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

Recent Advances in the Modification and Improvement of Bioprosthetic Heart Valves

Valvular heart disease (VHD) has become a burden and a growing public health problem in humans, causing significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. An increasing number of patients with severe VHD need to undergo heart valve replacement surgery, and artificial heart valves are in high demand. However, allogeneic valves from donors are lacking and cannot meet clinical practice needs. A mechanical heart valve can activate the coagulation pathway after contact with blood after implantation in the cardiovascular system, leading to thrombosis. Therefore, bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) are still a promising way to solve this problem. However, there are still challenges in the use of BHVs. For example, their longevity is still unsatisfactory due to the defects, such as thrombosis, structural valve degeneration, calcification, insufficient re-endothelialization, and the inflammatory response. Therefore, strategies and methods are needed to effectively improve the biocompatibility and longevity of BHVs. This review describes the recent research advances in BHVs and strategies to improve their biocompatibility and longevity.

Externally mounted versus internally mounted leaflet aortic bovine pericardial bioprosthesis: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies reported higher-than-expected rates of early structural valve degeneration (SVD) and/or reoperation of externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis compared with others. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of bioprostheses with externally versus internally mounted leaflet design in patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through November 2021 to identify comparative studies investigating outcomes following SAVR with either externally or internally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis. Outcomes of interest were reoperation for SVD or any cause and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 15 observational studies that enrolled a total of 23,539 patients who underwent SAVR using externally mounted (n = 9338; 39.7%) or internally mounted leaflet (n = 14,201; 60.3%) bioprostheses. Externally mounted valves consisted of the Trifecta (Abbott, St Paul, MN) (n = 6146) and the Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, UK) (n = 3192), and all internally mounted valves were the Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Externally mounted valves compared with the Perimount were associated with higher reoperation rates for SVD [hazard ratio (HR) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67-4.72; P < 0.001] and any cause (HR 9.36, 95% CI 3.70-23.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, externally mounted valves demonstrated higher all-cause mortalities (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study summarizing updated evidence revealed higher reoperation rates and all-cause mortalities in patients with externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprostheses compared with those with internally mounted design. Choosing the right SAVR valve type is critical part of lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes and Hemodynamic Performances of Trifecta and Perimount Bioprostheses following Aortic Valve Replacement

Aims of the Study: We evaluated the clinical outcome and the hemodynamic and freedom from structural valve degeneration of two standard aortic bioprostheses. Methods: Clinical results, echocardiographic findings and follow-up data of patients operated for isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with the Perimount or the Trifecta bioprosthesis were prospectively collected, retrospectively analysed and compared. We weighted all the analyses by the inverse of the propensity of choosing either valves. Results: Between April 2015 and December 2019, 168 consecutive patients (all comers) underwent aortic valve replacement with Trifecta (n = 86) or Perimount (n = 82) bioprostheses. Mean age was 70.8 ± 8.6 and 68.8 ± 8.6 years for the Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (p = 0.120). Perimount patients presented a greater body mass index (27.6 ± 4.5 vs. 26.0 ± 4.2; p = 0.022), and 23% of them suffered from angina functional class 2–3 (23.2% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.002). Mean ejection fraction was 53.7 ± 11.9% (Trifecta) and 54.5 ± 10.4% (Perimount) (p = 0.994), with mean gradients of 40.4 ± 15.9 mmHg (Trifecta) and 42.3 ± 20.6 mmHg (Perimount) (p = 0.710). Mean EuroSCORE-II was 7 ± 11% and 6 ± 9% for the Trifecta and Perimount group, respectively (p = 0.553). Trifecta patients more often underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (45.3% vs. 26.8%; p = 0.016) and annulus enlargement (10.5% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.058). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 3.5% (Trifecta) and 8.5% (Perimount), (p = 0.203) while new pacemaker implantation (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) and stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) were similar. Acute MACCE were observed in 5% (Trifecta) and 9% (Perimount) of patients with an unweighted OR of 2.22 (95%CI 0.64–7.66; p = 0.196) and a weighted OR of 1.10 (95%CI: 0.44–2.76, p = 0.836). Cumulative survival at 24 months was 98% (95%CI: 0.91–0.99) and 96% (95%CI: 0.85–0.99) for Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (log-rank test; p = 0.555). The 2-year freedom from MACCE was 94% (95%CI: 0.65–0.99) for Trifecta and 96% (95%CI: 0.86–0.99) for Perimount (log-rank test; p = 0.759, HR 1.46 (95%CI: 0.13–16.48)) in the unweighted analysis (not estimable in the weighted analysis). During the follow-up (median time: 384 vs. 593 days; p = 0.0001) there were no re-operations for structural valve degeneration. Mean valve gradient at discharge was lower for Trifecta across all valve sizes (7.9 ± 3.2 vs. 12.1 ± 4.7 mmHg; p < 0.001), but the difference did not persist during follow-up (8.2 ± 3.7 mmHg for Trifecta, 8.9 ± 3.6 mmHg for Perimount; p = 0.224); Conclusions: Postoperative outcome and mid-term follow-up were similar. An early better hemodynamic performance was detected for the Trifecta valve but did not persist over time. No difference in the reoperation rate for structural valve degeneration was found.

