Trifecta Aortic Bioprosthesis: Midterm Results in 1,953 Patients From a Single Center

Case Series of Early Structural Valve Deterioration of Trifecta Bioprosthesis - New Zealand Experience

PURPOSE

Structural valve deterioration (SVD) remains a limitation on the use of bioprosthetic valves, with patient and valve-related factors contributing to early SVD. The Trifecta valve has been reported to have excellent hemodynamics but studies have highlighted early failure. We present a review and case series at a New Zealand tertiary hospital defining early SVD as failure within 3 years of implant.

METHODS

A retrospective review from January 2015 to July 2019 included 525 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement with 263 patients receiving an Abbott Trifecta or Trifecta Glide Technology (GT) valve. Our review found an acceptable safety profile for the valve with excellent hemodynamics, with a low mortality, stroke, and permanent pacemaker rate.

RESULTS

Three patients out of 263 were identified from the study period as having early SVD requiring reintervention within 3 years of valve implantation leading to a 1.14% failure rate. One of the valves that had early SVD was a new generation Trifecta GT. An additional four patients were identified to have valves implanted prior to the study period and had valve failure at greater than 3 years post implantation. Five cases had cusp tears as their mechanism of failure, raising concerns about durability.

CONCLUSION

The Trifecta valve has an acceptable safety profile and offers good hemodynamics due to the externally mounted leaflets. However, our experience of early SVD and failure is concerning for valve durability. Further comparison to other bioprosthetic valves and longer term follow-up are required to characterize the mechanism of failures.

5-Year haemodynamic performance of three aortic bioprostheses. A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The Carpentier Perimount (CP) Magna Ease, the Crown Phospholipid Reduction Treatment (PRT) and the Trifecta bovine pericardial valves have been widely used worldwide. The primary end point of this study was to compare the haemodynamic performance quantified by in vivo echocardiograms of these 3 aortic prostheses.

METHODS

The "BEST-VALVE" (comparison of 3 contemporary cardiac bioprostheses: mid-term valve haemodynamic performance) was a single-centre randomized clinical trial to compare the haemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned bioprostheses. The 5-year results are assessed in this manuscript.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were included. The CP Magna Ease (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRT (n = 51, 32.1%) and Trifecta (n = 55, 35.7%) valves were compared. Significant differences were observed among the 3 bioprostheses 5 years after the procedure. The following haemodynamic differences were found between the CP Magna Ease and the Crown PRT bioprostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (interquartile range {IQR} 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 15 mmHg (IQR 10.8-31.9) for the Crown PRT, P < 0.001] and between the CP Magna Ease and the Trifecta prostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (IQR 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 14.7 mmHg (IQR 8.2-55) for the Trifecta, P < 0.001], with a better haemodynamic performance of the CP Magna Ease. The cumulative incidence of severe structural valve degeneration was 9.5% in the Trifecta group at 6 years of follow-up. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from all-cause mortality was 91.5%, 83.5% and 74.8%, respectively (log rank P = 0.440). Survival from the composite event at the 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up was 92.8%, 74.6% and 59%, respectively (log rank P = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

We detected significant differences between the 3 bioprostheses; the CP Magna Ease had the best haemodynamic performance at the 5-year follow-up.

Structural valve degeneration of bioprosthetic aortic valves: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of structural valve degeneration (SVD) following surgical aortic valve replacement associated with the Trifecta (TF) valve (St Jude Medical) versus other bioprosthetic valves.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing durability of the TF prosthesis to other valve types, including Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences), Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (ME) (Edwards Lifesciences), and Mitroflow (LivaNova USA) after surgical aortic valve replacement. Random effect pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to compare the incident rate ratio of the composite primary outcome of SVD or reintervention due to SVD.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 31,029 patients were included, of whom 6832 received TF, 19,023 received Perimount, 3514 received ME, and 713 received Mitroflow. When compared with TF, ME was associated with lower rates of SVD or reintervention for SVD (incident rate ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .04). Similarly, at network meta-analysis, when compared with TF, only ME was associated with significantly lower rates of SVD or reintervention for SVD (incident rate ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.97). ME (incident rate ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.07-0.47) and PM (incident rate ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.98) were associated with significantly lower rate of all-cause reintervention when compared with TF. No differences in the other secondary outcomes were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The TF valve is associated with significantly higher rates of SVD or reintervention for SVD than the ME valve, but not the Mitroflow valve. The TF valve was also associated with higher rates of all-cause reintervention than ME and Perimount valves. The underlying mechanism(s) of these findings warrant further investigation.

Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes and Hemodynamic Performances of Trifecta and Perimount Bioprostheses following Aortic Valve Replacement

Aims of the Study: We evaluated the clinical outcome and the hemodynamic and freedom from structural valve degeneration of two standard aortic bioprostheses. Methods: Clinical results, echocardiographic findings and follow-up data of patients operated for isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with the Perimount or the Trifecta bioprosthesis were prospectively collected, retrospectively analysed and compared. We weighted all the analyses by the inverse of the propensity of choosing either valves. Results: Between April 2015 and December 2019, 168 consecutive patients (all comers) underwent aortic valve replacement with Trifecta (n = 86) or Perimount (n = 82) bioprostheses. Mean age was 70.8 ± 8.6 and 68.8 ± 8.6 years for the Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (p = 0.120). Perimount patients presented a greater body mass index (27.6 ± 4.5 vs. 26.0 ± 4.2; p = 0.022), and 23% of them suffered from angina functional class 2–3 (23.2% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.002). Mean ejection fraction was 53.7 ± 11.9% (Trifecta) and 54.5 ± 10.4% (Perimount) (p = 0.994), with mean gradients of 40.4 ± 15.9 mmHg (Trifecta) and 42.3 ± 20.6 mmHg (Perimount) (p = 0.710). Mean EuroSCORE-II was 7 ± 11% and 6 ± 9% for the Trifecta and Perimount group, respectively (p = 0.553). Trifecta patients more often underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (45.3% vs. 26.8%; p = 0.016) and annulus enlargement (10.5% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.058). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 3.5% (Trifecta) and 8.5% (Perimount), (p = 0.203) while new pacemaker implantation (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) and stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) were similar. Acute MACCE were observed in 5% (Trifecta) and 9% (Perimount) of patients with an unweighted OR of 2.22 (95%CI 0.64–7.66; p = 0.196) and a weighted OR of 1.10 (95%CI: 0.44–2.76, p = 0.836). Cumulative survival at 24 months was 98% (95%CI: 0.91–0.99) and 96% (95%CI: 0.85–0.99) for Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (log-rank test; p = 0.555). The 2-year freedom from MACCE was 94% (95%CI: 0.65–0.99) for Trifecta and 96% (95%CI: 0.86–0.99) for Perimount (log-rank test; p = 0.759, HR 1.46 (95%CI: 0.13–16.48)) in the unweighted analysis (not estimable in the weighted analysis). During the follow-up (median time: 384 vs. 593 days; p = 0.0001) there were no re-operations for structural valve degeneration. Mean valve gradient at discharge was lower for Trifecta across all valve sizes (7.9 ± 3.2 vs. 12.1 ± 4.7 mmHg; p < 0.001), but the difference did not persist during follow-up (8.2 ± 3.7 mmHg for Trifecta, 8.9 ± 3.6 mmHg for Perimount; p = 0.224); Conclusions: Postoperative outcome and mid-term follow-up were similar. An early better hemodynamic performance was detected for the Trifecta valve but did not persist over time. No difference in the reoperation rate for structural valve degeneration was found.

Impact of Aortic Root Enlargement on Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can be an important adjunct for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study compared outcomes of AVR with or without ARE.

METHODS

This was an observational study using an institutional database of AVRs from 2010 to 2020 comparing patients who underwent isolated AVR vs AVR with ARE (AVR+ARE). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed.

RESULTS

Of 2371 patients, 2240 (94.5%) underwent isolated AVR and 131 (5.5%) underwent AVR+ARE. Patients who underwent AVR+ARE were more likely to be women and to be younger than those who underwent isolated AVR. Prosthesis size was smaller in patients undergoing AVR+ARE (23 mm [interquartile range {IQR}, 21-25] vs 25 mm [IQR, 23-25], P < .001), but indexed effective orifice area did not differ between the 2 groups. Operative mortality was comparable for AVR (2.3%) and AVR+ARE (3.8%, P = .28). Patients who underwent AVR+ARE had a longer length of stay (7 days [IQR, 6-13] vs 6 days [IQR 5-10], P < .001), were more likely to have acute kidney injury (6.1% vs 2.5%, P = .01), were more likely to require blood product transfusions (40.5% vs 27.6%, P < .001), and were more likely to require prolonged ventilation > 24 hours (16.0% vs 6.8%, P < .001). Rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker, and reoperation were comparable between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were similar, and on multivariable regression AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with AVR (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.46; P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

ARE can be safely performed with isolated AVR and should be considered for patients with small annuli to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Eight-year outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease valve

INTRODUCTION

The Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease valve is a third-generation bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This is a postapproval study reporting on its 8-year outcomes.

METHODS

Adults undergoing AVR with the Magna Ease valve between October 2007 and December 2012 were enrolled for this prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm, and multicenter study. Assessments occurred preoperatively, at hospital discharge, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter for up to 8 years. Outcomes included safety endpoints, hemodynamic performance, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class.

