Transprosthetic cuff leakage of a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis in a redo case

A 79-year-old man underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation 10 years previously (Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease, 21 mm; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). The indexed effective orifice area decreased to 0.422 cm2/m2, and heart failure symptoms appeared. The patient underwent aortic valve replacement through a redo median sternotomy. A perivalvular leak was observed on transesophageal echocardiography at the time of weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass. The patient was judged to have a leak characteristic of bioprosthetic valves and was monitored closely. Postoperative echocardiography showed that the perivalvular leak had decreased to a trivial level, indicating that the intraoperative decision had been correct. We report this case because such intraoperative judgments are difficult to make.

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.

5-Year haemodynamic performance of three aortic bioprostheses. A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The Carpentier Perimount (CP) Magna Ease, the Crown Phospholipid Reduction Treatment (PRT) and the Trifecta bovine pericardial valves have been widely used worldwide. The primary end point of this study was to compare the haemodynamic performance quantified by in vivo echocardiograms of these 3 aortic prostheses.

METHODS

The "BEST-VALVE" (comparison of 3 contemporary cardiac bioprostheses: mid-term valve haemodynamic performance) was a single-centre randomized clinical trial to compare the haemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned bioprostheses. The 5-year results are assessed in this manuscript.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were included. The CP Magna Ease (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRT (n = 51, 32.1%) and Trifecta (n = 55, 35.7%) valves were compared. Significant differences were observed among the 3 bioprostheses 5 years after the procedure. The following haemodynamic differences were found between the CP Magna Ease and the Crown PRT bioprostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (interquartile range {IQR} 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 15 mmHg (IQR 10.8-31.9) for the Crown PRT, P < 0.001] and between the CP Magna Ease and the Trifecta prostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (IQR 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 14.7 mmHg (IQR 8.2-55) for the Trifecta, P < 0.001], with a better haemodynamic performance of the CP Magna Ease. The cumulative incidence of severe structural valve degeneration was 9.5% in the Trifecta group at 6 years of follow-up. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from all-cause mortality was 91.5%, 83.5% and 74.8%, respectively (log rank P = 0.440). Survival from the composite event at the 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up was 92.8%, 74.6% and 59%, respectively (log rank P = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

We detected significant differences between the 3 bioprostheses; the CP Magna Ease had the best haemodynamic performance at the 5-year follow-up.

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.

Stentless Versus Stented Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The differences in long-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis between stentless and stented bioprostheses are controversial.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2018, 1173 patients underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, including 559 treated with a stentless valve and 614 with a stented valve. A propensity score matched cohort with 348 pairs was generated by matching for age, sex, body surface area, bicuspid aortic valve, chronic lung disease, previous cardiac surgery, coronary artery disease, renal failure on dialysis, valve size, concomitant procedures, and surgeon. The primary endpoints of the study were long-term survival and incidence of reoperation.

RESULTS

Immediate postoperative outcomes were similar between the stentless and stented groups with an overall operative mortality of 2.9% (P = .19). Kaplan-Meier estimation for long-term survival was comparable between the stentless and stented valves in both the whole cohort and the propensity score matched cohort (10-year survival 59% vs 55%, P = .20). The hazard ratio of stentless vs stented valve for risk of long-term mortality was 1.12 (P = .33). The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to valve degeneration was 5.5% in the stentless group and 4.7% in the stented group (P = .25). The transvalvular pressure gradient at 5-year follow-up was significantly lower in the stentless group (7 vs 11 mm Hg, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both stented and stentless valves could be used in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. We recommend stented valves for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis for their simplicity of implantation.

Association of the Surgical Technique With the Structural Valve Deterioration of a Bioprosthesis: A Prospective Cohort Study

The Trifecta aortic valve is a prosthesis with externally mounted leaflets and a stent which may be deformed during implant. Our aim was to know if the use of the holder as a protection device during the knotting has an impact on the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD) or endocarditis. Prospective cohort study where all patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a Trifecta aortic valve between 2013 and 2018 were included. The use of the holder as a protection device was collected in a database. Propensity-score matched methods were used and analyses were based on competing events. Death without SVD or prosthesis replacement not due to SVD was considered competing events. 782 patients were included, 352 pairs after the matching. Rates of SVD at 5 and 8 years were 5.8% (95% CI 3.5-8.7) and 13.6% (95% CI 9.2-18.9) in the group without holder and 2.3% (95% CI 1-4.5) and 7% (95% CI 4.2-10.8) in the group with holder; sHR = 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.86; P = 0.015). The risk of endocarditis at 8 years was 4.8% (95% CI 2.8-7.4) in the group without holder and 2.3% (95% CI 1.1-4.3) in the group with holder, sHR = 0.49 (95% CI 0.21-1.15, P = 0.1). The use of holder as a protection device during the knotting of the Trifecta aortic valve is associated with less risk of SVD.

