Trifecta Versus Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Valve Prostheses

Differences between valve types in anatomic changes of the aortic root after surgical aortic valve replacement

Background

When transcatheter aortic valve-in-surgical aortic valve (TAV-in-SAV) is considered as a secondary interventional option, it is desirable to estimate the risk of coronary obstruction during future TAV-in-SAV before the initial surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), for which knowledge of the anatomic changes after SAVR is essential. We investigated the changes in the aortic root and evaluated the differences in changes between valve types.

Methods

Pre- and post-SAVR computed tomography scans of 124 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR with various bioprosthetic valves were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative aortic root changes and parameters related to future TAV-in-SAV were compared between the sutured valve group and rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group.

Results

After SAVR, the coronary height in the sutured valve group and rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group was shortened by a median of 4.6 to 5.3 mm and 0.5 to 2.2 mm, respectively, and the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) diameter was reduced by a median of 1.6 to 2.7 mm and 0.1 to 1.3 mm, respectively. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the rapid deployment/sutureless valve group had a coronary orifice (especially in the right coronary artery) above the risk plane. The valve-to-coronary distance and valve-to-aorta distance (VTA) were adequate in most patients. The only difference between the groups was in the left VTA.

Conclusions

Decreases in coronary height and SOV diameter were observed after SAVR, especially in the sutured valve group. The aortic root structure was better preserved in the rapid-deployment/sutureless valve group. This may be advantageous for future TAV-in-SAV. These results are important for considering the feasibility of future TAV-in-SAV.

Ten-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of third-generation biological prostheses in the aortic position

OBJECTIVES

PERIMOUNT Magna Ease (Carpentier-Edwards; PME) prostheses have been widely implanted during the past decade for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Although promising results at midterm follow-up were reported, long-term outcome has yet to be confirmed. On this study we aimed to evaluate long-term results in terms of structural valve degeneration (SVD), major clinical outcomes, long-term hemodynamic valve performance, and left ventricular remodeling.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2012, 689 consecutive patients underwent AVR with PME. Complete clinical 10-year follow-up was obtained. The degree of SVD was categorized on the basis of the latest guidelines. Echocardiographic data were analyzed at 1, 5, and 10 years. Competing risk analysis was performed for major events. Cumulative incidence of SVD, reoperation, and endocarditis were also assessed according to prosthetic sizes (19-21-23 mm vs 25-27-29 mm) and age (<65 vs 65-75 vs >75 years old).

RESULTS

The overall cumulative incidence reported for SVD ≥2 and reoperation were 3.6% and 1.9% at 10 years, respectively. An early left ventricular reverse remodeling was noted after implantation and confirmed at follow-up. Patients younger than 65 years showed higher cumulative incidence of SVD ≥2 at 10 years compared with patients aged 65 to 75 and older than 75 years (9.7% vs 2.6% vs 2.7%; P = .013), as well as of redo AVR (7.8% vs 3.3% vs 0.4%; P = .002). There was no difference in terms of SVD and redo AVR for different prosthetic size categories (P > .05). The risk of endocarditis was similar among age and size groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PME provides very good durability at long-term and could be considered one of the high performing third-generation bioprostheses for AVR.

Surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in low-risk elective patients: Analysis of the Aortic Valve Replacement in Elective Patients From the Aortic Valve Multicenter Registry

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains the preferred strategy for high-risk or elderly individuals with aortic valve (AV) stenosis who are not considered to be optimal surgical candidates. Recent evidence suggests that low-risk patients may benefit from TAVI as well. The current study evaluates midterm survival in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgical AV replacement (SAVR) versus TAVI.

METHODS

The Aortic Valve Replacement in Elective Patients From the Aortic Valve Multicenter Registry (AVALON) compared isolated elective transfemoral TAVI or SAVR with sternotomy or minimally invasive approach in low-risk individuals performed between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score matching was conducted to determine SAVR controls for TAVI group in a 1-to-3 ratio with 0.2 caliper.