RESULTS

Of the 258 study patients, 67.5% were in NYHA Class I or II, and 32.5% were in NYHA Class III or IV at baseline. Concomitant procedures were performed in 44.2%. Total follow-up was 1597.6 patient-years, and median follow-up was 7 years (interquartile range: 5.5-8.0 years). Eight years following AVR, the functional class remained improved from baseline with 93.9% in NYHA Class I/II and 6.1% in NYHA Class III; 38 deaths had occurred, 8 of which were valve related; freedom from all-cause mortality was 80.7% (95% confidence intervals: 74.9, 86.4); freedom from valve-related mortality was 95.8% (92.8, 98.8); freedom from reintervention, explant, major bleeding events, and structural valve deterioration was 89.8% (85.1, 94.6), 94.8% (91.7, 97.9), 85.1% (80.0, 90.1), and 90.1% (84.7, 95.4), respectively; effective orifice area was 1.5 ± 0.5 cm² , the mean gradient was 14.8 ± 8.3 mmHg, and 88.6% of patients had no or trivial aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated satisfactory safety and sustained hemodynamic and functional improvements at 8 years following AVR with the Magna Ease valve.

Outcomes of bovine versus porcine surgical aortic valve replacement

INTRODUCTION

There are no guidelines regarding the use of bovine pericardial or porcine valves for aortic valve replacement, and prior studies have yielded conflicting results. The current study sought to compare short- and long-term outcomes in propensity-matched cohorts of patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bovine versus porcine valves.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study utilizing an institutional database of all isolated bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacements performed at our center from 2010 to 2020. Patients were stratified according to type of bioprosthetic valve (bovine pericardial or porcine), and 1:1 propensity-score matching was applied. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression for mortality were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for all-cause readmissions and aortic valve reinterventions.

RESULTS

A total of 1502 patients were identified, 1090 (72.6%) of whom received a bovine prosthesis and 412 (27.4%) of whom received a porcine prosthesis. Propensity-score matching resulted in 412 risk-adjusted pairs. There were no significant differences in clinical or echocardiographic postoperative outcomes in the matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were comparable, and, on multivariable Cox regression, valve type was not significantly associated with long-term mortality (hazard ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.74, 1.40, p = .924). Additionally, there were no significant differences in competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for all-cause readmissions (p = .68) or aortic valve reinterventions (p = .25) in the matched cohorts.

CONCLUSION

The use of either bovine or porcine bioprosthetic aortic valves yields comparable postoperative outcomes, long-term survival, freedom from reintervention, and freedom from readmission.

Review of bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration: Patient or valve?

BACKGROUND

With guidelines progressively recommending bioprosthetic aortic valves in younger patients, a greater emphasis is placed on structural valve deterioration (SVD) as an important clinical endpoint for both transcatheter and surgically implanted valves. However, SVD of bioprosthetic valves is a complex entity with varying definitions in the literature and a multifaceted pathogenesis.

AIM

This review first aims to establish the most updated definitions of SVD as per the literature. We then explore the patient- and valve-related factors that play the greatest roles in facilitating early SVD.

METHODS

A PubMed literature review was conducted to identify the relevant research in this field within the past two decades.

CONCLUSION

Increasing rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome pose a significant risk to the longevity of bioprosthetic valves. Additionally, externally mounted valves have proven to sacrifice durability for superior haemodynamics. Bioprosthetic SVD continues to be a multifactorial issue that will require various patient- and valve-related factors to be addressed.

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.

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented pericardial bioprosthesis: 5-year outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This analysis evaluated the safety, durability, and haemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial valve through 5 years of follow-up in patients with an indication for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the incidence of survival and valve-related thromboembolism, major paravalvular leak (PVL), endocarditis, structural valve deterioration (SVD), and reintervention. Mean aortic gradient and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were also evaluated.

RESULTS

1118 patients have received the Avalus valve (Medtronic); 564 have completed 5-year follow-up. Median follow-up was 4.85 years (4810 patient-years total follow-up). At baseline, mean age was 70.2 ± 9.0 years; 75.1% of patients were male. STS predicted risk of mortality was 2.0 ± 1.4%. Most patients were in NYHA class II (46.8%) or III (40.3%). At 5 years follow-up, the overall Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 88.1% (85.9-90.0%). The Kaplan-Meier event rates were 5.6% (4.3-7.2%) for thromboembolism, 4.4% (3.2-6.0%) for endocarditis, 0.2% (0.0-0.7%) for major PVL, and 3.2% (2.3-4.6%) for reintervention. There were no cases of SVD. Mean gradient decreased from 42.1 ± 17.1 mmHg at baseline, to 13.1 ± 4.7 mmHg at discharge, and remained stable at 12.5 ± 4.6 mmHg at 5 years. More than 95% of patients were in NYHA class I/II 5 years after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of a high survival rate, excellent safety, no SVD, and stable haemodynamic performance and functional status through 5 years of follow-up are encouraging. Additional follow-up is needed to assess the long-term durability of this contemporary surgical bioprosthesis.