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.

Prosthetic cardiac valves: history and review of cardiac prostheses clinically available in Japan

Recently developed prosthetic valves are reliable and essential for the treatment of valvular heart disease. The mechanical valve evolved remarkably following the introduction of pyrolite carbon material, which enabled the creation of a bileaflet form incorporated with a pivot mechanism. The improved durability of the biological valve is attributed mainly to the development of a tissue fixation process and anti-calcification treatments. However, optimal antithrombogenicity and durability have not yet been achieved for either prosthetic valve type. To select the most suitable prosthetic valve for each individual patient from among the many clinically available prosthetic valves, it is necessary to have a thorough understanding of the characteristics of each valve.

Stress exercise haemodynamic performance and opening reserve of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Despite unusual high rates of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), excellent midterm clinical outcomes have been reported after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with the Avalus™ bioprosthetic valve (Medtronic). To elucidate this "PPM conundrum," the Avalus valve haemodynamics were assessed during exercise testing.

METHODS

Of the 148 patients who had undergone SAVR with the Avalus valve at our institution, 30 were randomly selected among those in whom stress test was deemed feasible and underwent a resting transthoracic echocardiography immediately followed by exercise echocardiography. Severe PPM was defined as indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) ≤ 0.65 cm² /m² and moderate PPM as iEOA > 0.65 and ≤ 0.85 cm² /m² . Measured PPM was determined with the use of the measured iEOA at rest or stress, while the estimated PPM was based on the estimated iEOA, derived from the mean EOA reported for each valve size in the manufacturer chart.

RESULTS

Measured EOA significantly increased from rest to peak exercise in all PPM groups (p < .05) and the rates of moderate and severe measured PPM decreased from 40% and 20% to 27% and 0%, respectively. The patients with low-flow state (flow < 250 ml/s) had significantly lower measured rest EOA (p = .03). On the basis of the estimated iEOA, there was no severe PPM and 19 patients had moderate PPM (63.3%), with a significantly lower opening reserve than the patients without estimated PPM (p = .04). The estimated iEOA was more reliably correlated to the measured iEOA at maximal stress than the measured iEOA at rest, especially in patients with a low-flow state.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the concept of an opening reserve of the Avalus valve to explain the PPM conundrum and promotes the use of exercise Doppler-echocardiography to complete the assessment of mismatch, especially in patients with a low-flow state. Published estimated EOA seems reliable to predict the haemodynamic performance of the Avalus valve, whether the flow conditions at rest.

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.

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.

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.

Safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis: Two-year analysis

OBJECTIVES

The study objectives were to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and hemodynamic performance of a novel stented bovine pericardial aortic valve bioprosthesis 2 years after implantation.

METHODS

The PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNT Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic moderate/severe aortic stenosis or regurgitation at centers in Canada, Europe, and the United States. We report the outcomes and hemodynamic performance in patients with up to 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 1273 patients were enrolled, and 1110 underwent implantation. Among patients undergoing implantation, the mean age was 70.2 ± 8.9 years; 833 (75.0%) were male. Risk of mortality (Society of Thoracic Surgeons) was 2.0% ± 1.4%. At the time of analysis, 604 patients had completed the 2-year follow-up visit. Linearized late event rates were as follows: all death, 2.68%; valve-related death, 0.42%; valve thrombosis, 0.05%; endocarditis, 0.94%; thromboembolism, 1.68%; all hemorrhage, 2.94%; major hemorrhage, 1.99%; all paravalvular leak, 0.26%; and major paravalvular leak, 0.05% per patient-year. Mean 2-year aortic gradient and effective orifice area were 13.4 ± 5.0 mm Hg and 1.5 ± 0.37 cm², respectively. Moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were observed in 43.5% and 34.8% of patients at 2 years, respectively. Improvement in New York Heart Association class compared with baseline was observed in 73.0% with moderate mismatch and 74.1% with severe mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

The Avalus (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) bovine pericardial valve demonstrates good clinical and safety outcomes at 2 years. Hemodynamic performance shows mean gradients comparable to currently available bovine pericardial aortic valves. There was no clinical impact of moderate to severe mismatch at 2 years. Further follow-up is required to evaluate midterm to long-term clinical outcome.

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.

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.