Structural valve deterioration of bioprosthesis in the aortic position: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is one of the most common open-heart surgical procedures. The durability of the tissue valve in the aortic position is crucial in AVR and transcatheter AVR. We reviewed structural valve deterioration using echocardiographic follow-up in three types of surgical aortic tissue valves.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted where hemodynamic deterioration was evaluated and compared using transthoracic echocardiography, including pressure gradients and effective orifice area. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to summarize the time to failure.

RESULTS

The study included 133 Trifecta, 156 Epic, and 321 Magna Ease valves. Seventy-six percent (1941/2551) of patients had to be excluded due to insufficient echo data. Through univariate analysis, 34% (216/610) of valves met deterioration criteria after 24 months. Unadjusted survival curves showed a significant difference between valves (p ≤ .001), with a longer mean time to deterioration for the Magna Ease versus Trifecta and Epic of 68.9 versus 50.1 and 38.2 months, respectively. A Cox proportional hazard analysis found worse hazard ratios of 1.69 (p ≤ .04) and 2.4 (p ≤ .01) for Trifecta versus Magna and Epic versus Trifecta, respectively.

CONCLUSION

All three valve types demonstrated structural valve deterioration on echocardiographic follow-up with significant differences in rate. The Magna Ease appeared to have the highest durability, and the Epic the lowest. Further investigation is warranted to confirm the results in a larger multicenter study.

One-Year Hemodynamic Performance of Three Cardiac Aortic Bioprostheses: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial

Background: We aimed to compare 1 year the hemodynamic in-vivo performance of three biological aortic prostheses (Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease^TM, Crown PRT^TM, and Trifecta^TM). Methods: The sample used in this study comes from the “BEST-VALVE” clinical trial, which is a phase IV single-blinded randomized clinical trial with the three above-mentioned prostheses. Results: 154 patients were included. Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease^TM (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRT^TM (n = 51, 32.1%) and Trifecta^TM (n = 55, 35.7%). One year after the surgery, the mean aortic gradient and the peak aortic velocity was 17.5 (IQR 11.3–26) and 227.1 (IQR 202.0–268.8) for Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease^TM, 21.4 (IQR 14.5–26.7) and 237.8 (IQR 195.9–261.9) for Crown PRT^TM, and 13 (IQR 9.6–17.8) and 209.7 (IQR 176.5–241.4) for Trifecta^TM, respectively. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated improved mean gradients and maximum velocity of Trifecta^TM as compared to Crown PRT^TM. Among patients with nominal prosthesis sizes ≤ 21, the mean and peak aortic gradient was higher for Crown PRT^TM compared with Trifecta^TM, and in patients with an aortic annulus measured with metric Hegar dilators less than or equal to 22 mm. Conclusions: One year after surgery, the three prostheses presented a different hemodynamic performance, being Trifecta^TM superior to Crown PRT^TM.

