Mosaic Mitral Valve: Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Under 65
NCT ID: NCT06917586
Last Updated: 2025-04-08
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
300 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2025-01-01
2027-07-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Are the Results of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair Still Satisfactory When Looked at Very Long-term?
NCT05836558
Medical Versus Surgical Management of Moderate Mitral Regurgitation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
NCT01156441
Patient Specific Mitral Valve Modeling for Surgical Planning and Training
NCT03609931
Early Percutaneous Mitral Intervention in Asymptomatic Moderate Mitral Stenosis
NCT01406353
Prognostic Impact of the Location of Mitral Valve Prolapse on the Long-term Results of Mitral Plasty
NCT03113552
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Within the U.S., the prevalence of valvular heart disease is estimated at 2.5% with an abrupt increase after the age of 65 years, predominantly due to degenerative etiologies. In patients with significant valve insufficiency or stenosis where repair or reconstruction is not feasible, valve replacement is the most offered solution. The two types of heart valves offered to patients include mechanical or bioprosthetic. The major advantage of bioprosthetic heart valves in comparison to mechanical valves is the lack of post-operative anticoagulant therapy. However, the major disadvantage of bioprosthetic heart valves lie in their reduced durability compared to mechanical valves, with reoperation rates of \~10% at 10 years and up to 30% at 15 years.
The use of porcine bioprosthetic heart valves for cardiac valve replacement first appeared in the late 1960s and have been widely used since due to the avoidance of anticoagulant therapy. One of the major drawbacks associated with bioprosthetic valves is structural valve deterioration (SVD) which can lead to reduced valve durability, necessitating reoperation. The causes of SVD are poorly understood, however, it is thought to result from the accumulation of calcium and lipids on the valve surface. The Medtronic Mosaic mitral bioprosthetic valve is a 3rd-generation, stented porcine heart valve that was originally approved for clinical use in the U.S. in 2000. These valves are treated with a 0.2% glutaraldehyde solution stabilizing the tissue by cross-linking free lysine residues. In addition, the valve is treated with alpha-amino oleic acid (AOATM) which has been shown to mitigate leaflet calcification in animal studies. Long term clinical safety and efficacy of the Mosaic valve in the aortic position is well documented throughout the literature however, few studies exist detailing performance in the mitral position. Moreover, even fewer studies exist detailing overall valve survival in patients under 65 due to the more common recommendation of the use of mechanical valve replacement in this population. The purpose of this study is to examine long-term outcomes in patients who have received the Mosaic mitral valve bioprosthetic and were under the age of 65 at placement.
Significance:
The investigation of the Medtronic mosaic heart valve in the mitral position will allow for a better assessment of product performance and its impact on patient outcomes. Results can inform physicians on the longevity of the product when used in the mitral position allowing for more accurate prediction of replacement time. In addition, the results may provide further information to the safety and efficacy of placement in the mitral position in patients under the age of 65, a population in which mechanical valves are more prevalent.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
RETROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Mitral Valve Replacement
Patients who have undergone mitral valve replacement at ProMedica Hospital using the mosaic bioprosthesis and were under the age of 65.
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Under the age of 65
Exclusion Criteria
* Under the age of 18
* Surgery performed at institutions outside of ProMedica Toledo Hospital
18 Years
65 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Michael Moront
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Michael Moront
Doctor Of Medicine
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Michael Moront, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
ProMedica Health System
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
ProMedica Toledo Hospital
Toledo, Ohio, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
ERP-2024-13849
Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT
Identifier Source: secondary_id
IRB# 24-129
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.