Association of the Surgical Technique With the Structural Valve Deterioration of a Bioprosthesis: A Prospective Cohort Study

The Trifecta aortic valve is a prosthesis with externally mounted leaflets and a stent which may be deformed during implant. Our aim was to know if the use of the holder as a protection device during the knotting has an impact on the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD) or endocarditis. Prospective cohort study where all patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Trifecta aortic valve between 2013 and 2018 were included. The use of the holder as a protection device was collected in a database. Propensity-score matched methods were used and analyses were based on competing events. Death without SVD or prosthesis replacement not due to SVD was considered competing events. 782 patients were included, 352 pairs after the matching. Rates of SVD at 5 and 8 years were 5.8% (95% CI 3.5-8.7) and 13.6% (95% CI 9.2-18.9) in the group without holder and 2.3% (95% CI 1-4.5) and 7% (95% CI 4.2-10.8) in the group with holder; sHR = 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.86; P = 0.015). The risk of endocarditis at 8 years was 4.8% (95% CI 2.8-7.4) in the group without holder and 2.3% (95% CI 1.1-4.3) in the group with holder, sHR = 0.49 (95% CI 0.21-1.15, P = 0.1). The use of holder as a protection device during the knotting of the Trifecta aortic valve is associated with less risk of SVD.

Aortic valve biologic protheses: A cohort comparison of premature valve failure

BACKGROUND

Recent reports suggest an increased rate of early structural valve degeneration (SVD) in the Trifecta bioprosthesis (Abbott Cardiovascular). We sought to compare the intermediate-term outcomes of the Magna (Edwards Life Sciences) and Trifecta valves.

METHODS

All surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVRs) with Trifecta or Magna/Magna Ease bioprostheses at an academic medical center were extracted from an institutional database. Patients who survived until after discharge (2011-2019) were included. The primary outcome was valve failure for any reason requiring reintervention or contributing to death, identified by reintervention or review of cause of death. Time to failure was estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox Proportional Hazards Modeling.

RESULTS

Out of 1444 patients, 521 (36%) underwent Trifecta and 923 (64%) underwent Magna implantation with a median follow-up of 27.6 months. Trifecta patients had larger median valve size (25 vs. 23 mm, p < .001) and lower median gradient (8.0 vs. 10.9 mmHg, p < .001). Trifecta patients had higher 48-month estimated failure rates (20.2 ± 7.6% vs. 2.6 ± 0.7%, p < .0001), with failure rates of 21.4 versus 9.2 failures per 1000 person-years (p < .001). After risk-adjustment, Trifecta patients had a 5.3 times hazard of failure (95% confidence interval: 2.78-12.34, p < .001) compared to Magna patients. Only Trifecta valves failed due to sudden aortic regurgitation, 8 out of 521 (1.5%).

CONCLUSION

Despite lower postoperative mean gradients, the Trifecta bioprosthesis may have an increased risk of intermediate-term SVD. Further research is warranted to confirm the potential for sudden valve failure.

Analysis of incidence and reasons for re-intervention after aortic valve replacement using the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis

INTRODUCTION

Trifecta bioprosthesis claims favourable haemodynamic performance. However, reports of structural valve deterioration (SVD) raise concerns of its long-term durability. We assessed outcomes with the Trifecta valve over a 10-year period.

METHODS

All patients receiving Trifecta bioprostheses between October 2011 and October 2020 were included. Perioperative and survival characteristics were prospectively collated in an independent database. Re-intervention was recorded as a surrogate for SVD.

RESULTS

944 patients (mean age 72.82 years ± 8.13, 58% male) underwent aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta valve. At 10-years, 1.4% of patients required a redo operation, giving an overall freedom from re-intervention of 98.6%. The mean time to re-intervention was 48.87 months. Survival was 73.58% and 76.92% in patients who did not require re-intervention vs re-intervention group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, single-centre cohort, the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis had a 1.4% all-cause re-intervention rate at 10-years, with insignificant impact on survival.

Different Rates of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Failure With Perimount™ and Trifecta™ Bioprostheses

Objectives

The use of bioprostheses in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has increased in younger patients. Comparative analysis of different types of bioprostheses is lacking. We aimed to compare two proprietary bioprostheses with different designs, i.e., internally and externally mounted leaflets, focusing on the long-term durability and survival.

Methods

We conducted a large single-center retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent SAVR with either Perimount™ or Trifecta™ bioprostheses between 2001 and 2019. The patient groups were further subdivided by age &lt;65 and &gt;65. Endpoints of the study were all-cause mortality and reoperation due to bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF).

Results

Selection criteria resulted in a total sample of 5,053 patients; 2,630 received a Perimount prosthesis (internally mounted leaflets) and 2,423 received a Trifecta prosthesis (externally mounted leaflets). The mean age at surgery was similar (69 ± 11 y, PM, and 68 ± 10 y, TF, p = 0.9), as was estimated survival at 8 years (76.1 ± 1.3%, PM, and 63.7 ± 1.9% TF; p=0.133). Patients in the Trifecta group had a significantly higher cumulative reoperation rate at 8 years compared to those in the Perimount group (16.9 ± 1.9% vs. 3.8 ± 0.4%; p &lt; 0.01). This difference persisted across age groups (&lt;65 y, 13.3% TF vs. 8.6% PM; &gt;65 y, 12% TF vs. 7% PM).