Trifecta versus perimount bioprosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement; systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggested higher rates of early structural valve degeneration or reintervention for the Trifecta valve compared to other valves. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and the Perimount valves in patients who underwent a surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

All randomized control trials and observational studies which investigated the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and Perimount valves were identified with PubMed and EMBASE. The endpoints were the rates of reintervention and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) for reintervention and all-cause mortality were combined with the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our search identified 6 eligible observational studies which enrolled a total of 11,135 patients who underwent SAVR with either the Trifecta valve (n = 4932) or Perimount (n = 6203). Pooled analyses demonstrated that the reintervention rates were significantly higher with the Trifecta valve compared with Perimount valves (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 3.16 [1.83-5.46]; p < .0001; I² = 40%). In contrast, all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (HR [95% CI] = 1.09 [0.75-1.58]; p = .32, I² = 12%).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that AVR with the Trifecta valve was associated with higher rates of reintervention compared for that with the Perimount valve. Although further long-term randomized trials are warranted, surgeons need to be cautious when choosing a bioprosthetic valve for patients undergoing SAVR.

Long-Term Results (up to 20 Years) of 19 mm or Smaller Prostheses in the Aortic Position. Does Size Matter? A Propensity-Matched Survival Analysis

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.

A Retrospective Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes between Two Differently Designed Aortic Bioprostheses for Small Aortic Annuli

The Trifecta valve has externally mounted leaflets; it differs from classic internally mounted valves (e.g., Carpentier-Edwards [C-E]). We evaluated post-implantation hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of these bioprostheses in small aortic annuli. From January 2015 to April 2019, 490 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) were reviewed retrospectively. Altogether, 183 patients received 19 or 21 mm diameter C-E (n = 121) or Trifecta (n = 62) prostheses. To minimize confounding variables, we performed propensity-score matching analysis. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient (TVPG) was significantly lower in the Trifecta than in the C-E group at discharge (12.9 ± 4.8 vs. 15.0 ± 5.3 mmHg, p = 0.044). TVPG change over time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.357). Left ventricular mass index decreased postoperatively (reduction: C-E, 28.1%; Trifecta, 30.1%, p = 0.879). No late mortality, severe patient–prosthesis mismatch, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leakage, structural valve degeneration, or valve thromboses were observed. Freedom from valve-related events at 3 years were similar for C-E (97.9% ± 2.1%) and Trifecta (97.7% ± 2.2%) patients (log-rank p = 0.993). Bioprosthesis design for small annuli significantly affected TVPG immediately after AVR. However, hemodynamics over time and clinical outcomes did not differ between the two designs.

Magna ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients

OBJECTIVES

The Magna Ease aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) is a third-generation bioprosthetic valve developed as a modification of the well-studied Perimount and Magna valve designs. This study's objective is to evaluate a large, single-centre experience with Magna Ease aortic valve replacement (AVR) focusing on clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance.

METHODS

All patients undergoing AVR between 8/2010 and 10/2018 at our institution implanted with the Magna Ease valve were included except those undergoing ventricular assist device or congenital aortic surgery. Primary outcomes were overall survival and freedom from reoperation. Mean transprosthetic gradient (mTPG) and structural valve deterioration (SVD) served as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally 1126 consecutive implantations of Magna Ease valves were included. Concomitant procedures were performed in 56.5% (n = 636). No severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was present at implantation. Overall survival at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years and 9 years was 97.2%, 95.0%, 86.1% and 78.2%, respectively, with improved survival for isolated AVR. Total of 2.4% (n = 27) of patients required reoperation with 0.3% (n = 4) for SVD. Echocardiographic follow-up data revealed low mTPG throughout the study period. SVD occurred in 28.7% of patients at a mean of 3.9 years post implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Magna Ease AVR maintained low mean transprosthetic gradients throughout mid-term evaluation and was associated with excellent overall survival and freedom from reoperation at nine years post implantation.

Early Midterm Results After Valve Replacement With Contemporary Pericardial Prostheses for Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies have demonstrated improved gradients after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta (TR) valve (Abbott Cardiovascular, St Paul, MN) as compared with the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease (ME) valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Clinical benefits of this strategy have not been demonstrated.

METHODS

Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with either valve were included. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant procedures other than coronary artery bypass grafting. Inverse proportion treatment weighting was used in the analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac mortality, need for reintervention, and freedom from first congestive heart failure (CHF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the composite components, and cumulative CHF admission. Follow-up echocardiograms were assessed in a cohort of patients to assess structural valve degeneration.

