Trifecta has lower gradient and less prosthesis-patient mismatch than Mosaic Ultra in the aortic position: A prospective randomized study

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement with the Mosaic Ultra Bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

 Several studies have reported high rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Mosaic prosthesis. This work assesses the incidence of PPM after AVR with a modified version of the Mosaic prosthesis, the Mosaic Ultra.

METHODS

 We performed a retrospective analysis of the data of 532 patients who underwent AVR with implantation of the Mosaic Ultra prosthesis in the period 2007-2016 in our institution. Patients were classified according to their indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) to severe (EOAi < 0.65 cm2/m2), moderate (EOAi 0.65-0.85 cm2/m2), and absent/mild PPM (EOAi > 0.85 cm2/m2). In-hospital postoperative outcomes and the impact of PPM on mean transvalvular pressure gradient after stratification by prosthesis size were assessed.

RESULTS

 Overall, 3 (0.6%) patients had severe, 92 (17.3%) moderate, and 437 (82.1%) absent/mild PPM. There was a significant difference in PPM proportions (moderate/severe vs absent/mild PPM) across different prosthesis sizes overall (p < 0.0001), observing gradually increasing rates of PPM with decreasing prosthesis sizes. Patients with moderate/severe PPM had higher mean transvalvular pressure gradients (19 [13-25] vs 13 [10-17] mm Hg, p < 0.0001) than patients with absent/mild PPM. There was a significant difference in mean transvalvular pressure gradient between the different aortic valve prosthesis sizes overall (p < 0.0001), observing gradually increasing gradients with decreasing prosthesis sizes.

CONCLUSION

 Patients undergoing AVR with the smaller sized (19, 21, and 23 mm) Mosaic Ultra aortic valve prostheses exhibit a higher risk for moderate/severe PPM and higher mean aortic transvalvular pressure gradients than patients receiving the larger sized (25, 27, and 29 mm) prostheses.

Left ventricular remodeling and long-term outcomes of aortic stenosis patients receiving 19 mm Mosaic

Mosaic valve shows higher pressure gradient after aortic valve replacement compared to other same size labeled prostheses in postoperative echocardiogram. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term echocardiogram findings and long-term clinical outcomes of patients receiving a 19 mm Mosaic. Forty-six aortic stenosis patients receiving 19 mm Mosaic and 112 patients receiving either 19 mm Magna or Inspiris, who underwent mid-term follow-up echocardiogram were included in the study. Mid-term hemodynamic measurements evaluated by trans-thoracic echocardiogram and long-term outcomes were compared. Patients receiving Mosaic were significantly older (Mosaic: 76 ± 5.1 years vs. Magna/Inspiris: 74 ± 5.5 years, p = 0.046) and had smaller body surface area (Mosaic: 1.40 ± 0.114m2 vs. Magna/Inspiris: 1.48 ± 0.143m2, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in comorbidities and medications. Post-operative echocardiogram performed at 1 week after the surgery showed higher maximum pressure gradient in patients receiving Mosaic (Mosaic: 38 ± 13.5 mmHg vs. Magna/Inspiris: 31 ± 10.7 mmHg, p = 0.002). Furthermore, mid-term echocardiogram follow-up performed at median duration of 53 ± 14.9 months after the surgery continuously showed higher maximum pressure gradient in patients receiving Mosaic (Mosaic: 45 ± 15.6 mmHg vs. Magna/Inspiris: 32 ± 13.0 mmHg, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant difference in changes in left ventricular mass from baseline in both groups. Kaplan-Meyer curve also showed no difference in long-term mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event between the two groups. Although the pressure gradient across the valve evaluated by echocardiogram was higher in 19 mm Mosaic compared to 19 mm Magna/Inspiris, there were no significant differences in left ventricular remodeling and long-term outcomes between the two groups.

Hemodynamic and Mid-Term Outcomes for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Degenerated Internally Stented Valves

BACKGROUND

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement is indicated in patients undergoing repeat intervention for degenerative aortic valve bioprostheses. Patients with internally stented valves (ie, Mitroflow and Trifecta) are at high risk for coronary artery obstruction during ViV procedures because of valve design, as the leaflets are mounted outside the valve stent.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement within internally stented valves (ViV-IS) vs other surgical valves (ViV-OS).