RESULTS

A total of 2393 patients undergoing elective surgery (1765 SAVR and 629 TAVI) with median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) score 1.81 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.36 to 2.53]) were initially included. Median follow-up was 2.72 years (IQR, 1.32-4.08; max 6.0). Propensity score matching returned 329 TAVI cases and 593 SAVR controls. Thirty-day mortality was 11 out of 329 (3.32%) in TAVI and 18 out of 593 (3.03%) in SAVR (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.52-2.37; P = .801) groups, respectively. At 2 years, survival curves began to diverge in favor of SAVR, which was associated with 30% lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.496-0.997; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data did not demonstrate a survival difference between TAVI and SAVR during the first 2 postprocedure years. After that time, SAVR is associated with improved survival. Extended observations from randomized trials in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgery are warranted to confirm these findings and draw definitive conclusions.

Hemodynamic Comparison between the Avalus and the Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis up to 5 Years

BACKGROUND

 We aimed to compare hemodynamic performance of the Avalus (Medtronic) and the Perimount Magna Ease (PME, Edwards Lifesciences) bioprosthesis up to 5 years by serial echocardiographic examinations.

METHODS

 In patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, 58 received PME prostheses between October 2007 and October 2008, and another 60 received Avalus prostheses between October 2014 and November 2015. To ensure similar baseline characteristics, we performed a propensity score matching based on left ventricular ejection fraction, age, body surface area, and aortic annulus diameter measured by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. Thereafter, 48 patients remained in each group. Mean age at operation was 67 ± 6 years and mean EuroSCORE-II was 1.7 ± 1.1. Both values did not differ significantly between the two groups.

RESULTS

 At 1 year the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 15.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.32). The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.65 ± 0.45 cm2 in the PME group and 1.62 ± 0.45 cm2 in the Avalus group (p = 0.79). At 5 years the MPG was 16.6 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 7.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.20). The EOA was 1.60 ± 0.49 cm2 in the PME group and 1.51 ± 0.40 cm2 in the Avalus group (p = 0.38). Five-year survival was 88% in the PME group and 91% in the Avalus group (p = 0.5). In the PME group, there were no reoperations on the aortic valve, whereas in the Avalus group three patients required a reoperation due to endocarditis.

CONCLUSION

 Both bioprostheses exhibit similar hemodynamic performance during a 5-year follow-up.

Unusual cause of severe transvalvular eccentric jet AR: early structure valve deterioration of Trifecta valves by flail leaflet undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement

The Trifecta tissue valve (Abbott, Illinois, USA) is an externally mounted bovine pericardial aortic valve (AV) prosthesis with adequate haemodynamic performance and better early results than another option. However, concerns have been raised about its durability. Recently, reports have emerged about an increased incidence of early structural valve failure after Trifecta implantation, where leaflet tear(s) with dehiscence along the stent post was the primary mode of early failure. In this article, we present the case of a patient in her 70s, 7 years after AV replacement with a Trifecta valve, who developed progressive dyspnoea. Physical examination revealed signs of chronic severe aortic regurgitation (AR). The initial transthoracic echocardiogram showed severe transvalvular AR, but the aetiology could not be determined. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) revealed a flail non-coronary cusp of the Trifecta bioprosthetic valve without vegetation. After discussion, we concluded that our patient was suitable for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR).

Late clinical and echocardiographic results with the Magna Ease© pericardial aortic bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

The population of candidates to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is evolving. The Perimount Magna Ease© bioprosthesis has been introduced relatively recently in the practice. We aimed at evaluating its long-term results.

METHODS

This article describes a single-centre cohort of 1016 consecutive SAVRs with the Magna Ease© valve (2008-2014), consisting of an all-comers population. We performed a prospective collection of in-hospital data, systematic clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. Valve-related events were as follows: structural valve deterioration (SVD; according to modified definition criteria), nonstructural valve dysfunction, patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM).