Transprosthetic Cuff Leakage of a Bovine Pericardial Aortic Bioprosthesis

The Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna aortic heart valve is the most frequently implanted bioprosthesis. However, the existence of transvalvular cuff leakage necessitating a second cross clamp has been recently reported. The aim of this study is to seek the mechanism, occurrence rate, and influence of cuff leakage on the clinical course. Between September 2012 and August 2018, 754 consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement using a Magna aortic prosthesis at a single cardiovascular center. The overall mean patient age was 75 (69-80) years, and the percentage of female gender was 45.5% (343/754). The etiology included aortic stenosis in 506 patients (67.1%) and aortic insufficiency in 248 patients (32.9%). The implanted valve size was 19 mm, 21 mm, 23 mm, 25 mm, and 27 mm in 125 (16.6%), 243 (32.2%), 228 (30.2%), 130 (17.2%), and 28 (3.7%) patients, respectively. The incidence of cuff leakage was 1.59% (12/754). The origin was left-right commissure in all cases, and the jet passed toward the anterior mitral leaflet. In 9 patients (75%), cuff leakage faded completely within 3 months after surgery. Additionally, residual leak was not associated with hemolysis and cardiac events in all cases. Transvalvular cuff leakage should be perceived as a benign leakage. Nonperivalvular oblique jet from the left-right commissure toward the anterior mitral leaflet in transgastric long-axis view is likely to be cuff leakage, and follow-up with protamine administration for mild leak is suggested as the first-line choice of treatment rather than a second aortic clamp.

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

OBJECTIVE

When aortic valve replacement is needed, a biological valve is usually implanted in patients older than age 60 to 65 years. A large valvular opening area is important to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch and facilitate reverse left ventricular remodeling. The Trifecta biological valve (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minn) is, because of its design, believed to reduce transvalvular gradient compared with other biological valves, especially in smaller annuli. Several retrospective studies have compared transvalvular gradients of implanted valves prostheses using the respective manufacturers given size and not the actual annulus size measured by a metric sizer. This makes comparison of the hemodynamic properties of different valve brands and sizes difficult. We therefore performed a prospective randomized study, using the same metric sizer to measure annulus size, and compared hemodynamic profiles of the Trifecta to our standard Mosaic Ultra biological valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn).

METHODS

Ninety elective patients with small to medium annulus diameter undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to either Trifecta or Mosaic Ultra. After native valve removal and decalcification, a Hegar-sizer was used to measure true annulus size. Then the largest possible valve of either brand was implanted according to the randomization protocol. Echocardiography was performed 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Baseline parameters of the 2 cohorts were comparable. There were lower transvalvular gradients in the Trifecta compared with the Mosaic Ultra group for the given annulus sizes. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was present in 28% of patients in the Mosaic group and 3% of patients in the Trifecta group.

CONCLUSIONS

Trifecta showed lower transvalvular gradients and less severe prosthesis-patient mismatch compared with Mosaic Ultra for the given annulus sizes. ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol ID: 2011/2596/REK.

The Fluid Dynamical Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease Prosthesis

The aim of the present in vitro study was the evaluation of the fluid dynamical performance of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease depending on the prosthetic size (21, 23, and 25 mm) and the cardiac output (3.6–6.4 L/min). A self-constructed flow channel in combination with particle image velocimetry (PIV) enabled precise results with high reproducibility, focus on maximal and local peek velocities, strain, and velocity gradients. These flow parameters allow insights into the generation of forces that act on blood cells and the aortic wall. The results showed that the 21 and 23 mm valves have a quite similar performance. Maximal velocities were 3.03 ± 0.1 and 2.87 ± 0.13 m/s; maximal strain E_xx, 913.81 ± 173.25 and 896.15 ± 88.16 1/s; maximal velocity gradient E_yx, 1203.14 ± 221.84 1/s and 1200.81 ± 61.83 1/s. The 25 mm size revealed significantly lower values: maximal velocity, 2.47 ± 0.15 m/s; maximal strain E_xx, 592.98 ± 155.80 1/s; maximal velocity gradient E_yx, 823.71 ± 38.64 1/s. In summary, the 25 mm Magna Ease was able to create a wider, more homogenous flow with lower peak velocities especially for higher flow rates. Despite the wider flow, the velocity values close to the aortic walls did not exceed the level of the smaller valves.

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.

Early and mid-term haemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes of St. Jude Medical Trifecta™ valve

Background

New models of aortic bioprostheses have proven excellent early haemodynamic profile, but their mid and long-term performance warrants further systematic assessment. The aim of this study is to report clinical and haemodynamic performance of St. Jude Medical Trifecta bioprosthesis during 5 years of implantation.

Methods

We performed a single centre, retrospective, observational and descriptive study including all 556 individuals who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Trifecta bioprosthesis (between July of 2011 and June of 2016). Survival and re-intervention were censored in February 2017. Postoperative ambulatory echocardiographic data was available for 490 patients. A complete clinical follow-up was available in 463 individuals (mean follow-up time, 27±17 months).

