Structural Valve Deterioration With the Trifecta: Is It the Valve or Is It Implant Technique?

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.

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.

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.

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.