RESULTS

Age at SAVR was 73.4 ± 9.5 years; calcified aortic stenosis was the indication to surgery in 59.6%. A total of 974 patients entered the follow-up; 564 were alive at the last follow-up (median duration: 9.8 years) (up to 13.4 years). New York Heart Association class was I or II in 92.1%. Overall survival at 10 years was 56.8 ± 1.8%. Freedom from SVD at 10 was 96.5 ± 0.8% (Kaplan-Meier) and 97.4 ± 0.6% (competing risks) (28 SVD events after 6.9 ± 3.3 years). There were 15 reinterventions for SVD (redo-SAVR and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)); 10-year freedom from reintervention was 97.8 ± 0.6%. Moderate and severe PPM occurred in 26.8% and 5.4%, respectively, without association with late mortality (P = 0.12 for moderate and P = 0.70 for severe PPM). Freedom from valve-related mortality was 97.8 ± 0.5% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this follow-up of the Magna Ease bioprosthesis for SAVR, data indicate good late outcomes (30-day outcomes are excluded). Continued follow-up is required to further support its use in patients with life expectancy >10-12 years.

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After Aortic Valve Replacement: Differences Between Biological and Mechanical Prostheses

AIMS

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is the most severe form of infective endocarditis associated with a high mortality rate. Whether PVE affects biological and mechanical aortic valves to the same extent remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of re-intervention because of PVE between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves.

METHODS

Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or combined AVR in a single cardiac surgery centre between January 1998 and December 2019 were analysed. All patients who underwent re-intervention because of PVE were identified. The primary endpoint was the rate of explants. Freedom from re-intervention and variables associated with re-intervention were analysed using Cox regression analysis including correction for competing risk.

RESULTS

During the study period, 5,983 aortic valve prostheses were implanted, including 3,620 biological (60.5%) and 2,363 mechanical (39.5%) prostheses. The overall mean follow-up period was 7.3±5.3 years (median, 6.5; IQR 2.9-11.2 years). The rate of re-intervention for PVE in the biological group was 1.5% (n=54) compared with 1.7% (n=40) in the mechanical group (p=0.541). Cox regression analysis revealed that younger age (HR 0.960, 95% CI 0.942-0.979; p<0.001), male sex (HR 2.362, 95% CI 1.384-4.033; p=0.002), higher creatinine (HR 1.002, 95% CI 0.999-1.004; p=0.057), and biological valve prosthesis (HR 2.073, 95% CI 1.258-3.414; p=0.004) were associated with re-intervention for PVE. After correction for competing risk of death, biological valve prosthesis was significantly associated with a higher rate of re-intervention for PVE (HR 2.011, 95% CI 1.177-3.437; p=0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this single-centre, observational, retrospective cohort study, AVR using biological prosthesis is associated with re-intervention for PVE compared to mechanical prosthesis. Further investigations are needed to verify these findings.

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.

An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement in subgroups of people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis in the UK

OBJECTIVE

Exploratory analysis to conceptualize and evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness and economic drivers of using a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical heart valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis (AS) from a National Health Service (NHS) UK perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed using a partitioned survival model. Parameter inputs were obtained from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to explore the uncertainty around the parameters.

RESULTS

The novel tissue valve was potentially associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.01 per person. Potential cost savings were greatest for those aged 55-64 (£408) versus those aged 65+(£53). DSA indicated the results to be most dependent on relative differences in general mortality, procedure costs, and reoperation rates. PSA estimated around 75% of the iterations to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY for those aged 55-64, and 57% for those aged 65+.

CONCLUSIONS

The exploratory analysis suggests that the novel tissue valve could be a cost-effective intervention for people over the age of 55 with AS who are suitable for SAVR in the UK.

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.

Current state of clinical trials on xenograft

BACKGROUND

Xenotransplantation is a worth investing branch of science, since it aims to fulfil the demand on human cells, tissues and organs. Despite decades of consistent work in preclinical assessments, clinical trials on xenotransplantation are far from reaching the targeted goal. Our study aims to track the characteristics, assess the content and summarize the plan of each trial on skin, beta-island, bone marrow, aortic valve and kidney xenografts, leading to a clear sorting of efforts made in this field.

METHODS

In December 2022, we searched clinicaltrial.gov for interventional clinical trials related to xenograft of skin, pancreas, bone marrow, aortic valve and kidney. A total of 14 clinical trials are included in this study. Characteristics on each trial were gathered. Linked publications were searched using Medline/PubMed and Embase/Scopus. Content of trials was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Only 14 clinical trials met our study's criteria. The majority were completed, and most of the trials' enrolment was between 11 and 50 participants. Nine trials used a xenograft of porcine origin. Six trials targeted skin xenotransplantation, four targeted β-cells, two targeted bone marrow and one trial targeted each of the kidney and aortic valve. The average length of trials was 3.38 years. Four trials were conducted in the United States and two trials in each of Brazil, Argentina and Sweden. Of all the included trials, none had any results provided and only three had published work. Phases I, III, and IV had only one trial each. A total of 501 participants were enrolled in these trials.