Conclusion

Bioprostheses for SAVR with externally mounted leaflets (Trifecta) showed significantly higher long-term reoperation rates compared to those with internally mounted leaflets (Perimount), regardless of the patient's age at SAVR. Survival was similar with both bioprostheses.

Mid-term clinical and haemodynamic results after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and haemodynamic results after implantation of the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing Trifecta aortic valve replacement between 01 January 2012 and 31 December 2017 at the Ghent University Hospital. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of valve- and procedure-related complications and mortality. The haemodynamic performance was analysed by longitudinal Doppler echocardiography.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 182 patients was 77 [standard deviation (SD): 5.5] years; 54.9% were women. The mean follow-up was 39.8 (SD: 24.3) months. Overall survival at 1 and 5 years was 86% (SD: 3%) and 68% (SD: 4%), respectively, and overall freedom from structural valve deterioration was 100% and 98% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. There was no valve thrombosis nor early endocarditis. Urgent surgery was the only risk factor for early mortality in the multivariable analysis [P = 0.009, odds ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.5]. Preoperative atrial fibrillation was the most important predictor of late mortality (P = 0.001, hazard ratio 3.68, 95% CI 1.65-8.21). The average peak gradients were stable from discharge up to 1 and 5 years postoperatively [15 (SD: 6) and 17 (SD: 8) mmHg].

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the excellent clinical performance of the Trifecta valve, particularly in an elderly age group. Through the 7-year follow-up period, low transvalvular gradients persisted, and only a few patients needed reoperation. Although structural valve degeneration occurred rarely, it was unrelated to valve size or age at implantation; therefore, further long-term follow-up remains mandatory.

One-Year Hemodynamic Performance of Three Cardiac Aortic Bioprostheses: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial

Background: We aimed to compare 1 year the hemodynamic in-vivo performance of three biological aortic prostheses (Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease^TM, Crown PRT^TM, and Trifecta^TM). Methods: The sample used in this study comes from the “BEST-VALVE” clinical trial, which is a phase IV single-blinded randomized clinical trial with the three above-mentioned prostheses. Results: 154 patients were included. Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease^TM (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRT^TM (n = 51, 32.1%) and Trifecta^TM (n = 55, 35.7%). One year after the surgery, the mean aortic gradient and the peak aortic velocity was 17.5 (IQR 11.3–26) and 227.1 (IQR 202.0–268.8) for Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease^TM, 21.4 (IQR 14.5–26.7) and 237.8 (IQR 195.9–261.9) for Crown PRT^TM, and 13 (IQR 9.6–17.8) and 209.7 (IQR 176.5–241.4) for Trifecta^TM, respectively. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated improved mean gradients and maximum velocity of Trifecta^TM as compared to Crown PRT^TM. Among patients with nominal prosthesis sizes ≤ 21, the mean and peak aortic gradient was higher for Crown PRT^TM compared with Trifecta^TM, and in patients with an aortic annulus measured with metric Hegar dilators less than or equal to 22 mm. Conclusions: One year after surgery, the three prostheses presented a different hemodynamic performance, being Trifecta^TM superior to Crown PRT^TM.

Long-term durability after surgical aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta and the Intuity valve-a comparative analysis

OBJECTIVES

Long-term durability of surgical bio-prostheses is a key factor, especially in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We compared the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD) between patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the Trifecta (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) or the Intuity valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA).

METHODS

Between April 2010 and May 2020, 1118 patients underwent SAVR with the Trifecta (n = 346) and the Intuity (n = 772) valve at a single centre. A total of 1070 patients (Trifecta n = 298, Intuity n = 772) were analysed after the exclusion of patients with pure regurgitation and endocarditis. Retro- and prospective echocardiographic and clinical follow-up was performed. Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to identify prognostic factors for SVD, aortic re-interventions and mortality.

RESULTS

With 27 cases (Trifecta n = 23, Intuity n = 4) of SVD observed, cumulative incidence of SVD was significantly higher in the Trifecta cohort (P < 0.001). Implantation of a Trifecta valve [hazard ratio (HR) 11.20; 95% confidence interval 3.79-33.09], log-transformed preoperative creatinine (HR 2.47; 1.37-4.44) and sex (male HR 0.42; 0.19-0.92) emerged as prognostic factors of SVD. A significantly higher cumulative incidence of re-interventions was observed in the Trifecta cohort (P = 0.004) and valve type was an independent time-varying risk factor (HR at 12 months 2.78; 95% confidence interval 1.42-5.45). Overall, no significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed between the groups (log-rank test: P = 0.052).

CONCLUSIONS

SVD was significantly more frequent in patients receiving a Trifecta valve and its implantation was an independent risk factor for the occurrence of SVD and aortic valve re-interventions. This comparative analysis of 2 low-gradient bioprosthesis put the long-term durability of the Trifecta valve in question and need to be taken into consideration when performing bioprosthetic SAVR.

