Early outcomes and hemodynamics after implantation of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis

Early outcomes of patient-prosthesis mismatch following aortic valve replacement

INTRODUCTION

Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) has been associated with numerous short- and long-term adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of PPM on early postoperative results after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in daily practice.

METHODS

In this single-centre retrospective study, 150 non-consecutive patients from March 2019 to January 2020 with clinically indicated AVR with/without concomitant surgery were analysed. The study protocol included operative mortality, complication rate, and pre- and postoperative echocardiographic data. PPM was considered severe with indexed effective orifice area at <0.65 cm²/m², moderate at 0.65-0.85 cm²/m² and none at >0.85 cm²/m².

RESULTS

Moderate PPM was observed in 16 patients (10.6%). No patient had severe PPM. PPM was not related to early mortality (r = 0.40, p = 0.630), intra- (r = -0.076, p = 0.352) and postoperative (r = -0.0134, p = 0.102) events.

CONCLUSION

In this study, moderate PPM was a frequent finding after AVR, whereas severe PPM was not observed. PPM did not affect the early results after AVR. A long-term follow-up study in a large patient population is required to assess the actual influence of residual PPM.

Early Hemodynamics after Aortic Valve Replacement

Background and objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate changes in the hemodynamics associated with different types of aortic prostheses and to evaluate patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) at rest and after exercise. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 150 patients who presented with indications for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with/without concomitant surgery from March 2019 to January 2020. The study population included 90 (60%) men and 60 (40%) women (mean age, 67.33 ± 10.22 years; range, 37-88 years). Echocardiography data such as peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients (Gmax, Gmean), velocity (V), effective orifice area (EOA), and indexed EOA (iEOA) were derived at rest and after exercise at baseline and before discharge. The study patients performed the six-minute walk test (6MWT) on the 5th-7th postoperative day. Results: Stented tissue valves showed excellent performance at rest and after exercise in comparison with mechanical valves, which showed favorable hemodynamics at rest only. At the time of discharge, moderate PPM was observed in 7/74 patients (9.5%) at rest and 5/98 (3.3%) patients after exercise. None of the patients showed severe PPM. EOA and iEOA were not significantly different between the groups. However, the stented group showed more pronounced changes in EOA and iEOA after exercise, whereas the changes in the mechanical valve group did not reach significance. Conclusions: In the early postoperative period, mechanical valves and stented valves showed favorable resting hemodynamics. The PPM rate measured after exercise was lower than that at rest.

Limitations in the Assessment of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

Background Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) may affect survival but data are conflicting. It is assessed by relating effective orifice area (EOA) to body surface area (EOAi). EOA is patient-specific as the result of flow-velocity times area at the individual patient's outflow tract levels (LVOTA) divided by trans-prosthetic flow velocity. However, some studies use projected EOAs (i.e., valve size associated EOAs from other patient populations) to assess how PPM affects outcome.

Methods We analyzed 76 studies addressing hemodynamic outcome and/or mortality after bioprosthetic AVR.

Results In 48 studies, projected or measured EOA for calculation of EOAi and PPM assessment was used (of which 25 demonstrated an effect on survival). We identified 28 additional studies providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients after AVR. Despite EOA being a patient-specific parameter, 77% of studies assessing a PPM impact on survival used projected EOAs. The 28 studies are providing measured EOA values and the corresponding Bernoulli's pressure gradients in patients after AVR showed a highly significant, linear relationship between EOA and Bernoulli's gradient. Considering this relationship, it is surprising that relating EOA to body surface area (BSA) (EOAi) is standard but relating pressure gradients to BSA is not.

Conclusion We conclude that the majority of studies assessing PPM have used false assumptions because EOA is a patient-specific parameter and cannot be transferred to other patients. In addition, the use of EOAi to assess PPM may not be appropriate and could explain the inconsistent relation between PPM and survival in previous studies.

Early hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta™ surgical bioprosthesis aortic valve in Indian patient population: 12 month outcomes of the EVEREST post-market study

BACKGROUND

Indian patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) differ from western populations with respect to aortic annulus size and valve disease morphology. The purpose of this post-market, non-randomized observational study was to evaluate the early hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta™ bioprosthesis (Abbott, previously St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, US) in an Indian patient population.