CONCLUSION

This study sheds the light on the current state of clinical trials on xenograft. Characteristically, trials on this field are of low number, low enrolment, short duration, few related publications and no published results. Porcine organs are the most used in these trials, and skin is the most studied organ. An extension of the literature is highly needed due to the variety of conflicts mentioned. Overall, this study sheds the light on the necessity of managing research efforts, leading to the initiation of more trials targeting the field of xenotransplantation.

Externally mounted versus internally mounted leaflet aortic bovine pericardial bioprosthesis: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies reported higher-than-expected rates of early structural valve degeneration (SVD) and/or reoperation of externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis compared with others. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of bioprostheses with externally versus internally mounted leaflet design in patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through November 2021 to identify comparative studies investigating outcomes following SAVR with either externally or internally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis. Outcomes of interest were reoperation for SVD or any cause and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 15 observational studies that enrolled a total of 23,539 patients who underwent SAVR using externally mounted (n = 9338; 39.7%) or internally mounted leaflet (n = 14,201; 60.3%) bioprostheses. Externally mounted valves consisted of the Trifecta (Abbott, St Paul, MN) (n = 6146) and the Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, UK) (n = 3192), and all internally mounted valves were the Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Externally mounted valves compared with the Perimount were associated with higher reoperation rates for SVD [hazard ratio (HR) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67-4.72; P < 0.001] and any cause (HR 9.36, 95% CI 3.70-23.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, externally mounted valves demonstrated higher all-cause mortalities (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study summarizing updated evidence revealed higher reoperation rates and all-cause mortalities in patients with externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprostheses compared with those with internally mounted design. Choosing the right SAVR valve type is critical part of lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

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.

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).

Perimount MAGNA Ease vs. INSPIRIS Resilia Valve: A PS-Matched Analysis of the Hemodynamic Performances in Patients below 70 Years of Age

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, the Perimount Magna Ease (PME) bioprosthesis has been implanted worldwide for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Recently, the INSPIRIS Resilia (IR) valve has been introduced as the newest generation of pericardial bioprostheses. However, few data have been reported about patients ≤70 years, and no comparisons in terms of hemodynamic performance between these two bioprostheses have been ever reported.

METHODS

Patients aged <70 years undergoing AVR were considered for comparison between PME (n = 238) and IR (n = 192). Propensity score (PS) matching was performed by logistic regression with adjustment for eight key baseline variables. The two prostheses were compared in terms of hemodynamic performances up to 3 years postoperatively. Sub-analysis according to prosthetic size-category was accomplished.

RESULTS

A total of 122 pairs with similar baseline characteristics were obtained from the PS-matching. The two prostheses showed comparable hemodynamic performances at one year (Gmean: 11.3 ± 3.5 mmHg vs. 11.9 ± 5.4 mmHg; p = 0.8) and at 3 years postoperatively (Gmean: 12.2 ± 7.9 mmHg vs. 12.8 ± 5.2 mmHg for; p = 0.3). The sub-analysis of size-category confirmed no statistical differences concerning the hemodynamic performances for each annulus size.

CONCLUSIONS

This first PS-matched analysis demonstrated that the newly developed IR valve achieves the same safety and efficacy of the PME valve during mid-term follow-up in patients aged <70 years.

Prosthetic valve leaflet perforation resulting in critical aortic insufficiency: A rare late complication after use of Cor-knot®

The implementation of automatic fasteners such as the Cor-knot® device (LSI Solutions, Inc.) has revolutionized the field of minimally invasive valvular surgery. Nonetheless, paravalvular regurgitation, valvular embolization, and early leaflet perforation are all potential complications which may occur. Late manifestations of leaflet perforation (>5-year postimplantation) are rare. Herein, we discuss a patient who underwent remote Trifecta® (St. Jude, Inc.) surgical aortic valve replacement presenting with symptomatic critical aortic regurgitation secondary to leaflet perforation from automatically fastened metallic Cor-knot® sutures.