Mid-term clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes for the Trifecta bioprosthesis

Background

The Trifecta valve has been reported to have excellent hemodynamics. Controversy exists on occurrence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and data on mid-term outcome is sparse. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for the Trifecta valve has not been reported before. The aim of this study was to report the mid-term clinical and HRQoL outcomes in patients undergoing Trifecta valve implantation at our institution.

Methods

In this prospective, observational study, patients undergoing an aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Trifecta valve were included. Data collection was retrospective from prospectively collected institutional database. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected prospectively during follow-up. Quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire.

Results

Forty-seven patients were included in the study of which 9 (19%) were women. Isolated AVR was carried out in 33 (70%) patients. In-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were 1 (2.1%) and 2 (4.2%), respectively. With a mean indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) 0.96 ± 0.1, none of the patients had severe PPM. Moderate PPM was seen in 19%. The mean follow-up was 3 ± 1.7 years. The 5-year survival estimate was 83.2% in the overall cohort, 81.4% in the isolated and 87.5% in the concomitant procedure group. Freedom from re-operation and structural valve degeneration at 5 years was 95.7% and 97.8%. The mean physical health composite was 69.24 ± 2 and the mean mental health composite was 69.7 ± 25, indicating excellent mental and physical well-being among patients.

Conclusion

The Trifecta valve provides satisfactory hemodynamics, survival and freedom from re-operation and excellent HRQoL at mid-term follow-up.

Trifecta versus perimount bioprosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement; systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggested higher rates of early structural valve degeneration or reintervention for the Trifecta valve compared to other valves. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and the Perimount valves in patients who underwent a surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

All randomized control trials and observational studies which investigated the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and Perimount valves were identified with PubMed and EMBASE. The endpoints were the rates of reintervention and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) for reintervention and all-cause mortality were combined with the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our search identified 6 eligible observational studies which enrolled a total of 11,135 patients who underwent SAVR with either the Trifecta valve (n = 4932) or Perimount (n = 6203). Pooled analyses demonstrated that the reintervention rates were significantly higher with the Trifecta valve compared with Perimount valves (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 3.16 [1.83-5.46]; p < .0001; I² = 40%). In contrast, all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (HR [95% CI] = 1.09 [0.75-1.58]; p = .32, I² = 12%).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that AVR with the Trifecta valve was associated with higher rates of reintervention compared for that with the Perimount valve. Although further long-term randomized trials are warranted, surgeons need to be cautious when choosing a bioprosthetic valve for patients undergoing SAVR.

Aortic valve neocuspidization with autologous pericardium in adult patients: UK experience and meta-analytic comparison with other aortic valve substitutes

OBJECTIVES

We sought to provide further evidence on the safety and efficacy of aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) using autologous pericardium in adult patients with aortic valve disease by reporting clinical and echocardiographic results from the first UK experience and performing a meta-analytic comparison with other biological valve substitutes.

METHODS

We reported clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of 55 patients (mean age 58 ± 15 years) undergoing AVNeo with autologous pericardium in 2 UK centres from 2018 to 2020. These results were included in a meta-analytic comparison between series on AVNeo (7 studies, 1205 patients, mean weighted follow-up 3.6 years) versus Trifecta (10 studies, 8705 patients, 3.8 years), Magna Ease (3 studies, 3137 patients, 4.1 years), Freedom Solo (4 studies, 1869 patients, 4.4 years), Freestyle (4 studies, 4307 patients, 7 years), Mitroflow (4 studies, 4760 patients, 4.1 years) and autograft aortic valve (7 papers, 3839 patients, 9.1 years).

RESULTS

In the present series no patients required intraoperative conversion. After mean follow-up of 12.5 ± 0.9 months, 3 patients presented with endocarditis and 1 required reintervention. The remaining patients had absent or mild aortic valve insufficiency with very low peak and mean transvalvular gradients (16 ± 3.7 and 9 ± 2.2 mmHg, respectively). Meta-analytic estimates showed non-significant difference between AVNeo and all but Magna Ease valves with regards to structural valve degeneration, reintervention and endocarditis. When compared Magna Ease valve, AVNeo and other valve substitutes showed an excess of valve-related events.

CONCLUSIONS

AVNeo is safe, associated with excellent haemodynamic profile. Its midterm risk of valve-related events is comparable to most biological valve substitutes. Magna Ease is potentially the best biological choice as far as risk of reintervention is concerned.

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.

Aortic valve neocuspidisation using xenologous pericardium versus bioprosthetic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic valve stenosis (AS) patients with small aortic root is associated with a higher rate of prosthesis-patient mismatch and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Aortic valve neocuspidisation using xenologous pericardium (xAVNeo) has shown favorable hemodynamic performance. The aim was to compare 6-year clinical outcomes of xAVNeo with SAVR.