RESULTS

There were 331 patients in the TR group and 360 patients in the ME group. The TR group had more women (48% vs 32%, P < .001) with smaller roots (left ventricular outflow tract diameter: TR, 2.11 cm; ME, 2.17 cm; P < .001). After weighting there was no significant difference in the composite measure between groups (P > .05). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.59; P = .56), and 5-year survival was 91.9% in the ME group and 93.4% in the TR group. There was no difference in cardiac death, reintervention, or first onset of CHF or incidence of structural valve degeneration between groups. There was no difference in the rate of admissions for CHF per 100 patients between the 2 valve types (P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS

Early hemodynamic benefits have not translated into differences in medium-term clinical outcomes between these 2 valves. Long-term follow-up is necessary.

Six-year follow-up of aortic valve reoperation rates: Carpentier-Edwards Perimount versus St. Jude Medical Trifecta

BACKGROUND

The Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valves have a proven track record in aortic valve replacement: good durability, hemodynamic performance, rates of survival, and low rates of valve-related complications and prosthesis-patient mismatch. The St. Jude Medical Trifecta is a newer valve that has shown comparable early and midterm outcomes. Studies show reoperation rates of Trifecta are comparable with Perimount valves, with a few recent studies bringing into focus early structural valve deterioration (SVD), and increased midterm SVD in younger patients. Given that midterm data for Trifecta is still sparse, we wanted to confirm the early low reoperation rates of Trifecta persist over time compared with Perimount.

METHODS

The Maritime Heart Centre Database was searched for AVR between 2011 and 2016, inclusive. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause reoperation rate.

RESULTS

In total, 711 Perimount and 453 Trifecta implantations were included. The reoperation hazards were determined for age: 0.96 (0.92-0.99; p = .02), female (vs. male): 0.35 (0.08-1.53; p = .16), smoker (vs. nonsmoker): 2.44 (0.85-7.02; p = .1), and Trifecta (vs. Perimount): 2.68 (0.97-7.39; p = .06). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in subgroups-age <60, age ≥60, male, female, smoker, and nonsmoker-showed Perimount having lower reoperation rates than Trifecta in patients younger than 60 (p = .02) and current smokers (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of reoperation of Perimount and Trifecta were comparable, with Trifecta showing higher rates in patients younger than 60 years, and current smokers. Continued diligence and further independent reporting of midterm reoperation and SVD rates of the Trifecta, including detailed echocardiographic follow-up, are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

In Vitro and Ex Vivo Hemodynamic Testing of an Innovative Occluder for Paravalvular Leak After Transcather Aortic Valve Implantation

This study aims at achieving a proof-of-concept for a novel device designed to occlude the orifices that may form between transcatheter valves and host tissues after TAVI. The device effect on the performance of a SAPIEN XT with a paravalvular gap was assessed into an in vitro and ex vivo pulse duplicator. The in vitro tests were performed complying with the standard international regulations, measuring the trasvalvular pressure and regurgitant volumes with and without the paravalvular gap, and with the occluder correctly positioned into the gap. In the second series of tests, the leakage reduction due to the presence of the occluder was assessed for the same setup, into a beating swine heart. The occluder implantation decreased the regurgitant fraction of about 50% for the in vitro assessment and 75% for the ex vivo test, under rest operating conditions. These results suggest that suitably designed occluders can lead to important benefit in the PVL treatment.

Hemodynamics and reverse remodeling associated with Mosaic, Perimount and Trifecta aortic bioprostheses

Introduction: The implantation rate of aortic bioprostheses is increasing. Their durability has improved to some extent over the years and they allow for future transcatheter valve-in-valve deployment. In the lack of long term follow up, their hemodynamic profile, i.e. transvalvular mean pressure gradient and effective orifice area indexed, and the associated left ventricular reverse remodeling indexed are useful surrogates for clinical outcomes. Areas covered: A systematic review of the literature was conducted by searching Medline, Cochrane, Scielo, Embase databases, and grey literature until July 2018 for articles that perform comparisons among the three most popular aortic bioprostheses. Six randomized and 12 non-randomized studies were included with 565 patients receiving a Mosaic, 1334 a Perimount and 557 a Trifecta valve. These articles are heterogeneous but they allow the meta-analytic comparison of the abovementioned outcomes. Expert opinion: Compared to the Perimount valve, the Mosaic is hemodynamically inferior, while the Trifecta is superior. Despite these statistically significant differences, the left ventricular mass regression indexed, that is indicative of reverse remodeling, was comparable in all groups. All patients were similarly benefited. The predilection among these valves is fueled by their hemodynamic profile but not supported by the comparable reverse remodeling.

