Structural valve deterioration after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta valve

Aortic valve area index values of Trifecta implants correlate with energy loss and increased valve stress

Biological valves are becoming more frequently used in aortic valve replacement. While several reports have evaluated the performance of biological valves, echocardiography studies during exercise stress remain scarce. Furthermore, no current reports compare rate changes in the aortic valve area of biological valves under increased exercise load. Here, we performed exercise stress echocardiography in patients after AVR with Trifecta or Inspiris valves and compared the rates of change in aortic valve areas (AVA). In addition, hydrodynamic analysis at rest was conducted with four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (4D-flow MRI). Exercise stress echocardiography was performed in seven Trifecta and seven Inspiris patients who underwent AVR at our hospital while 4D flow MRI was performed in all but two Trifecta cases. Comparing the percentage change in AVA when loaded to 25 W versus at rest, Trifecta was greater than Inspiris (28.7 ± 36.0 vs - 0.8 ± 12.4%). The smaller AVA at rest was considered causative for this. Meanwhile, Trifecta systolic energy loss in the prosthetic valve segment on 4D-flow MRI (97.5 ± 35.9 vs 52.7 ± 25.3 mW) was higher than Inspiris. The opening of the Trifecta valve was considered to be restricted at rest and this may reflect the current reports of early valve degradation requiring reoperation. Taken together, we observed that the Trifecta design may promote faster wear due to higher valve stress.

Midterm Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement via Right Lateral Minithoracotomy

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) procedures have been found to have good short-term results. However, no known reports regarding outcomes of MIAVR via a right lateral minithoracotomy (LT) approach over longer terms have been presented. The aim of the present study was to analyze the midterm outcomes of the use of MIAVR with the right LT approach over an 8-year period.

METHODS

Between September 2014 and February 2023, MIAVR was performed for 348 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and regurgitation at our hospital. Operative mortality, all-cause mortality, and valve-related events were retrospectively examined.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 72.3 ± 10.9 years, while 78 patients (22.4%) were more than 80 years old. Surgical, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cross-clamp times were 194.7 ± 43.2, 118.6 ± 28.7, and 89.4 ± 23.3 min, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 0.3%. The mean follow-up period was 35.6 ± 25.9 months. Overall survival shown by Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1, 3, and 5 years was 96.4%, 90.3%, and 83.2%, respectively, and freedom from valve-related events at those time points was noted in 100%, 99.5%, and 96.9% of the cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

MIAVR via a right LT approach was found to be associated with excellent short-term and midterm outcomes and is considered to have the potential to become an established surgical option.

Contemporary Multi-modality Imaging of Prosthetic Aortic Valves

With the aging of the general population and the rise in surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, there will be an increase in the prevalence of prosthetic aortic valves. Patients with prosthetic aortic valves can develop a wide range of unique pathologies compared to the general population. Accurate diagnosis is necessary in this population to generate a comprehensive treatment plan. Transthoracic echocardiography is often insufficient alone to diagnose many prosthetic valve pathologies. The integration of many imaging modalities, including transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and nuclear imaging, is necessary to care for patients with prosthetic valves. The purpose of this review is to describe the strengths, limitations, and contemporary use of the different imaging modalities necessary to diagnose prosthetic valve dysfunction.

Bovine pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic aortic valves: A nationwide population-based cohort study in Korea

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses, utilizing a nationwide administrative claims database.

METHODS

Adult patients (age ≥40 years) who underwent bioprosthetic AVR, without other valve replacements, between 2003 and 2018 were identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and valve-related events, including the incidence of reoperation, endocarditis, systemic thromboembolism, and major bleeding. Baseline adjustment was performed using propensity score matching. Time-related outcomes were evaluated using a competing risk analysis, with death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Among the 7714 patients who underwent bioprosthetic AVR, 5621 (72.9%) received bovine pericardial prostheses and 2093 (27.1%) received porcine bioprostheses. After matching, 1937 pairs were included in the final analysis. During follow-up (median, 4.49 years; interquartile range, 2.83-8.20 years), the use of porcine bioprostheses was associated with a higher risk of aortic valve reoperation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 3.01); however, no significant differences were observed in cumulative incidences of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, thromboembolism, or major bleeding. Subgroup analyses revealed that the use of bovine valves was associated with improved survival in patients with diabetes mellitus, whereas in patients undergoing dialysis, porcine valves exhibited better survival than bovine valves.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationwide cohort study of patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, the use of porcine prostheses was significantly associated with an increased risk of reoperation compared with the use of bovine prostheses, supporting previous findings.

Mid-term outcomes and hemodynamic performance of the St Jude Medical Epic aortic bioprosthesis for severe aortic stenosis

The St. Jude Medical Epic Supra valve is a porcine bioprosthesis designed for complete supraannular implantation. No report has shown the hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement with the Epic Supra valve for severe aortic stenosis in a Japanese cohort. We retrospectively evaluated 65 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement using the Epic Supra valve for aortic stenosis at our department between May, 2011 and October, 2016. The mean follow-up period was 68.7 ± 32.7 months, and the follow-up rate was 89.2%. The mean age was 76.8 ± 5.3 years. The 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates were 96.9%, 79.4%, and 60.3%, respectively. The rates of freedom from valve-related events were 96.6% and 81.9% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. Four patients were diagnosed with structural valve deterioration (SVD), and reintervention was performed in two patients. The rates of freedom from SVD were 98.2% and 83.3% at 5 and 8 years, respectively, and the mean time to diagnosis of SVD was 72.5 ± 25.3 months. The mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 16.8 ± 6.0 mmHg postoperatively, 17.5 ± 9.4 mmHg at 5 years, and 21.2 ± 12.4 mmHg at 8 years (p = 0.08). The effective orifice area index (EOAI) was 0.95 ± 0.2 cm2/m2 immediately after surgery, 0.96 ± 0.27 cm2/m2 at 5 years, and 0.84 ± 0.2 cm2/m2 at 8 years (p = 0.10). An increase in MPG and decrease in EOAI were also observed, which may be associated with SVD. Follow-up after 5 years is important to determine if there is an increase.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.