METHODS

Between 2003-2018, 412 patients with severe AS and small aortic root received either xAVNeo (N=114) or bioprosthesis (N=298). After propensity matching, the cohort included 222 patients. The primary endpoints were early-, 6-year mortality and freedom from reoperation. Mean follow-up averaged 3.4±3.1 years and was 95% complete.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 8.1% for the SAVR group vs 9.9% for the xAVNeo group, OR 1.25 [CI95% 0.51-2.89]. The estimated survival probabilities at 6 years for the SAVR and xAVNeo cohorts were 89.9% and 88.8%, respectively, OR 1.07 [0.49-2.34]. Progressive degeneration of the neo-cusps resulted in mean gradients increase from 6.1±2.3 mmHg to 22.7±11.5 mmHg ( p<0.0001 ); cusp sclerosis was the most common indication for reoperation in the xAVNeo group with a linearised rate of 1.92% vs. 0.26% per patient-year, rate ratio = 7.41 [CI95% 0.95-333.7]. The freedom from reoperation was 84.8% at 6 years, inferior to that of the SAVR group (100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Early clinical outcome and 6-year survival following xAVNeo and SAVR was comparable. However, xAVNeo using bovine pericardium was associated with a higher rate of structural valve deterioration and inferior freedom from reoperation when compared to SAVR.

Early cusp tear of the second-generation Trifecta valve with Glide Technology

We herein report a case of early cusp tear of the second-generation Trifecta valve with Glide Technology. A 69-year-old woman underwent aortic valve replacement with a Trifecta valve with Glide Technology and partial arch replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis caused by a bicuspid valve and ascending aortic and aortic arch aneurysms 2 years previously. During follow-up, she suddenly developed dyspnoea and a heart murmur. Echocardiography revealed severe aortic valve regurgitation caused by structural valve deterioration. We performed re-aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve through re-median sternotomy. Intraoperative examination revealed a bottom tear of the left coronary cusp without infection or pannus formation.

Impact of the Trifecta bioprosthetic valve in patients with low-flow severe aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valve disorder in advanced age. Previous reports have shown that low-flow status of the left ventricle is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality after surgery. The Trifecta bioprosthesis has recently shown favorable hemodynamic performance. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Trifecta bioprosthesis, which has a large effective orifice area, in patients with low-flow severe AS who have a poor prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 94 consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients were divided into two groups according to the stroke volume index (SVI): low-flow (LF) group (SVI < 35 ml/m², n = 22) and normal-flow (NF) group (SVI ≥ 35 ml/m², n = 72). Patients’ characteristics and early and mid-term results were compared between the two groups. There were no differences in patients’ characteristics, except for systolic blood pressure (LF:NF = 120:138 mmHg, p < 0.01) and the rate of atrial fibrillation between the groups. A preoperative echocardiogram showed that the pressure gradient was higher in the NF group than in the LF group, but aortic valve area was similar. The Trifecta bioprosthesis size was similar in both groups. The operative outcomes were not different between the groups. Severe patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (< 0.65 cm²/m²) was not observed in either of the groups. There were no significant differences in mid-term results between the two groups. The favorable hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta bioprosthesis appears to have the similar outcomes in the LF and NF groups. AVR with the Trifecta bioprosthesis should be considered for avoidance of PPM, particularly in AS patients with LV dysfunction.

Magna ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients

OBJECTIVES

The Magna Ease aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) is a third-generation bioprosthetic valve developed as a modification of the well-studied Perimount and Magna valve designs. This study's objective is to evaluate a large, single-centre experience with Magna Ease aortic valve replacement (AVR) focusing on clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance.

METHODS

All patients undergoing AVR between 8/2010 and 10/2018 at our institution implanted with the Magna Ease valve were included except those undergoing ventricular assist device or congenital aortic surgery. Primary outcomes were overall survival and freedom from reoperation. Mean transprosthetic gradient (mTPG) and structural valve deterioration (SVD) served as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally 1126 consecutive implantations of Magna Ease valves were included. Concomitant procedures were performed in 56.5% (n = 636). No severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was present at implantation. Overall survival at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years and 9 years was 97.2%, 95.0%, 86.1% and 78.2%, respectively, with improved survival for isolated AVR. Total of 2.4% (n = 27) of patients required reoperation with 0.3% (n = 4) for SVD. Echocardiographic follow-up data revealed low mTPG throughout the study period. SVD occurred in 28.7% of patients at a mean of 3.9 years post implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Magna Ease AVR maintained low mean transprosthetic gradients throughout mid-term evaluation and was associated with excellent overall survival and freedom from reoperation at nine years post implantation.

Early surgical aortic bioprosthesis failure caused by cusp tear: A word of caution

Cusp tear is an increasingly described mode of failure of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis. Acute aortic regurgitation after implantation of a Trifecta in absence of endocarditis should suggest a cusp tear and be promptly treated with redo surgery.

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.

Final 5-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Long-term durability of bioprosthetic valves is predominantly limited by structural valve deterioration. RESILIA™ tissue has exhibited reduced calcification in pre-clinical and early clinical studies. This study evaluated the 5-year clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of an aortic valve with this tissue.