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic parameters, and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent ViV-IS were retrospectively collected and compared with those of patients who underwent ViV-OS.

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients (65% men, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4.4% [IQR: 2.2%-8.4%]) were included. Seventy-one patients (28%) underwent ViV-IS, and 179 (72%) patients underwent ViV-OS. Patients who underwent ViV-OS had better periprocedural hemodynamic status compared with those who underwent ViV-IS (median mean gradient 6 [IQR: 2-13] vs 12 [IQR: 6-16]; P < 0.001). This was not significantly different when both groups were matched on the basis of age, sex, and valve internal diameter size (median mean gradient: 18 [IQR: 13-25] for ViV-OS vs 18 [IQR: 11-24] for ViV-IS; P = 0.36). Coronary protection for potential occlusion was performed more in ViV-IS vs ViV-OS pr (79% vs 6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Patients who underwent ViV-IS had a higher risk for coronary occlusion, requiring stent deployment, compared with those who underwent ViV-OS (54% vs 3%, respectively; P < 0.001. There was no difference in mortality at 3 years between the 2 groups (P = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent ViV-IS had a very high incidence of coronary compromise that can be safely and effectively treated. In the setting of a systematic coronary protection strategy, ViV-OS and ViV-IS provide similar mid-term outcome, and periprocedural hemodynamic status (following adjustment for age, sex, and true internal diameter).

Less invasive aortic valve replacement using the trifecta bioprosthesis

Objectives. The safety and effectiveness of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis (introduced in 2016) in less invasive aortic valve replacement are scarcely investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the immediate and initial follow-up results of this device in the context of less invasive surgery. We discuss patient-specific strategies for the selection of the surgical approach. Methods. A retrospective review of 133 patients undergoing AVR with the Trifecta GT through three less invasive accesses (UMS, Upper ministernotomy; RMS, Reversed ministernotomy; RAMT, Right anterior minithoracotomy) was performed. In-hospital, follow-up and hemodynamic performance (PPM, Patient-prosthesis mismatch) data were collected. Results. Among patients, 79% received UMS, 11% RMS and 10% RAMT. Selection of approach was based on preoperative anatomical analysis (CT-scan) and planned concomitant procedures. There was no operative mortality, no valve-related adverse events. There were 36 concomitant procedures. No significant intergroup differences occurred in cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamp, mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay and average bleeding. There were two cases of moderate PPM (1.5%) and no instances of severe PPM; there were no significant (≥2/4) perivalvular leaks. Average mean gradient at discharge was 8 ± 3 mmHg. At follow-up (average: 2.5 ± 0.9 years, 100% complete, 315 patient years) there was no mortality and no valve-related adverse event. Hemodynamic performance was maintained at follow-up. Conclusions. The optimal device for less invasive AVR needs to be individualized, as well as the selection of the surgical approach. The use of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis appears to be reproductible whatever less invasive approach is employed, with confirmed excellent hemodynamic performance.

Surgical aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus

BACKGROUND

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the standard of treatment for severe aortic stenosis, a small aortic annulus (SAA) poses significant challenges. Improvements in valve designs and evolution in surgical techniques have led to improved outcomes, however, the ideal prosthetic valve remains elusive.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature review to discuss the surgical management of aortic stenosis, with a special focus on patients with SAA.

RESULTS

Stentless valves and root replacement techniques have been shown to overcome the hemodynamic challenges associated with conventional stented bioprostheses, but are technically challenging and require longer cross-clamp times. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves mitigate the long operative time while maintaining the hemodynamic advantages. The use of transcatheter AVR has emerged as another reasonable alternative and has shown promise among patients with SAA, however, long-term outcomes are awaited.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus regarding the type of valve prosthesis or replacement technique among patients with SAA. Consideration of patient comorbidities and valvular anatomy is paramount in planning the optimal strategy for AVR. Further long-term clinical trials are necessary to assess outcomes and achieve progress toward the development of the ideal prosthesis.

