients of AVR undergoing surgery with the use of mechanical prostheses.
Three groups of patients are included in the study. Patients who were managed with CAH, patients who received AVR with conventional stented xenograft and recipients of AVR undergoing surgery with the use of mechanical prostheses.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: