Midterm Durability and Hemodynamic Performance of a Third-Generation Bovine Pericardial Prosthetic Aortic Valve: The Leipzig Experience

Aortic valve area index values of Trifecta implants correlate with energy loss and increased valve stress

Biological valves are becoming more frequently used in aortic valve replacement. While several reports have evaluated the performance of biological valves, echocardiography studies during exercise stress remain scarce. Furthermore, no current reports compare rate changes in the aortic valve area of biological valves under increased exercise load. Here, we performed exercise stress echocardiography in patients after AVR with Trifecta or Inspiris valves and compared the rates of change in aortic valve areas (AVA). In addition, hydrodynamic analysis at rest was conducted with four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (4D-flow MRI). Exercise stress echocardiography was performed in seven Trifecta and seven Inspiris patients who underwent AVR at our hospital while 4D flow MRI was performed in all but two Trifecta cases. Comparing the percentage change in AVA when loaded to 25 W versus at rest, Trifecta was greater than Inspiris (28.7 ± 36.0 vs - 0.8 ± 12.4%). The smaller AVA at rest was considered causative for this. Meanwhile, Trifecta systolic energy loss in the prosthetic valve segment on 4D-flow MRI (97.5 ± 35.9 vs 52.7 ± 25.3 mW) was higher than Inspiris. The opening of the Trifecta valve was considered to be restricted at rest and this may reflect the current reports of early valve degradation requiring reoperation. Taken together, we observed that the Trifecta design may promote faster wear due to higher valve stress.

Hemodynamic and Mid-Term Outcomes for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerated Internally Stented Valves

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement is indicated in patients undergoing repeat intervention for degenerative aortic valve bioprostheses. Patients with internally stented valves (ie, Mitroflow and Trifecta) are at high risk for coronary artery obstruction during ViV procedures because of valve design, as the leaflets are mounted outside the valve stent.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement within internally stented valves (ViV-IS) vs other surgical valves (ViV-OS).

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic parameters, and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent ViV-IS were retrospectively collected and compared with those of patients who underwent ViV-OS.

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients (65% men, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4.4% [IQR: 2.2%-8.4%]) were included. Seventy-one patients (28%) underwent ViV-IS, and 179 (72%) patients underwent ViV-OS. Patients who underwent ViV-OS had better periprocedural hemodynamic status compared with those who underwent ViV-IS (median mean gradient 6 [IQR: 2-13] vs 12 [IQR: 6-16]; P < 0.001). This was not significantly different when both groups were matched on the basis of age, sex, and valve internal diameter size (median mean gradient: 18 [IQR: 13-25] for ViV-OS vs 18 [IQR: 11-24] for ViV-IS; P = 0.36). Coronary protection for potential occlusion was performed more in ViV-IS vs ViV-OS pr (79% vs 6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Patients who underwent ViV-IS had a higher risk for coronary occlusion, requiring stent deployment, compared with those who underwent ViV-OS (54% vs 3%, respectively; P < 0.001. There was no difference in mortality at 3 years between the 2 groups (P = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent ViV-IS had a very high incidence of coronary compromise that can be safely and effectively treated. In the setting of a systematic coronary protection strategy, ViV-OS and ViV-IS provide similar mid-term outcome, and periprocedural hemodynamic status (following adjustment for age, sex, and true internal diameter).

Structural valve deterioration of bioprosthesis in the aortic position: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most common open-heart surgical procedures. The durability of the tissue valve in the aortic position is crucial in AVR and transcatheter AVR. We reviewed structural valve deterioration using echocardiographic follow-up in three types of surgical aortic tissue valves.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted where hemodynamic deterioration was evaluated and compared using transthoracic echocardiography, including pressure gradients and effective orifice area. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to summarize the time to failure.

RESULTS

The study included 133 Trifecta, 156 Epic, and 321 Magna Ease valves. Seventy-six percent (1941/2551) of patients had to be excluded due to insufficient echo data. Through univariate analysis, 34% (216/610) of valves met deterioration criteria after 24 months. Unadjusted survival curves showed a significant difference between valves (p ≤ .001), with a longer mean time to deterioration for the Magna Ease versus Trifecta and Epic of 68.9 versus 50.1 and 38.2 months, respectively. A Cox proportional hazard analysis found worse hazard ratios of 1.69 (p ≤ .04) and 2.4 (p ≤ .01) for Trifecta versus Magna and Epic versus Trifecta, respectively.

CONCLUSION

All three valve types demonstrated structural valve deterioration on echocardiographic follow-up with significant differences in rate. The Magna Ease appeared to have the highest durability, and the Epic the lowest. Further investigation is warranted to confirm the results in a larger multicenter study.

Less invasive aortic valve replacement using the trifecta bioprosthesis

Objectives. The safety and effectiveness of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis (introduced in 2016) in less invasive aortic valve replacement are scarcely investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the immediate and initial follow-up results of this device in the context of less invasive surgery. We discuss patient-specific strategies for the selection of the surgical approach. Methods. A retrospective review of 133 patients undergoing AVR with the Trifecta GT through three less invasive accesses (UMS, Upper ministernotomy; RMS, Reversed ministernotomy; RAMT, Right anterior minithoracotomy) was performed. In-hospital, follow-up and hemodynamic performance (PPM, Patient-prosthesis mismatch) data were collected. Results. Among patients, 79% received UMS, 11% RMS and 10% RAMT. Selection of approach was based on preoperative anatomical analysis (CT-scan) and planned concomitant procedures. There was no operative mortality, no valve-related adverse events. There were 36 concomitant procedures. No significant intergroup differences occurred in cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamp, mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay and average bleeding. There were two cases of moderate PPM (1.5%) and no instances of severe PPM; there were no significant (≥2/4) perivalvular leaks. Average mean gradient at discharge was 8 ± 3 mmHg. At follow-up (average: 2.5 ± 0.9 years, 100% complete, 315 patient years) there was no mortality and no valve-related adverse event. Hemodynamic performance was maintained at follow-up. Conclusions. The optimal device for less invasive AVR needs to be individualized, as well as the selection of the surgical approach. The use of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis appears to be reproductible whatever less invasive approach is employed, with confirmed excellent hemodynamic performance.

Structural valve deterioration after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta valve

OBJECTIVES

Despite promising short- and mid-term results for durability of the Trifecta valve, contradictory reports of early structural valve deterioration (SVD) do exist. We investigated the incidence of SVD after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the Trifecta in our single-centre experience.

METHODS

Data of 347 consecutive patients (mean age 71.6 ± 9.5 years, 63.4% male) undergoing SAVR with the Trifecta between 2011 and 2017 were analysed. Clinical and echocardiographic reports were obtained with a median follow-up of 41 months (1114 patient years).

RESULTS

Isolated SAVR was performed in 122 patients (35.2%), whereas 225 patients (64.8%) underwent concomitant procedures. The median EuroSCORE II was 4.0 (0.9; 7.1) and 30-day mortality was 3.7% (n = 13). Kaplan-Meier estimates for the freedom of overall mortality at 1, 5 and 7 years were 88.7 ± 1.7%, 73.7 ± 2.6% and 64.7 ± 4.2%, respectively. SVD was observed in 25 patients (7.2%) with a median time to first diagnosis of 73 months. Freedom of SVD was 92.5 ± 0.9% at 5 years and 65.5 ± 7.1% at 7 years. Thirteen patients underwent reintervention for SVD (6 re-SAVR, 7 valve-in-valve), resulting in a freedom of reintervention for the SVD of 98.5 ± 1.1% at 5 years and 76.9 ± 6.9% at 7 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We herein report one of the highest rates of SVD after SAVR with the Trifecta. These data indicate that the durability of the prosthesis decreases at intermediate to long-term follow-up, leading to considerable rates of reintervention due to SVD.

Early Outcomes of Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Minithoracotomy Using the Latest-Generation Biological Prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate early and intermediate outcomes and hemodynamics of the latest-generation Trifecta valve implanted using right anterior minithoracotomy.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective, observational study including 175 individuals who underwent isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with the latest-generation Trifecta valves through a right anterior minithoracotomy between January 2016 and January 2019. Exclusion criteria for follow-up echocardiographic study included concomitant procedures, conversion to median sternotomy, and nonsurvival during the index admission. Analyses addressed implantation safety, 30-day and intermediate-term survival and hemodynamic performance of the valves.

RESULTS

Overall, patients were followed with duration ranging from 0.5 to 3 years. Early (<30 days) mortality occurred in 2 patients (1.1%), and there were 9 (5.1%) late (>30 days) deaths. Early thromboembolic events and postoperative bleeding requiring reoperation occurred at a rate of 4.0% (n = 7) and 6.2% (n = 11), respectively. Overall in 175 patients who met inclusion criteria for the follow-up echocardiography study, mean gradients across all valve sizes were 41.3 ± 14.9 (standard deviation) mm Hg preoperatively and remained low at 7.2 ± 3.9 mm Hg with mean effective orifice area of 1.8 ± 0.5 cm² on the last follow-up echo. There was 1 case of infective prosthetic endocarditis, which did not require valve explant. There were no reoperations due to valve-related problems during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest series reporting on outcomes of the latest-generation Trifecta valve implanted using right anterior minithoracotomy. Our results demonstrate that this valve can be safely implanted via a minimally invasive approach with excellent early and intermediate outcomes and hemodynamic performance.

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.

Six-year follow-up of aortic valve reoperation rates: Carpentier-Edwards Perimount versus St. Jude Medical Trifecta

BACKGROUND

The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valves have a proven track record in aortic valve replacement: good durability, hemodynamic performance, rates of survival, and low rates of valve-related complications and prosthesis-patient mismatch. The St. Jude Medical Trifecta is a newer valve that has shown comparable early and midterm outcomes. Studies show reoperation rates of Trifecta are comparable with Perimount valves, with a few recent studies bringing into focus early structural valve deterioration (SVD), and increased midterm SVD in younger patients. Given that midterm data for Trifecta is still sparse, we wanted to confirm the early low reoperation rates of Trifecta persist over time compared with Perimount.

METHODS

The Maritime Heart Centre Database was searched for AVR between 2011 and 2016, inclusive. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause reoperation rate.

RESULTS

In total, 711 Perimount and 453 Trifecta implantations were included. The reoperation hazards were determined for age: 0.96 (0.92-0.99; p = .02), female (vs. male): 0.35 (0.08-1.53; p = .16), smoker (vs. nonsmoker): 2.44 (0.85-7.02; p = .1), and Trifecta (vs. Perimount): 2.68 (0.97-7.39; p = .06). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in subgroups-age <60, age ≥60, male, female, smoker, and nonsmoker-showed Perimount having lower reoperation rates than Trifecta in patients younger than 60 (p = .02) and current smokers (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of reoperation of Perimount and Trifecta were comparable, with Trifecta showing higher rates in patients younger than 60 years, and current smokers. Continued diligence and further independent reporting of midterm reoperation and SVD rates of the Trifecta, including detailed echocardiographic follow-up, are needed to confirm these findings.

Midterm results after St Jude Medical Epic porcine xenograft for aortic, mitral, and double valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the results after stented porcine xenograft implantation (Epic, SJM, St Paul, MN) with Linx anticalcification treatment in elderly patients at our high-volume tertiary care center.

METHODS

A total of 3825 patients undergoing aortic (AVR = 2441), mitral (MVR = 892), or double valve (DVR = 492) replacement between 11/2001 and 12/2017 with Epic xenografts were evaluated. Outcomes were assessed by reviewing the prospectively acquired hospital database results, and regular annual follow-up information was acquired from questionnaires or telephone interviews.

RESULTS

For patients undergoing AVR, MVR, DVR, age at surgery were 76.4 ± 6, 71.2 ± 9, 72.9 ± 8 years; active endocarditis was an indication for valve surgery in 4.5%, 20.7%, 19.7%; and the predicted median (interquartile range [IQR]) mortality risk (EuroSCORE II) was 5.2% (3.1%-9.4%), 7.5% (3.9%-16.2%), 9.9% (6.0%-19.6%), respectively. Median follow-up was 3.04 (IQR: 0.18-5.21). Thirty-day survival was 91.2% ± 0.6%, 87.6% ± 0.1.1%, 84.7% ± 1.6%; and 10-year survival was 56.7% ± 1.0%, 59.4% ± 2.5%, 50.45% ± 3.1%, respectively. Patients who underwent MVR versus AVR were at significant increased risk for reoperation for endocarditis (adjusted odds ratio; 2.2, 95% confidence interval; 1.29-3.7; P = .003). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at midterm in AVR vs MVR in the matched cohort (P = .85).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the Epic stented porcine xenograft is associated with acceptable survival and freedom from valve-related complications or reoperation due to structural valve disease at midterm follow-up.

Valve-in-Valve TAVR: State-of-the-Art Review

An increasing number of surgically implanted bioprostheses will require re-intervention for structural valve deterioration. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has become an alternative to reoperative surgery, currently approved for high-risk and inoperable patients. Challenges to the technique include higher rates of prosthesis–patient mismatch and coronary obstruction, compared to native valve TAVR. Herein, we review results of ViV TAVR and novel techniques to overcome the aforementioned challenges.

Clinical outcome and hemodynamic performance of St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis: short-term follow-up and risk factors analysis

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively analysed the short-term outcome of the third-generation St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis.

METHODS

Between December 2014 and December 2017, 177 patients (mean age 75.1±6.8 years, 95 males, 82 females) underwent aortic valve replacement with a St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis and were followed up to 27±9 months. Preoperatively 92 patients (52.0%) were in NYHA class III-IV, EuroSCORE II was 3.2%±2.1%.

RESULTS

Trifecta sizes implanted were 19 mm (n=46) (26%), 21 mm (n=69) (39%), 23 mm (n=46) (26%), 25 mm (n=16) (9%). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 60 patients (34.0%). Operative mortality was 3.4% (1.7% for isolated aortic valve replacement versus 6.7% for combined aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting) (P=0.084). The only independent predictor of mortality was the need for the mechanical ventilation greater than 24 hours (P=0.037); recently occurring myocardial infarction was risk factor for mortality at the univariate analysis only (P=0.013). Three-year survival was 84%±6%, freedom from cardiac death 98%±1%, freedom from prosthetic endocarditis 97%±1%. No thromboembolisms or structural valve degeneration were observed. Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was absent in 126 patients (71.2%), mild-to-moderate in 32 (18.1%), moderate in 19 (10.7%), severe in no any patient. Follow-up echocardiography showed an average mean and peak trans-aortic valve gradients reduction more than 70% in comparison with preoperative value (P<0.0001), and a significant regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (P<0.0001). Moderate PPM did not negatively affect survival. Concomitant severe coronary artery disease was found as an independent predictor of reduced survival (72%±12% versus 86%±6%) (P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Trifecta aortic prosthesis seems to provide very favourable clinical outcome and hemodynamic performance. At three years, survival was negatively affected by severe coronary artery disease detected at the time of operation. During short-term follow-up, no early structural valve degeneration was been observed. Due to low incidence of PPM and low peak and mean trans-prosthetic aortic valve gradients, third generation Trifecta aortic prosthesis should be considered as one of the best options in the setting of the aortic valve replacement surgery. However, a long-term follow-up is mandatory to confirm the early promising data.

Trifecta has lower gradient and less prosthesis-patient mismatch than Mosaic Ultra in the aortic position: A prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

When aortic valve replacement is needed, a biological valve is usually implanted in patients older than age 60 to 65 years. A large valvular opening area is important to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch and facilitate reverse left ventricular remodeling. The Trifecta biological valve (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minn) is, because of its design, believed to reduce transvalvular gradient compared with other biological valves, especially in smaller annuli. Several retrospective studies have compared transvalvular gradients of implanted valves prostheses using the respective manufacturers given size and not the actual annulus size measured by a metric sizer. This makes comparison of the hemodynamic properties of different valve brands and sizes difficult. We therefore performed a prospective randomized study, using the same metric sizer to measure annulus size, and compared hemodynamic profiles of the Trifecta to our standard Mosaic Ultra biological valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn).

METHODS

Ninety elective patients with small to medium annulus diameter undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to either Trifecta or Mosaic Ultra. After native valve removal and decalcification, a Hegar-sizer was used to measure true annulus size. Then the largest possible valve of either brand was implanted according to the randomization protocol. Echocardiography was performed 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Baseline parameters of the 2 cohorts were comparable. There were lower transvalvular gradients in the Trifecta compared with the Mosaic Ultra group for the given annulus sizes. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was present in 28% of patients in the Mosaic group and 3% of patients in the Trifecta group.

CONCLUSIONS

Trifecta showed lower transvalvular gradients and less severe prosthesis-patient mismatch compared with Mosaic Ultra for the given annulus sizes. ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol ID: 2011/2596/REK.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Preterm Infants: Current Evidence and Controversies

The current evidence regarding the indication, advantages and risks of red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) for preterm infants is discussed. This is an important area in Neonatology to be examined given that 90% of extremely low birth weight infants receive RBCT and many controversies remain regarding when to transfuse and the risks of RBCT. The various treatment thresholds and guidelines used are presented and we compare the short-term clinical benefits of liberal and restrictive RBCT in preterm infants; the majority of these are equivocal and sadly long-term outcome data is limited. The latest evidence on how anaemia and blood transfusion affect organ perfusion in preterm infants is presented. This is important when trying to establish the optimal trigger threshold for RBCT in preterm infants, especially because the knowledge about the adaptive physiological responses to anaemia in very low birth weight infants and the effects of RBCT at various levels of anaemia is also inadequate. Further research into the physiological adaptive response to anaemia of varying degrees and to RBCT at different levels of anaemia in preterm infants of different gestational and post-natal ages is needed before we can conclusively guide the optimal timing and trigger thresholds for RBCT in preterm infants.