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.

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.

Durability of a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 echocardiographic criteria

Objectives

The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences) pericardial bioprosthesis has demonstrated satisfying hemodynamics at midterm follow-up, but its durability remains unclear. We report our 10-year experience with this third-generation valve implanted in the aortic position, with particular attention to structural valve deterioration.

Methods

From 2007 to 2016 at our center, 338 patients underwent aortic valve replacement using the Perimount Magna Ease pericardial bioprosthesis. Patients were prospectively followed (mean 6.6 ± 2.6 years) with clinical evaluation and yearly echocardiography. Follow-up was 98% complete (7 patients lost) for a total of 2238 valve-years. Bioprosthesis structural valve deterioration was determined by strict echocardiographic assessment based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria.

Results

Overall operative mortality was 1.2%. Actuarial survival including early deaths averaged 80.9% ± 2.2% and 66.7% ± 4.4% after 5 and 10 years of follow-up, respectively. Actuarial freedom from explantation due to structural valve deterioration at 5 and 10 years was 99.6% ± 0.4% and 88.8% ± 5.0%, respectively, and actuarial freedom of structural valve deterioration at 5 and 10 years was 98.5% ± 0.7% and 44.0% ± 6.4%, respectively. More precisely, actuarial freedom of structural valve deterioration stage 3 was 99.6% ± 0.4% at 5 years and 88.3% ± 5.0% at 10 years, whereas freedom of structural valve deterioration stage 2/3 was 98.5% ± 0.7% and 60.9% ± 7.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

With a low rate of explantation due to structural valve deterioration events at 10 years, and particularly a low rate of moderate or severe structural valve deterioration based on echocardiographic Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria, the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease pericardial bioprosthesis remains a reliable choice for a tissue valve in the aortic position.

Video Abstract

Impact of postoperative patient-prosthesis mismatch as a risk factor for early structural valve deterioration after aortic valve replacement with Trifecta bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported high rates of structural valve deterioration (SVD) in the Trifecta valves. Herein, we analyzed the midterm results of the Trifecta valve and risk factors for early SVD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 110 patients who had undergone Trifecta implantation between January 2012 and December 2017.

RESULTS

We encountered seven cases of Trifecta valve failure. We performed a redo aortic valve replacement in five patients and a transcatheter aortic valve replacement in two patients. The SVD rate was 4.8% at 5 years and 6.6% at 7 years. The mean pressure gradient and peak velocity on the first postoperative echocardiogram in patients with SVD were higher than those in patients without SVD. The SVD rates with and without patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) were 2.8% and 12.6% at 5 years and 2.8% and 20.0% at 7 years. PPM is a risk factor for SVD. Noncoronary cusp tears were observed in all patients who had undergone redo surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common cause of SVD was noncoronary cusp tear. Patients with PPM are at high risk of developing SVD.

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.

Trifecta versus Perimount Magna Ease aortic valves: Failure mechanisms

Background

There are increasing reports of early externally mounted pericardial Trifecta bioprosthesis failure. We compared the hemodynamic performance of Trifecta and Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valves to determine the failure mechanism.

Methods

We retrospectively included 270 consecutive patients (age: 73.4 ± 8.2 years; 57.5% male; mean follow-up: 48.0 ± 20.3 months) who underwent aortic valve replacement from 2014 to 2021 at a single center and compared the Trifecta (N = 137) and Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valve (N = 133) patients.

Results

The prosthetic valve major aortic regurgitation incidence was higher for the Trifecta than that for the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valve (6.3% vs. 0%, P < 0.009). Among the Trifecta failures, 33% developed structural valve deterioration, but all requiring redo aortic valve replacement developed major prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation. Freedom at 5 years from redo aortic valve replacement due to structural valve deterioration was significantly lower for Trifecta (89.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.003). The reoperation hazards were determined for Trifecta (vs. Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease): 11.6 (1.47–90.9; P = 0.02), prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation: 2.38 (1.70–3.32; P < 0.01), structural valve deterioration: 20.82 (4.08–106.2; P < 0.01), 5-year mean transprosthetic pressure gradient: 1.14 per 1-point increase (1.03–1.24; P = 0.007), and urgent surgery: 10.1 (2.59–39.0; P = 0.001). The Cox regression analysis identified that prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation solely contributed to redo aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio: 2.38; confidence intervals: 1.70–3.32).