Impact of the Trifecta bioprosthetic valve in patients with low-flow severe aortic stenosis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valve disorder in advanced age. Previous reports have shown that low-flow status of the left ventricle is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality after surgery. The Trifecta bioprosthesis has recently shown favorable hemodynamic performance. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Trifecta bioprosthesis, which has a large effective orifice area, in patients with low-flow severe AS who have a poor prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 94 consecutive patients with severe AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients were divided into two groups according to the stroke volume index (SVI): low-flow (LF) group (SVI < 35 ml/m², n = 22) and normal-flow (NF) group (SVI ≥ 35 ml/m², n = 72). Patients’ characteristics and early and mid-term results were compared between the two groups. There were no differences in patients’ characteristics, except for systolic blood pressure (LF:NF = 120:138 mmHg, p < 0.01) and the rate of atrial fibrillation between the groups. A preoperative echocardiogram showed that the pressure gradient was higher in the NF group than in the LF group, but aortic valve area was similar. The Trifecta bioprosthesis size was similar in both groups. The operative outcomes were not different between the groups. Severe patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (< 0.65 cm²/m²) was not observed in either of the groups. There were no significant differences in mid-term results between the two groups. The favorable hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta bioprosthesis appears to have the similar outcomes in the LF and NF groups. AVR with the Trifecta bioprosthesis should be considered for avoidance of PPM, particularly in AS patients with LV dysfunction.

An in vitro comparison of internally versus externally mounted leaflets in surgical aortic bioprostheses

OBJECTIVES

To improve haemodynamic performance, design modifications of prosthetic valves have been proposed with each new generation of valves. These different designs also impact the amount of mechanical wear, because mechanical stresses are distributed differently. Because long-term evidence for new prosthetic valves is lacking, this in vitro study compared hydrodynamic performance and durability among 3 currently available bioprosthetic valves with internally (IMLV) or externally mounted leaflets (EMLV).

METHODS

Prostheses of the internally mounted Medtronic Avalus and Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valves were compared to prostheses of the externally mounted Abbott Trifecta valve. For each labelled size (e.g. 19, 21 and 23) of the 3 types, 3 valves underwent accelerated wear testing for up to 600 million cycles, corresponding to ∼15 years of simulated wear. The valves underwent hydrodynamic testing and visual inspection.

RESULTS

EMLV had the largest effective orifice area and lowest pressure gradient for each labelled size at baseline and 600 million cycles; the effective orifice area and the pressure gradient were equivalent for the 2 types of IMLV. Five of 9 EMLVs had at least 1 hole or tear in the leaflet tissue around the stent posts, which resulted in severe regurgitation at 500 million cycles in 2 cases. All IMLVs were intact at 600 million cycles with minimal tissue wear.

CONCLUSIONS

EMLV showed superior hydrodynamic performance but inferior mechanical durability compared to IMLV after 600 million cycles of testing. The primary failures were because of significant mechanical abrasion in the commissural region, which may warrant close monitoring of EMLV during long-term follow-up.

Hemodynamic performance and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch of small-sized Trifecta pericardial aortic valves

OBJECTIVES

Small-sized bioprosthetic valves are sometimes associated with suboptimal hemodynamic performance, leading to a patient-prosthesis mismatch. Trifecta pericardial valves are designed to improve hemodynamic performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the hemodynamic properties of small-sized Trifecta valves and their efficacy in preventing a patient-prosthesis mismatch.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 108 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement with a Trifecta valve of 23 mm or less in a single Japanese institution. The hemodynamic performance was evaluated with an echocardiography examination in all patients after surgery, and the development of a patient-prosthesis mismatch was judged with the measured in vivo indexed effective orifice area.

RESULTS

There was one early and seven late mortalities. There were no valve explants due to structural valve deterioration. Postoperative mean pressure gradients of 19-, 21-, and 23-mm valves were 15.1, 11.4, and 9.0 mmHg, respectively. The effective orifice area of 19-, 21-, and 23-mm valves was 1.41, 1.69, and 1.78 cm², respectively. Patient-prosthesis mismatch occurred in 14 patients (1 severe and 13 moderate) and the incidence was 13.0% (15.4% in 19 mm, 18.0% in 21 mm, and 3.3% in 23 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The small-sized Trifecta valves showed excellent hemodynamic performance and were associated with a low incidence rate of patient-prosthesis mismatch.