Transfemoral valve-in-valve implantation of a St. Jude Medical Portico in a failing trifecta bioprosthesis: a case report

Premature Structural Failure of Trifecta Bioprosthesis in Midterm Follow-up: A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

A cluster of aortic bioprosthetic valve failures, most of which were Trifecta bioprostheses, was observed in Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. This study was performed to assess whether the cluster represents a significant failure of this valve model or whether there is a selection bias that can explain the failure of these valves.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated all bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement operations performed between 2011 and 2016 inclusive in our center. The study compared the performance of the Trifecta valve (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) with that of Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), Perimount Magna Ease, and Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) bioprostheses. In addition, the study analyzed patient-related and valve-related risk factors for early failure in the failed valves.

RESULTS

A total of 2807 bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements were performed. Of these, 836 were Trifecta valves, 1031 were Perimount, 449 were Perimount Magna Ease, and 351 were Mitroflow valves. A total of 24 Trifecta valves had premature structural failure, a number significantly higher than seen with Perimount or Perimount Magna Ease (no failure, P < .001 and P < .005, respectively) valves and the Mitroflow valve (1 failure, P < .05). There was no difference in the incidence of endocarditis or death. At the time of valve failure, 17 (71%) of the failed Trifecta valves had moderate or severe regurgitation, and the average peak gradient was 61 ± 29 mm Hg. The median failed prosthetic size was 23 mm. One failed valve had severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. The mean time to failure was 4.5 ± 1.7 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The Trifecta bioprosthesis has an increased incidence of early structural valve failure, which is significantly higher than that of Perimount, Perimount Magna Ease, or Mitroflow. No patient-related or valve-related cause for the failure could be identified.

Early First-Generation Trifecta Valve Failure: A Case Series and a Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The Trifecta valve (Abbott, St Paul, MN) has excellent hemodynamic performance with acceptable rates of freedom from structural valve degeneration. However, some recent studies have reported early Trifecta valve failure. Here, we report a case series of seven Trifecta valve failures with a review of the literature.

METHODS

Of 107 implantations of Trifecta bioprostheses between 2012 and 2014, we encountered seven Trifecta valve failures (6.5%). Failure of a 19-mm Trifecta valve occurred in 1 patient, failure of a 21-mm Trifecta valve occurred in 5 patients, and failure of a 23-mm Trifecta valve occurred in 1 patient. The mean duration of valve durability was 51 ± 16 months. The mean effective orifice area index on the first echocardiogram after Trifecta valve implantation was 0.96 ± 0.26. The mode of presentation was prosthetic valve stenosis in 3 patients and severe aortic regurgitation in 4 patients.

RESULTS

Six patients underwent redo surgical aortic valve replacement. The common pathologic findings were circumferential pannus formation with noncoronary cusp tear and leaflet calcification. The rates of preoperative end-renal stage disease and postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch were higher in patients with Trifecta valve failure. The incidence of early Trifecta valve failure was 3.1% at 48 months and 13.1% at 72 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, early Trifecta valve failure was caused by cusp tears or leaflet calcification. Patients with end-renal stage disease and prosthesis-patient mismatch should be closely followed. Some patients with cusp tears may require urgent surgery.

Trifecta vs. Magna for Aortic Valve Replacement - Differences in Clinical Outcome and Valve Hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

The number of surgical aortic valve replacements using bioprosthetic valves is increasing, and newer bioprosthetic valves may offer clinical advantages in Japanese patients, who generally require smaller replacement valves than Western patients. In this study we retrospectively evaluated the Trifecta and Magna valves to compare clinical outcomes and hemodynamics in a group of Japanese patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were retrospectively collected for 103 patients receiving a Trifecta valve and 356 patients receiving a Magna valve between June 2008 and 2017. Adverse events, outcomes, and valve hemodynamics were evaluated. There were no significant differences in early or late outcomes between the Trifecta and Magna groups. In the early postoperative period, mean (±SD) pressure gradient (9.0±3.1 vs. 13.8±4.8 mmHg; P<0.01) and effective orifice area (1.68±0.46 vs. 1.46±0.40 m2; P<0.01) were significantly better for Trifecta, but the differences decreased over time. In particular, the interaction between time and valve type (Trifecta or Magna) was significantly different for mean pressure gradient between the 2 groups (P<0.01). Left ventricular mass regressed substantially in both groups, with no significant difference between them. There were no significant differences for severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative outcomes were similar for both valves. An early hemodynamic advantage for the Trifecta valve lasted to approximately 1 year postoperatively but did not persist.

