Treatment of a Failing St. Jude Medical Trifecta by Medtronic CoreValve Evolut Valve-in-Valve Implantation

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.

Early First-Generation Trifecta Valve Failure: A Case Series and a Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The Trifecta valve (Abbott, St Paul, MN) has excellent hemodynamic performance with acceptable rates of freedom from structural valve degeneration. However, some recent studies have reported early Trifecta valve failure. Here, we report a case series of seven Trifecta valve failures with a review of the literature.

METHODS

Of 107 implantations of Trifecta bioprostheses between 2012 and 2014, we encountered seven Trifecta valve failures (6.5%). Failure of a 19-mm Trifecta valve occurred in 1 patient, failure of a 21-mm Trifecta valve occurred in 5 patients, and failure of a 23-mm Trifecta valve occurred in 1 patient. The mean duration of valve durability was 51 ± 16 months. The mean effective orifice area index on the first echocardiogram after Trifecta valve implantation was 0.96 ± 0.26. The mode of presentation was prosthetic valve stenosis in 3 patients and severe aortic regurgitation in 4 patients.

RESULTS

Six patients underwent redo surgical aortic valve replacement. The common pathologic findings were circumferential pannus formation with noncoronary cusp tear and leaflet calcification. The rates of preoperative end-renal stage disease and postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch were higher in patients with Trifecta valve failure. The incidence of early Trifecta valve failure was 3.1% at 48 months and 13.1% at 72 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, early Trifecta valve failure was caused by cusp tears or leaflet calcification. Patients with end-renal stage disease and prosthesis-patient mismatch should be closely followed. Some patients with cusp tears may require urgent surgery.

Trifecta vs. Magna for Aortic Valve Replacement - Differences in Clinical Outcome and Valve Hemodynamics

BACKGROUND

The number of surgical aortic valve replacements using bioprosthetic valves is increasing, and newer bioprosthetic valves may offer clinical advantages in Japanese patients, who generally require smaller replacement valves than Western patients. In this study we retrospectively evaluated the Trifecta and Magna valves to compare clinical outcomes and hemodynamics in a group of Japanese patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were retrospectively collected for 103 patients receiving a Trifecta valve and 356 patients receiving a Magna valve between June 2008 and 2017. Adverse events, outcomes, and valve hemodynamics were evaluated. There were no significant differences in early or late outcomes between the Trifecta and Magna groups. In the early postoperative period, mean (±SD) pressure gradient (9.0±3.1 vs. 13.8±4.8 mmHg; P<0.01) and effective orifice area (1.68±0.46 vs. 1.46±0.40 m2; P<0.01) were significantly better for Trifecta, but the differences decreased over time. In particular, the interaction between time and valve type (Trifecta or Magna) was significantly different for mean pressure gradient between the 2 groups (P<0.01). Left ventricular mass regressed substantially in both groups, with no significant difference between them. There were no significant differences for severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative outcomes were similar for both valves. An early hemodynamic advantage for the Trifecta valve lasted to approximately 1 year postoperatively but did not persist.

Magna Ease versus Trifecta Early Hemodynamics

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the early echocardiographic outcomes of aortic valve replacement using the two most commonly implanted stented bioprostheses.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until 2017 for studies comparing Magna or Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA USA) versus Trifecta (St Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN USA) aortic bioprosthetic valves. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome of mean gradient on echocardiography and secondary outcomes of effective orifice area, indexed effective orifice area, and in-hospital mortality.

Results

There were two randomized controlled trial, three matched, and six unmatched retrospective observational studies with 2119 patients [median reported follow-up = 6 months (interquartile range = 6 to 12)]. The Magna/Magna Ease valve was associated with higher early mean gradient (mean difference = 4.09, 95% confidence interval = 3.48 to 4.69, P < 0.0001) and smaller effective orifice area (mean difference = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = −0.38 to −0.22, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality between Magna/Magna Ease and Trifecta (relative risk = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 2.50, P = 1.0).

Conclusions

Trifecta may offer a small hemodynamic advantage compared with the Magna/Magna Ease valve with no differences in early mortality. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether these differences persist and translate into differences in clinical outcomes.