Results

In our sample the mean age was 73±9 years, 57.6% were male and median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II was 2.9 (interquartile range, 1.6-5.8). There were 301 (54.1%) combined procedures, mostly coronary artery bypass grafting in 170 (30.6%). Overall 30-days mortality was 5.4% (n=30) and cumulative survival at 5-years was 72.3%. There were 23 (4.3%) permanent pacemaker implantations. During follow-up, 5 (0.9%) patients presented non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD) and 4 (0.8%) underwent reoperation due to prosthesis endocarditis. At the first ambulatory evaluation transvalvular mean gradient and effective orifice area (EOA) were 10.9±4.1 mmHg and 2.0±0.5 cm², respectively. Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was observed in 5 (1.1%) individuals and moderate in 52 (11.3%).

Conclusions

In a "real-world" clinical setting, our findings support the good overall mid-term haemodynamic and safety profile of the Trifecta bioprosthesis.

Hemodynamic assessment of Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis by dobutamine stress echocardiography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic performance of a sutureless bioprosthesis under high workload at mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with a Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were enrolled in this study. S size prosthesis was deployed in 10 patients (31.3%), M size in 9 (28.1%), L size in 8 (25%) and XL size in 5 (15.6%). Effective orifice area (EOA), EOA index (EOAi), and transvalvular gradients were assessed at rest and during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) a median of 19.5 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) significantly increased heart rate, stroke volume, ejection fraction, and transvalvular gradients (peak gradient, 24.0 ± 7.6 vs 38.7 ± 13.6 mm Hg, P < .001; mean gradient, 12.6 ± 4.2 vs 19.8 ± 8.3, P < .001). When compared to baseline, estimated valve areas significantly increased at follow-up (EOA, 1.48 ± 0.46 vs 2.06 ± 0.67, P < .001; EOAi, 0.84 ± 0.26 vs 1.17 ± 0.37, P < .001). Mean percentage increase in EOAi was 40.3% ± 28.0%. S size prostheses had the highest increase in EOA1, but the difference was not significant (S 46.0% ± 27.5% vs M 45.4% ± 34.5% vs L 32.7% ± 26.4% vs XL 32.1% ± 20.5%, P = .66). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (EOAi ≤ 0.65 cm² /m² ) was present at rest in 8 patients (25%), but only in one patient (3.1%) during DSE.

CONCLUSIONS

The Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis demonstrated good hemodynamics at rest and under high workload. The significant increase in EOAi during DSE suggests the potential advantages of Perceval sutureless bioprostheses in case of small aortic annulus or when patient-prosthesis mismatch is anticipated.

Current indications for stentless aortic bioprostheses

The best aortic prostheses have been debated for decades. The introduction of stentless aortic bioprostheses was aimed at improving hemodynamics and potentially the durability of aortic bioprostheses. Despite the good short- and long-term outcomes after implantation of stentless aortic bioprostheses, their use remains limited owing to the technically demanding implantation techniques. Nevertheless, stentless aortic bioprostheses might be of special benefit in certain indications, where they could be a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium.

Performance of the Labcor Dokimos Plus pericardial aortic prosthesis: a single-centre experience

Objectives

In patients with a small aortic annulus, aortic valve replacement (AVR) is frequently associated with high residual pressure gradients. Supra-annular pericardial aortic prostheses are gaining popularity due to the increased effective orifice areas (EOA) and resulting lower gradients. This study reports the clinical and echocardiographic results following implantation of the new supra-annular pericardial aortic prosthesis Dokimos Plus (Labcor, Belo Horizonte, Brazil).

Methods

Between October 2013 and July 2015, 137 patients (41% women, mean age: 74 years) underwent supra-annular AVR with or without concomitant procedures using the Dokimos Plus prosthesis in our department. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed pre- and postoperatively on all patients to assess haemodynamic parameters (gradients, acceleration time [AT], Doppler velocity indices [DVIs] and indexed EOA [EOAI]) and to detect paravalvular leakage (PVL). Data were collected retrospectively from our hospital databases.

Methods

Patients were grouped by prosthesis size: Most patients received 23-mm (57.6%), followed by 21-mm (19%), 25-mm (15.4%) and 27-mm (8%) prostheses. The mean EOAI in all groups was 1.1 ± 0.26 cm 2 /m 2 . Pressure gradients were low in all groups (mean: 8.9 ± 4.4 mmHg; peak: 18.8 ± 6.8 mmHg); AT and DVI were in the normal range according to American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging recommendations (mean AT 73.3 ± 29 ms; mean DVI 0.5 ± 0.2). One patient had severe PVL and one presented with central regurgitation, both requiring re-intervention. The mortality rate was 5.1% ( n  = 7); none of the cases was associated with valve insufficiency.

Conclusions

The Dokimos prosthesis showed a satisfactory overall performance, presenting low gradients and DVIs as well as high EOAI. Further investigations are needed to analyse the cases of regurgitation and monitor long-term performance.