The EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve system is designed to achieve three important goals simultaneously:
The EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve system represents our commitment to continued innovation for surgeons and patients in heart valve therapy.
The surgical heart valve market is evolving. Concomitant procedures are becoming a larger percent of the surgical mix, and MIS is gaining in importance. To enable surgeons to address these trends, we have developed the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve system.
We have combined our proven pericardial valve technology with our innovations in transcatheter heart valves to create a new category of surgical valves designed to streamline procedures and facilitate smaller incision surgery. We believe more efficient, less invasive procedures can provide significant benefits, both during the procedure and after.
This is the next evolution of surgical aortic valves.
This is the EDWARDS INTUITY valve platform.
Built on a trusted, proven platform
Provides rapid deployment for streamlined procedures
Empowering multiple approaches. Progress through access.
The EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve system is designed to enhance the ease of implantation through small incisions using three guiding sutures.
Excellent hemodynamic performance
The EDWARDS INTUITY valve platform has consistently delivered low mean pressure gradients at 1 year, as shown in multiple clinical studies.
In a large prospective trial1, the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve demonstrated excellent and stable hemodynamic performance and significant LV mass regression out to 3 years.
The Edwards Advantage
We are committed to providing your institution, clinicians and staff with the highest levels of customer service and support to ensure seamless product implementation and ongoing use, including:
- 24/7 technical support – Simply call 800-822-9837 or email tech_support@edwards.com anytime, day or night
- Customer service – Call 800-424-3278 to speak to a customer service representative
Contact a sales representative
References
- Haverich A, Wahlers TC, Borger MA, et al. Three-Year Hemodynamic Performance, Left Ventricular Mass Regression, and Prosthetic-Patient-Mismatch After Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in 287 Patients, J Throac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(6):2854-60
**These data pertain to an earlier generation EDWARDS INTUITY system and supported the CE Mark approval for the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite valve system. - Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM III, White JA, et al. Age and Valve Size Effect on the Long-term Durability of the Carpentier-Edwards Aortic Pericardial Bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72(3):753-757. (Cohort size = 267, mean age = 65 ± 12 yrs. Number at risk for Explant for SVD at last follow-up not reported)
- McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E, et al. Late Outcomes for Aortic Valve Replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial Bioprosthesis: Up to 17-year Follow-up in 1,000 Patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(5):1410-1416. (Cohort size = 1,000, mean age = 74.1 ± 0.29 yrs. Number at risk for SVD at last follow-up not reported)
- Welke KF, Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL, Ahmad A, Starr A. Long-term results after Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve implantation, with attention to the impact of age. The Heart Surgery Forum. 2011;14(3):E160-165.
- Minakata K et al. Long-Term Outcome of the Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial Valve in the Aortic Position in Japanese Patients. Circulation Journal 2014;78:882-889. (Cohort size = 574, mean age = 71.9 yrs. Number at risk for Structural Deterioration at 15-year follow-up = 54)
- Jamieson WR, Germann E, Aupart MR, et al. 15-year Comparison of Supra-annular Porcine and PERIMOUNT Aortic Bioprostheses. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2006;14(3):200-205. (Cohort size = 1,430, mean age = 69.5 ± 10.4 yrs. Number at risk for SVD at last follow-up = 33)
- Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Wu Y, Wang L, Starr A. Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2012;144(6):1381-1386.