The Use of Biological Heart Valves

BACKGROUND

Biological heart-valve prostheses have undergone continuous devel- opment up to the present, and technological advances have been made in catheter- assisted valve systems (transcatheter aortic valve implantation, TAVI) and minimally invasive routes of application. These parallel trends have led to major changes in therapeutic strategies, widening the spectrum of patients who are candidates for biological aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic search in PubMed employing the search terms "conventional biological aortic pros- thesis," "rapid deployment prosthesis," and "transcatheter aortic valve implantation/ replacement."

RESULTS

Among biological heart-valve prostheses, a distinction is drawn between stented (conventional, rapid-deployment, and catheter-assisted) and non-stented types. The long-term durability of conventional, surgically implantable biological valve protheses is by far the best documented: the reported 5-year reoperation rates range from 13.4% to 36.6%, and the pacemaker implantation rate is ca. 4%. Rapid-deployment prostheses combine the advantages of conventional and ca- theter-assisted techniques and facilitate minimally invasive approaches. The TAVI method is currently recommended for high- and intermediate-risk patients, while conventional valve replacement remains the method of choice for those at low risk. Rapid-deployment and TAVI prostheses is associated with a higher pacemaker im- plantation rate than conventional prostheses: these rates are 8.5-15.3% for TAVI and 6.0-8.8% for rapid-deployment valves. The intermediate-term durability of catheter-assisted and rapid-deployment prostheses appears promising, but their long-term durability is still unclear.

CONCLUSION

The further development of biological heart-valve prostheses in the form of improved conventional, transcatheter, and rapid-deployment prostheses now enables individualized treatment. Before any such procedure is performed, the car- diac team must assess the patient's risk profile and the advantages and disadvan- tages of each type of prosthesis to determine which is best.

Clinical outcome and hemodynamic performance of St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis: short-term follow-up and risk factors analysis

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively analysed the short-term outcome of the third-generation St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis.

METHODS

Between December 2014 and December 2017, 177 patients (mean age 75.1±6.8 years, 95 males, 82 females) underwent aortic valve replacement with a St. Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis and were followed up to 27±9 months. Preoperatively 92 patients (52.0%) were in NYHA class III-IV, EuroSCORE II was 3.2%±2.1%.

RESULTS

Trifecta sizes implanted were 19 mm (n=46) (26%), 21 mm (n=69) (39%), 23 mm (n=46) (26%), 25 mm (n=16) (9%). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 60 patients (34.0%). Operative mortality was 3.4% (1.7% for isolated aortic valve replacement versus 6.7% for combined aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting) (P=0.084). The only independent predictor of mortality was the need for the mechanical ventilation greater than 24 hours (P=0.037); recently occurring myocardial infarction was risk factor for mortality at the univariate analysis only (P=0.013). Three-year survival was 84%±6%, freedom from cardiac death 98%±1%, freedom from prosthetic endocarditis 97%±1%. No thromboembolisms or structural valve degeneration were observed. Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was absent in 126 patients (71.2%), mild-to-moderate in 32 (18.1%), moderate in 19 (10.7%), severe in no any patient. Follow-up echocardiography showed an average mean and peak trans-aortic valve gradients reduction more than 70% in comparison with preoperative value (P<0.0001), and a significant regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (P<0.0001). Moderate PPM did not negatively affect survival. Concomitant severe coronary artery disease was found as an independent predictor of reduced survival (72%±12% versus 86%±6%) (P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Trifecta aortic prosthesis seems to provide very favourable clinical outcome and hemodynamic performance. At three years, survival was negatively affected by severe coronary artery disease detected at the time of operation. During short-term follow-up, no early structural valve degeneration was been observed. Due to low incidence of PPM and low peak and mean trans-prosthetic aortic valve gradients, third generation Trifecta aortic prosthesis should be considered as one of the best options in the setting of the aortic valve replacement surgery. However, a long-term follow-up is mandatory to confirm the early promising data.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: Meta-analysis and microsimulation