METHODS

This was a prospective, non-randomized, single-arm study of 133 patients implanted with a RESILIA aortic bioprosthesis between July 2011 and February 2013 at 2 sites in Poland. Clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance were assessed annually for 5 years post-implant. Safety events were adjudicated by a Clinical Events Committee and echocardiographic data were assessed by an independent core laboratory.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 65.3 ± 13.5 years, with 34 patients (25.6%) ≤60. The mean follow-up was 4.2 ± 1.5 years. Early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) all-cause mortality were 2.3% (N = 3) and 3.2%/late patients-years (N = 18) respectively. Early events included thromboembolism in 3 patients (2.3%). Late valve-related events included endocarditis in 1 patient, which led to explant, and valve thrombosis in another patient. There were no events of structural valve deterioration throughout the study. At 5 years, mean gradient was 14.8 ± 7.6 mmHg and effective orifice area was 1.4 ± 0.5 cm2, a marked improvement over baseline values. All New York Heart Association class III patients and most class II patients at baseline had improved classifications at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The bioprosthesis with RESILIA tissue demonstrated a good safety profile with excellent haemodynamic performance over 5 years of follow-up. These encouraging outcomes warrant additional investigation of this novel tissue.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01651052.

Early Midterm Results After Valve Replacement With Contemporary Pericardial Prostheses for Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies have demonstrated improved gradients after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta (TR) valve (Abbott Cardiovascular, St Paul, MN) as compared with the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease (ME) valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Clinical benefits of this strategy have not been demonstrated.

METHODS

Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with either valve were included. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant procedures other than coronary artery bypass grafting. Inverse proportion treatment weighting was used in the analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac mortality, need for reintervention, and freedom from first congestive heart failure (CHF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the composite components, and cumulative CHF admission. Follow-up echocardiograms were assessed in a cohort of patients to assess structural valve degeneration.

RESULTS

There were 331 patients in the TR group and 360 patients in the ME group. The TR group had more women (48% vs 32%, P < .001) with smaller roots (left ventricular outflow tract diameter: TR, 2.11 cm; ME, 2.17 cm; P < .001). After weighting there was no significant difference in the composite measure between groups (P > .05). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.59; P = .56), and 5-year survival was 91.9% in the ME group and 93.4% in the TR group. There was no difference in cardiac death, reintervention, or first onset of CHF or incidence of structural valve degeneration between groups. There was no difference in the rate of admissions for CHF per 100 patients between the 2 valve types (P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS

Early hemodynamic benefits have not translated into differences in medium-term clinical outcomes between these 2 valves. Long-term follow-up is necessary.

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.

Reduced Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Stentless Freedom SOLO Compared With Stented Perimount Magna Aortic Bioprostheses: A Propensity Score Weighted Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR), due to new-onset severe conduction system disorders, is required in approximately 7% of patients. This study investigated the need for PPI after AVR with conventional stented Perimount Magna compared with the Freedom SOLO (FS) stentless valve (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy), now LivaNova plc (London, UK) that uses a strictly supra-annular, subcoronary running suture implantation technique, sparing the vulnerable interleaflet triangles in the region of the septum membranaceum.

METHODS

A total of 413 consecutive patients (71.4±9.2 yrs, 178 [43.1%] female) underwent isolated AVR using the stented Perimount Magna (n=264) or the stentless FS (n=149) bioprosthesis. Propensity score weighted analysis was used to account for patient-specific and procedural-specific variables, and to identify the prosthesis-specific need for early postoperative PPI within 30 days of AVR.

RESULTS

Twenty (20) patients required PPI, which was associated with longer intensive care unit (2.1±1.7 vs 1.5±3.0 days, p<0.001) and overall hospital stays (13.8±5.2 vs 10.7±5.3 days, p<0.001) compared with no PPI. Propensity weighted logistic regression including cross-clamp times identified that use of the stented Perimount Magna was associated with increased need for PPI, as compared with the FS, with an odds ratio 5.8 (95% CI, 1.09-30.76; p=0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

After corrections for all plausible confounders, AVR with the stented Perimount valve was associated with an odds ratio of almost 6 for an increased early postoperative need for pacemaker implantation compared with the FS stentless valve. This finding can be explained by the conventional implantation technique, which is potentially associated with mechanical trauma to the conducting system.

Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation in a dysfunctional Trifecta® bioprothesis after high-pressure balloon fracturing

A percutaneous pulmonary valve-in-valve (PPVIV) implantation in small surgical tissue valves may be limited due to the valve's initial diameter. Fracturing of the valve's integrity by high-pressure balloons may enhance the diameter and facilitate subsequent PPVIV with a large valve. To the best of our knowledge, the Trifecta® valve seemed not to be accessible for fracturing. We report a case of successful 19-mm Trifecta valve fracturing, followed by PPVIV using a 26-mm Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve in pulmonary position. By repetitively using a high-pressure balloon 5 mm larger than the labeled valve size, we were able to fracture the valve's integrity and implant a 26-mm valve thereafter. Therefore, Trifecta valve appears to be suitable for valve ring fracturing and subsequent PPVIV in certain patients.