Conclusions

Significantly, more early failures occurred with the Trifecta valve than the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valve but the Trifecta showed reasonable mean transprosthetic pressure gradient over time. Prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation and calcific structural valve deterioration synergistically contributed to Trifecta valve failure alternatively.

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.

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.

Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease bioprosthesis: a multicentre clinical experience and 12-year durability

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this multicentre retrospective study was to compare long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease (CEME) bioprosthesis by patient age.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients who underwent isolated and combined surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with CEME valve between January 2008 and March 2020 at 4 cardiac surgery centres in Italy. Survival distribution was evaluated at follow-up according to age and surgery type (combined or isolated AVR), together with freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD), reoperation and combined events, i.e. SVD, reoperation, endocarditis and thromboembolic events.

RESULTS

A total of 1027 isolated and 1121 combined AVR were included; 776 patients were younger than 65 years whereas 1372 were 65 years or older. The 30-day Valve-Academic-Research-Consortium mortality was 2% (<65 years) and 6% (≥ 65 years) (P < 0.001), whereas it was 3% for isolated AVR and 7% for combined AVR (P < 0.001). The 12-year survival was 81% for those younger than 65 years vs 45% for those equal to or older than 65 years (P < 0.001), whereas they were 61% vs 49% for isolated and combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from combined events, excluding death, was 79% for those younger than 65 years vs 87% for those equal to or older than (P = 0.51), whereas they were 83% for isolated and 86% for combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from SVD was 93% and 93% in patients younger than 65 and those equal to or older than 65 years (P = 0.63), and the results were comparable even in cases with isolated and combined AVR (92% vs 94%, P = 0.21). A multivariable Cox analysis including gender, presence of patient-prosthesis mismatch, isolated AVR and age showed that only the age was an independent risk factor for the incidence of SVD (P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from this large multicentre analysis demonstrated that a CEME bioprosthesis provides good clinical results and long-term durability even in patients younger than 65 years. Furthermore, the hazard for SVD has been shown to be lower for older age.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

105n/AO/21.

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.

Surgical pericardial heart valves: 50 Years of evolution

Valve disease carries a huge burden globally and the number of heart valve procedures are projected to increase from the current 300 000 to 800 000 annually by 2050. Since its genesis 50 years ago, pericardial heart valve has moved leaps and bounds to ever more ingenious designs and manufacturing methods with parallel developments in cardiology and cardiovascular surgical treatments. This feat has only been possible through close collaboration of many scientific disciplines in the fields of engineering, material sciences, basic tissue biology, medicine and surgery. As the pace of change continues to accelerate, we ask the readers to go back with us in time to understand developments in design and function of pericardial heart valves. This descriptive review seeks to focus on the qualities of pericardial heart valves, the advantages, successes and failures encapsulating the evolution of surgically implanted pericardial heart valves over the past five decades. We present the data on comparison of the pericardial heart valves to porcine valves, discuss structural valve deterioration and the future of heart valve treatments.

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.

Left Ventricular Apex: A "Minimally Invasive Motorway" for Safe Cardiovascular Procedures

Since the advent of TAVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement), the transapical surgical approach has been affirmed as a safe and effective alternative access for patients with unsuitable peripheral arteries. With the improvement of devices for transfemoral approach and the development of other alternative accesses, the number of transapical procedures has decreased significantly worldwide. The left ventricular apex, however, has proved to be a safe and valid alternative access for various other structural heart procedures such as mitral valve repair, mitral valve-in-valve or valve-in-ring replacement, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), transcatheter mitral paravalvular leak repair, and thoracic aorta endovascular repair (TEVAR). We review the literature and our experience of various hybrid transcatheter structural heart procedures using the transapical surgical approach and discuss pros and cons.