OBJECTIVE

To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients, we provide a comprehensive overview of outcome after AVR with bioprostheses.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of studies reporting clinical outcome after AVR with bioprostheses in elderly patients (mean age ≥70 years; minimum age ≥65 years) published between January 1, 2000, to September 1, 2016. Reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risks.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies reporting on 34 patient cohorts were included, encompassing a total of 12,842 patients with 55,437 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up 5.0 ± 3.3 years). Pooled mean age was 76.5 ± 5.5 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 5.42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-6.55), thromboembolism rate was 1.83%/year (95% CI, 1.28-3.61), and bleeding rate was 0.75%/year (95% CI, 0.50-1.11). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was based on pooled time to SVD data (Gompertz; shape: 0.124, rate: 0.003). For a 75-year-old patient, this translated to an estimated life expectancy of 9.8 years (general population: 10.2 years) and lifetime risks of bleeding of 7%, thromboembolism of 17%, and reintervention of 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The low risks of SVD and reintervention support the use of bioprostheses in elderly patients in need of AVR. The estimated life expectancy after AVR was comparable with the general population. The results of this study inform patients and clinicians about the expected outcomes after bioprosthetic AVR and thereby support treatment decision-making. Furthermore, our results can be used as a benchmark for long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients who were eligible for surgery and other (future) alternative treatments (eg, tissue-engineered heart valves).

Risk stratification of severe aortic stenosis according to new guidelines: long term outcomes

Background

Current ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease assign a class Ia indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) only to patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis and asymptomatic patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) or positive exercise test. We examined the long-term outcomes for patients undergoing AVR for aortic stenosis over a 11-year period at our institution compared to current international guidelines for AVR.

Methods

Patients who had undergone isolated AVR for severe aortic valve stenosis between January 2001 and December 2012 were selected. The population was divided into subgroups based on preoperative LVEF (< or ≥50%) and on presence/absence of symptoms (NYHA =I or ≥II, respectively).

Results

We identified 607 patients with a median follow-up (FU) time of 5.75 years (IQR 3.24-8.00 years). The presence of symptoms did not have a significant impact on cardiovascular mortality (P=0.201). Patients with LVEF <50% displayed a higher long-term cardiovascular mortality rate (P=0.015). Multivariate analysis showed that preserved LVEF was a protective factor for asymptomatic patients (P=0.021), while preoperative LVEF did not affect the mortality rate in symptomatic patients (HR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.54-1.44). Correspondingly, asymptomatic patients with reduced LVEF were found to be at a higher risk of long-term mortality compared to the other groups (P=0.011). The only other independent risk factor for death was age (HR 6.46; 95% CI, 2.22-18.76).

Conclusions

According to our data, current international class I indications for symptomatic patients ensure good long-term survival, while class I indications for asymptomatic patients with reduced LVEF are associated with poor long-term survival. Our results suggest that early surgery should also be considered also for asymptomatic patients with preserved LVEF, particularly in cases of very low operative risk.

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.

Rest and exercise haemodynamics in patients with one of two stented bioprostheses and in healthy controls with small aortic annuli

OBJECTIVES

Because bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement remains one of the most frequent cardiac surgical procedures, it is necessary to study patient haemodynamics in more detail. Until now, a few studies assessed haemodynamics during exercise, but none with special regard to small aortic annuli. We compared patients who had the differently designed bioprostheses, Trifecta and Perimount Magna Ease (PME), size ≤ 23 mm, and a healthy control group during rest and exercise.

METHODS

We determined the mean transvalvular gradient, the effective orifice area (EOA) and the EOA index during rest and exercise using transthoracic echocardiography in 35 patients with the Trifecta (mean age 71.4 years, follow-up 1 year, labelled valve size 21.7 mm), in 16 patients with the PME (mean age 66.2 years, follow-up 2.6 years, labelled valve size 21.6 mm) and in 25 healthy persons. The parameters derived were summarized in a simplified Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 classification to determine prosthetic valve dysfunction.