- Biglioli P, Spampinato N, Cannata A, et al. Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: effect of patient age. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13(1):S49-51. (Cohort size = 327, mean age = 67.2 ± 10.6 yrs. Number at risk for Prosthesis Replacement at last follow-up not reported)
- Bergoënd E, Aupart MR, Mirza A, et al. 20 years’ durability of Carpentier-Edwards Perimount stented pericardial aortic valve. In: Yankah CA, Weng Y, Hetzer R,eds. Aortic Root Surgery The Biological Solution. Berlin: Springer; 2010:441-451. (Cohort size = 1,857, mean age = 69.8 yrs, Number at risk for Structural Valve Deterioration at last follow-up not reported)
- Aupart MR, Mirza A, Meurisse YA, et al. Perimount Pericardial Bioprosthesis for Aortic Calcified Stenosis: 18-year Experience with 1133 Patients. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15(6):768-775. (Cohort size = 1,133, mean age = 72.6 yrs. Number at risk for SVD at last follow-up = 2)
- Bourguignon T, et al. Very Long-Term Outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Valve in Aortic Position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Mar;99(3):831-7. (Cohort size = 2,659, mean age = 71 ± 10.4 yrs. Number at risk for explant for Structural Valve Deterioration = 28).
- Forcillo J et al. Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial Valve in the Aortic Position: 25-Years Experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:486-93. (Cohort size = 2,405, mean age = 71 yrs. Number at risk for Structural Deterioration at last follow-up = 30)
- Clinical Communiqué. Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Aortic Pericardial Bioprosthesis 20-year Results. Data on file at Edwards Lifesciences, 2003. (Cohort size = 267, mean age = 65 ± 12 yrs. For patients ≥ 65, number at risk for explant due to SVD at last follow-up = 2)
- Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N, et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Apr;99(4):1239-47. (Cohort size = 12,569, mean age = 71 ±11 yrs. Number at risk for explant for Structural Valve Deterioration at 20 year follow-up = 54).
- Clinical Investigation Report: Study Number; 2011-02 Report Date: 25 February 2016; TRANSFORM Database December 3, 2015.
- STS database for the period of July 2011 - December 2012.
- Brinkman WT, Hoffman W, Dewey TM, et al. Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery: Comparison of Outcomes in Matched Sternotomy and PORT ACCESS Groups. Ann Thorac Surg 2010;90:131-5.
- Al-Sarraf N, Thalib L, Houlihan M, Tolan M, Young V, McGovern E. Crossclamp time is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in low- and high-risk cardiac patients. Int J Surg 2011;9:104-109.
- McClure RS. Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E, et al. Late Outcomes for Aortic Valve Replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial Bioprosthesis: Up to 17-Year Follow-Up in 1,000 Patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2010;89:1410-1416.
- Borger MA, Dohmen P, Misfeld M, Mohr FW. Current trends in Aortic Valve Replacement: development of the rapid deployment EDWARDS INTUITY valve system. Expert review of medical devices. Jul 2013;10(4):461-470.
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) 2014. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
- Grossi EA, Moore M, Mallow PJ, Rizzo JA. The cost of an operating room minute for heart valve procedures. JHEOR 2015;2(2):170-80.
- Dasta, J. F., McLaughlin, T. P., Mody, S. H., & Piech, C. T. (2005). Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: The contribution of mechanical ventilation*. Critical care medicine, 33(6), 1266-1271.
- Fuller, R. L., McCullough, E. C., Bao, M. Z., & Averill, R. E. (2009). Estimating the costs of potentially preventable hospital acquired complications. Health care financing review, 30(4), 17.
- Forbes JM, Anderson MD, Anderson GF, Bleecker GC, Rossi EC, Moss GS. Transfusion 1991 May;31(4):318-23.
- Borger MA, Dohmen P, Moustafine V, Conradi L, Knosalla C, Richter M, Merk DR, Doenst T, Hammerschmidt R, Treede H, Dohmen P, Strauch JT. Randomized Multi-Center Trial of Minimally Invasive Rapid Deployment Versus Conventional Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement (CADENCE-MIS). The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2014.
- Clinical Investigation Report. Report Date: 07 June 2016; FOUNDATION Database February 1, 2016.
Please update your browser
Please update to a current version of your preferred browser, this site will perform effectively on the following:
If you are on a computer, that is maintained by an admin and you cannot install a new browser, ask your admin about it. If you can't change your browser because of compatibility issues, think about installing a second browser for browsing and keep this old one for compatibility