METHODS

From January 2014 to September 2015, 100 patients (mean age 64.4 ± 7.1 years, 62% male) undergoing SAVR for valve disease (68% stenosis, 7% insufficiency, 25% mixed pathology) were enrolled across 10 centers in India. Patients implanted with a 19-27 mm Trifecta™ valve were eligible to participate and were prospectively followed for 12-months post-implantation. Echocardiographic hemodynamic performance was evaluated at pre-implant, pre-discharge and at 12-months by an independent core laboratory. Adverse events were adjudicated by the study sponsor. Functional status at 12-months was assessed according to NYHA classification. Continuous data was summarized using descriptive statistics (mean &standard deviation,) and categorical data was summarized using frequencies and percentages.

RESULT

Ninety patients (mean age 64.5, 62.2% male) completed the 12-month follow up. Significant improvements in hemodynamic valve performance were reported in 81 patients with available echocardiographic data at 12 months. Compared to baseline at 12-month follow up visit, mean effective orifice area increased from 0.75cm² to 1.61cm² (p < 0.0001), mean pressure gradient reduced to 10.42 mmHg from 51.47 mmHg (p < 0.0001), cardiac output increased from 4.46 l/min to 4.85 l/min (P 0.9254). Compared to baseline, functional status improved by ≥1 NYHA class in 75% of patients at 12 months (95% Clopper-Pearson (Exact) confidence limit [64.6%, 83.6%]). No instances of early mortality (< 30 days from index procedure) or structural valve dysfunction were reported.

CONCLUSION

In an Indian patient population, implantation of the Trifecta™ bioprosthesis is shown to be safe and associated with favorable early hemodynamic performance and improved functional status at 12 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical study has been registered under Clinical Trial Registry-India ( http://www.ctri.nic.in ) and registration number is CTRI/2014/02/004434 registered on 25 February 2014 retrospectively registered.

The TRIBECA study: (TRI)fecta (B)ioprosthesis (E)valuation versus (C)arpentier Magna-Ease in (A)ortic position

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the Trifecta bioprosthetic aortic valve produces postoperative haemodynamic results comparable with or better than those of the Magna Ease aortic valve bioprosthesis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had undergone aortic valve replacement with Trifecta or Magna Ease prostheses at eight European institutions between January 2011 and May 2013, and analysed early postoperative haemodynamic performance by means of echocardiography.

RESULTS

A total of 791 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (469 Magna Ease, 322 Trifecta). Haemodynamic variables were evaluated on discharge and during the follow-up (minimum 6 months, maximum 12 months). The mean gradient and the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) were as follows: 10 mmHg [interquartile range (IQR): 8-13] and 1.10 cm(2)/m(2) (IQR: 0.95-1.27) for Trifecta; 16 mmHg (IQR: 11-22) and 0.96 cm(2)/m(2) (IQR: 0.77-1.13) for Magna Ease (P < 0.001). These significant differences were maintained across all valve sizes. Similar statistically significant differences were found when patients were matched and/or stratified for preoperative characteristics: body-surface area, ejection fraction, mean gradients and valve size. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (IEOA: <0.65 cm(2)/m(2)) was detected in 2 patients (0.6%) with Trifecta and 40 patients (8.5%) with Magna Ease (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The haemodynamic performance of the Trifecta bioprosthesis was superior to that of the Magna Ease valve across all conventional prosthesis sizes, with almost no incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. The long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether these significant haemodynamic differences will persist, and influence clinical outcomes.

Early hemodynamic performance of the third generation St Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The Trifecta aortic prosthesis is a latest-generation trileaflet stented pericardial valve designed for supra-annular placement in the aortic position. Robust clinical evidence and long-term follow-up data for this new prosthesis are lacking; a systematic review was conducted to assess current evidence.

METHODS

A comprehensive search from 6 electronic databases was performed, with time period parameters dating from database inception to January 2014. Results utilizing Trifecta prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies with 2549 patients undergoing AVR with this prosthesis were included in this review. The mean proportion of patients with aortic stenosis was 82.4%, with a mean gradient of 47.4 mm Hg, and a pooled effective orifice area (EOA) of 0.74 cm(2). Valve sizes of 21 mm and 23 mm were implanted in 71.3% of patients. The pooled rates of 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular accidents, and acute kidney injuries were 2.7%, 1.9%, and 2.6%, respectively. After implantation, the pooled mean gradient decreased to 9.2 mm Hg, whereas discharge EOA increased to 1.8 cm(2), compared with preoperative parameters. Among included studies with significant heterogeneity detected, most patients had satisfactory patient-prosthesis mismatch, with 2.7% having severe mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review demonstrated that short-term AVR with this prosthesis provided excellent early safety and hemodynamic outcomes with acceptable mean gradients and EOA. Long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm the early results.