Patient prosthesis mismatch in adult congenital heart disease

Perceval or Trifecta to Prevent Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch

The Trifecta aortic valve has excellent hemodynamics characteristics. Moreover, the Perceval prosthesis may achieve better hemodynamics than the conventional valves; therefore, it has been proposed to reduce the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Our aim was to compare the prevalence of this complication between both prostheses. All patients who underwent valve replacement with a Perceval or a Trifecta from 2016 to 2020 at our institution were included. We calculated the prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch for each prosthesis and size and performed a multinomial logistic regression model to investigate the impact of choosing one prosthesis over the other. A total of 516 patients were analyzed. Moderate mismatch was present in 33 (8.6%) in the Trifecta group and 28 (21.4%) in the Perceval group, p < 0.001. Severe mismatch was present in 8 (2.1%) patients with Trifecta and 5 (3.8%) patients with Perceval, p = 0.33. Compared with the Perceval, the Trifecta prosthesis was shown to reduce moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.02). Both prostheses led to a similar risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch: OR = 0.9 (95% CI 0.3-2.8, p = 0.79). Both prostheses provide a very low risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. Compared with the Perceval prothesis, the Trifecta prosthesis is able to reduce by 50% the risk of moderate mismatch.

Real Structural Valve Deterioration of the Mitroflow Aortic Prosthesis: Competing Risk Analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The Mitroflow aortic prosthesis is a bovine pericardial bioprosthesis specially designed to increase the valve area in relation to its size. There is controversy regarding the pattern of structural valve deterioration (SVD). Our aim was to determine the cumulative incidence of SVD, risk factors influencing its occurrence, and its impact on mortality.

METHODS

A total of 1028 patients were clinically and echocardiographically followed up. Because the study population was elderly and had heart disease, we used a competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with SVD at 5 years was 4.22% (95%CI, 2.96-5.81) and was 15.77% at 8 years (95%CI, 12.46-19.43). The incidence was higher for small valves (19mm and 21mm) reaching 6.43% at 5 years (95%CI, 4.48-8.84) and 20.06% at 8 years (95%CI, 15.53-25.01). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) influenced the incidence of SVD (_sHR, 3.53; 95%CI, 2.20-5.66; P < .001) but moderate PPM had no impact. The most powerful predictor of mortality was the presence of SVD (HR, 4.59; 95%CI, 2.91-7.22; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study used a definition based on the increase in the transprosthetic gradient and found a higher incidence of SVD of the Mitroflow prosthesis than that reported by other series, especially for sizes 19mm and 21mm and in patients with severe PPM. The incidence of SVD increased exponentially from the fifth year after implantation and its occurrence led to a 4.5-fold increase in the risk of death.