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

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).

Rates and Predictors of Structural Valve Degeneration and Failure of Trifecta Bioprosthetic Valve Over a 5-year Follow-up Period: A Single-center Experience

Introduction

The Trifecta bioprosthetic valve has been commonly used for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Multiple studies have been done to define the rate of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and failure (SVF), but the outcomes are still debatable. Therefore, we aim to conduct this single-center study to estimate the rate and predictors of SVD/SVF.

Methodology

This retrospective observational cohort single-center study was conducted between 2014 and 2019 among Trifecta SAVR patients. Data were patient's characteristics collected from electronic medical records at baseline and follow-up (3-5 years). Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P ≤ 0.05.

Results

A total of 271 eligible patients were identified. Most of our sample were males (57.9%), with a mean age of 71.1 ± 10.6 years. The mean baseline preoperative ejection fraction (EF) was 53.0%, with no change (P = 0.88) in the immediate postoperative EF (53.6%). A most recent follow-up EF revealed a significant increase of EF (55.2%), P = 0.01. Furthermore, there was a significant increase from peak velocity to PVMRE (mean difference [MD] ± standard error of mean (SEM) [0.15 ± 0.04], P < 0.01), an increase in pressure gradient (PGIPE) to PGMRE (MD ± SEM [1.70 ± 0.49], P < 0.01), and a decrease in Doppler velocity index (DVIIPE) to DVIMRE (MD ± SEM [-0.037 ± 0.01], P = 0.01). Regarding the SVF rate, 13 (4.8%) patients had failed valves requiring replacement throughout the study period.

Conclusions

Over a 5-year follow-up period, 4.8% had SVF with an SVD of 23.2%, with the majority of SVD not being clinically significant except in six patients. These results corroborate with a previously published study suggesting a bad clinical outcome of Trifecta valve placement.

Clinical Impact of Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Mechanical or Biological Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) may impair functional capacity and survival after aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PPM on long-term survival and quality of life after mechanical and biological aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

This study included 595 consecutive patients who had undergone isolated aortic valve replacement. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to prosthesis type. The baseline and operative characteristics, survival rates, complications, and quality of life of the groups with and without PPM were compared for up to 6 years. The PPM calculation was performed using the effective orifice area value provided by the manufacturer divided by the patient's body surface area.

RESULTS

The moderate to severe PPM rates were 69.8% and 3.7% after biological and mechanical prosthesis implantation, respectively. Mean survival for patients in the biological group who had PPM was statistically significantly shorter (50.2 months [95% CI, 45.2-55.3]) than for patients in the biological group without PPM (60.1 months [95% CI, 55.7-64.4]; P = .04). In the mechanical prosthesis group, there was no difference in mean survival between the subgroup with PPM (66.6 months [95% CI, 58.3-74.9]) and the subgroup without PPM (64.9 months [95% CI, 62.6-67.2]; P = .50). A quality-of-life questionnaire's scores did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Mismatch is common after biological valve implantation and statistically significantly affects long-term survival and quality of life. If the risk of PPM after implantation of a biological prosthesis is suspected, adopting strategies to avoid PPM at the time of surgery is warranted.

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.

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.

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.