Long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a 19-mm bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is known to be associated with improved haemodynamics in patients with aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus. However, limited benchmark data are available regarding the long-term outcomes in patients treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We investigated the long-term outcomes of SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients who underwent SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis at our hospital between 2008 and 2012.

RESULTS

In a total of 132 patients, moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 36 (27.3%) and 7 patients (5.3%), respectively. The median follow-up period was 7.7 years. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 79.4% and 52.9%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates were 89.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Neither moderate nor severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with late mortality, major adverse valve-related events or heart failure. Follow-up echocardiographic data were obtained at a median interval of 4.8 years in 80% of patients who survived ≥6 months postoperatively. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed a significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased mean transvalvular/transprosthetic pressure gradients and a decreased mean left ventricular mass. At follow-up, we observed moderate or severe haemodynamic structural valve deterioration in 17 patients; however, structural valve deterioration did not affect late survival or freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates, or heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR using the 19-mm bioprosthesis was associated with satisfactory long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

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.

Fifty years of the pericardial valve: Long-term results in the aortic position

It is now 50 years since the development of the first pericardial valve in 1971. In this time significant progress has been made in refining valve design aimed at improving the longevity of the prostheses. This article reviews the current literature regarding the longevity of pericardial heart valves in the aortic position. Side by side comparisons of freedom from structural valve degeneration are made for the valves most commonly used in clinical practice today, including stented, stentless, and sutureless valves. Strategies to reduce structural valve degeneration are also discussed including methods of tissue fixation and anti-calcification, ways to minimise mechanical stress on the valve, and the role of patient prosthesis mismatch.

The First 100 Cases of Two Innovations Combined: Video-Assisted Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Through Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy Using a Novel Aortic Prosthesis

Introduction

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) via right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAMT) is less traumatic than via other surgical routes; using a novel aortic valve may confer long-term resistance against valve deterioration, and thus be useful in younger, more active patients. Here we aim to validate using the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve with minimally invasive RAMT.

Methods

Between April 2017 and June 2019, 100 patients underwent video-assisted minimally invasive AVR by RAMT, using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. Cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was through femoral vessels. Clinical data were prospectively entered into our institutional database.

Results

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping times were 79 ± 38 and 41 ± 17 min. Surgical access was successful in 100% of cases. There were no cases of intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular events, rethoracotomy for bleeding, valve-related reoperation, right internal mammary artery injury, or conversion to sternotomy. Intensive care and hospital stays were 2 ± 1 and 6 ± 3 days, respectively. One patient had a pacemaker fitted. Postoperative dialysis was necessary in one patient. Trace to mild aortic valve regurgitation occurred in two patients. No structural valve deterioration (SVD) and paravalvular leak were seen. At 1-year follow-up mean effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.8 ± 0.1 cm², peak gradient was 22.1 ± 3.1 mmHg, and mean gradient was 11.5 ± 2.3 mmHg.

Conclusion

Our preliminary experience suggests that RAMT for AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve is safe, effective, and reproducible. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and durability of this new valve.

Device profile of the Inspiris Resilia valve for aortic valve replacement: overview of its safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

The Inspiris Resilia tissue valve was recently introduced into clinical practice. This review summarizes the pre-clinical and clinical studies leading to this new bioprosthesis.

AREAS COVERED

The novel Resilia tissue was tested extensively in a large animal model. The clinical use of the tissue started in 2011 with the European Feasibility study, followed by a North-American multi-center study. Since 2017, the Inspiris Resilia valve has been in full commercial use. Further prospective evaluations and registries are ongoing.

EXPERT OPINION

The Inspiris Resilia valve was clinically introduced after pre-clinical tests revealed superiority compared to contemporary therapy such as the Perimount valve. Prospective long-term follow-up studies on Resilia are ongoing since 2011 and reveal no major complications. Full 5-year data show no signs of early degeneration, but longer follow-up is certainly still needed. Several prospective registries are actively monitoring the outcome with the Inspiris Resilia valve now. The novel tissue, designed to mitigate calcification and increase durability, together with the expandable stent, facilitating potential future valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures, are the cutting-edge aspects. Clinical use in younger patients is currently ongoing: their follow-up and outcome will determine the added value of this valve.

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.