Matched Comparison of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Failed Aortic Surgical Bioprosthesis

Background—

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. There are limited data comparing outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation using different transcatheter heart valves (THV).

Methods and Results—

Patients included in the Valve-in-Valve International Data registry (VIVID) and treated with self-expanding THV devices were analyzed using centralized core laboratory blinded to clinical events. St. Jude Medical Portico versus Medtronic CoreValve were compared in a 1:2 fashion after propensity score matching. A total of 162 patients, Portico- (n=54) and CoreValve- (n=108) based valve-in-valve procedures comprised the study population with no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age, 79±8.2 years; 60% women; mean STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score 8.1±5.5%). Postimplantation, CoreValve was associated with a larger effective orifice area (1.67 versus 1.31 cm 2 ; P =0.001), lower mean gradient (14±7.5 versus 17±7.5 mm Hg; P =0.02), and lower core laboratory–adjudicated moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (4.2% versus 13.7%; P =0.04), compared with Portico. Procedural complications including THV malpositioning, second THV requirement, or coronary obstruction were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Survival and stroke rates at 30 days were similar, but overall mortality at 1 year was higher among patients treated with Portico compared with CoreValve (22.6% versus 9.1%; P =0.03).

Conclusions—

In this first matched comparison of THVs for valve-in-valve implantations, Portico and CoreValve demonstrated differences in postprocedural hemodynamics and long-term clinical outcomes. Although this could be related to THV design characteristics, the impact of other procedural factors cannot be excluded and require further evaluation.

In-hospital outcome of transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve stenosis: complete dataset of patients treated in 2013 in Germany

BACKGROUND

Transvascular (TV-AVI) or transapical (TA-AVI) aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment option for patients with aortic stenosis being at high or prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve implantation (SAVR). Randomized data demonstrated that these subgroups can safely been treated with TAVI. However, a comparison of SAVR and TAVI in intermediate and low-risk patients is missing. Therefore, the aim of the analysis was to compare TAVI and SAVR in all patients who were treated for aortic valve stenosis in Germany throughout 1 year.

METHODS

The mandatory quality assurance collects data on the in-hospital outcome from all patients (n = 20,340) undergoing either SAVR or TAVI in Germany. In order to compare the different treatment approaches patients were categorized into four risk groups using the logistic EuroScore I (ES). In-hospital mortality and peri- and postprocedural complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The in-hospital mortality did not differ between TV-AVI and SAVR in the low risk group (ES <10 %: TV-AVI 2.4 %, SAVR 2.0 %, p = 0.302) and was significantly higher for SAVR in all other risk groups (ES 10-20 %: TV-AVI 3.5 %, SAVR 5.3 %; p = 0.025; ES 20-30 %: TV-AVI 5.5 %, SAVR 12.2 %, p < 0.001; ES >30 %: TV-AVI 6.5 %, SAVR 12.9 %, p = 0.008). TA-AVI had a significantly higher mortality in all risk groups compared to TV-AVI. In comparison to SAVR, TA-AVI had a higher mortality in patients with ES <10, comparable mortality in ES 10-20 %, and lower mortality in patients with an ES >20 %. The overall stroke rate was 2.3 %. It occurred more frequently in patients with an ES <10 % treated with a transapical approach (SAVR 1.8 %, TV-AVI 1.9 %, TA-AVI 3.1 %, p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in all other comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that TAVI provides excellent outcomes in all risk categories. Compared with SAVR, TV-TAVI yields similar in-hospital mortality among low-risk patients and lower in-hospital mortality among intermediate and high-risk patient populations.