RESULTS

When we compared the Trifecta and the PME, a significant superiority of the Trifecta was seen at rest in mean transvalvular gradient (7.96 vs 12.19 mmHg) and EOA (1.57 vs 1.48 cm2), during exercise in all parameters (mean transvalvular gradient 11.06 vs 19.2 mmHg, EOA 1.77 vs 1.26 cm2, EOA index 0.96 vs 0.67 cm2/m2). The Trifecta showed a physiological increase in the EOA index during exercise. Exercise led to a shift to better simplified Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 categories in the Trifecta and to worse in the PME group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals the haemodynamic superiority of the Trifecta to the PME. Especially in small aortic annuli, this difference might have some relevance for clinical and research issues.

Acute Structural Failure of the Trifecta Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis

Advancements in bioprosthetic valve technology have greatly enhanced the haemodynamic performance and long-term durability of tissue valves. These features, along with the key advantage of avoiding lifelong anticoagulation, have made bioprosthetic valves increasingly attractive for clinicians and patients alike. The St Jude Trifecta valve is a novel, bovine pericardial bioprosthesis with promising early data for performance and safety. However, no prosthetic valve is perfect and prosthesis failure can occur with even the most reliable and well-designed devices. We report a case of early and acute structural deterioration (stent-post leaflet rupture) of the Trifecta valve, explanted after 33 months, in a 76-year-old male.

Does pre-existing aortic regurgitation protect from death in patients who develop paravalvular leak after TAVI?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate interactions among pre-procedural aortic regurgitation (AR), post-procedural paravalvular leak (PVL) and long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed data prospectively collected in the Italian Transcatheter balloon-Expandable Registry (ITER) on aortic stenosis (AS) patients. The degree of pre-procedural AR and post-procedural PVL was stratified as: absent/trivial, mild, and moderate/severe. VARC definitions were applied to outcomes. Of 1708 patients, preoperatively, AR was absent/trivial in 40% of the patients, mild in 42%, and moderate in 18%. Postoperatively, PVL was moderate-severe in 5%, mild in 32% of patients, and absent/trivial in 63%. Clinical follow-up, median 821days (IQR 585.75), was performed in 99.7% of patients. PVL, but not preoperative AR, was a major predictor of adverse outcome (HR 1.33, CI 95% 0.9-2.05, p=0.012 for mild PVL, HR 1.36, CI 95% 0.9-2.05, p<0.001 for PVL≥moderate and OR 1.04, p=0.97 respectively). Patients with moderate-severe PVL and preoperative left ventricle (LV) dilatation (LVEDVi>75ml/m²) showed better survival than those without dilatation (HR 8.63, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe AS treated with balloon-expandable TAVI, the presence of PVL, but not pre-procedural AR, was a major predictor of adverse outcome. Preoperative LV dilatation seemed to offer some clinical advantages.

Cardiac surgery 2015 reviewed

For the year 2015, almost 19,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". The last year has been again characterized by lively discussions in the fields where classic cardiac surgery and modern interventional techniques overlap. Lacking evidence in the field of coronary revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery has been added. As in the years before, CABG remains the gold standard for the revascularization of complex stable triple-vessel disease. Plenty of new information has been presented comparing the conventional to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) demonstrating similar short- and mid-term outcomes at high and low risk, but even a survival advantage with transfemoral TAVI at intermediate risk. In addition, there were many relevant and interesting other contributions from the purely operative arena. This review article will summarize the most pertinent publications in the fields of coronary revascularization, surgical treatment of valve disease, heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices), and aortic surgery. While the article does not have the expectation of being complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.

A comparison of two forms of the continuity equation in the Trifecta bovine pericardial aortic valve

AIM

To compare the classical and simplified form of the continuity equation in small Trifecta valves.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of post-operative echocardiograms performed for clinical reasons after implantation of Trifecta bioprosthetic valves.

RESULTS

There were 60 patients aged 74 (range 38-89) years. For the valves of size 19, 21 and 23mm, the mean gradient was 11.3, 10.7 and 9.7mmHg, respectively. The effective orifice areas by the classical form of the continuity equation were 1.4, 1.7 and 1.9cm(2), respectively. There was a good correlation between the two forms of the continuity equation, but they were significantly different using a t-test (P<0.00001). Results using the classical form were a mean 0.11 (s.d. 0.18)cm(2) larger than those using the simple formula.

CONCLUSION

Haemodynamic function of the Trifecta valve in the small aortic root is good. There are significant differences between the classical and simplified forms of the continuity equation.