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.

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.

Long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a 19-mm bioprosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is known to be associated with improved haemodynamics in patients with aortic stenosis and a small aortic annulus. However, limited benchmark data are available regarding the long-term outcomes in patients treated with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We investigated the long-term outcomes of SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis.

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients who underwent SAVR using a 19-mm bioprosthesis at our hospital between 2008 and 2012.

RESULTS

In a total of 132 patients, moderate and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch occurred in 36 (27.3%) and 7 patients (5.3%), respectively. The median follow-up period was 7.7 years. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 79.4% and 52.9%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates were 89.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Neither moderate nor severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with late mortality, major adverse valve-related events or heart failure. Follow-up echocardiographic data were obtained at a median interval of 4.8 years in 80% of patients who survived ≥6 months postoperatively. Follow-up echocardiographic data showed a significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased mean transvalvular/transprosthetic pressure gradients and a decreased mean left ventricular mass. At follow-up, we observed moderate or severe haemodynamic structural valve deterioration in 17 patients; however, structural valve deterioration did not affect late survival or freedom from major adverse valve-related events rates, or heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

SAVR using the 19-mm bioprosthesis was associated with satisfactory long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Two-Year Results of the 17-mm Avalus Aortic Valve in the PERIGON Japan Trial

BACKGROUND

The PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNt (PERIGON) Japan Trial was developed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the 17-mm Avalus bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement.Methods and Results:The primary endpoint in the trial was the percentage of patients achieving the composite of at least 1 class improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at 1 year compared with baseline and effective orifice area index (EOAI) of 0.6 cm²/m²or greater at 1-year after implantation, compared with a performance goal of 60%. The present study reports outcomes through 2 years. Eleven patients were implanted (10 [91%] female, median age 78.3 years). From baseline to 1 year, 10 subjects (91%) showed an improvement in NYHA classification. At 1 year, mean (±SD) EOAI was 0.82±0.17 cm²/m², with 10 patients (91%) having an EOAI ≥0.6 cm²/m². As such, 9 of 11 patients (82%) successfully met the primary endpoint. One death occurred between the 1- and 2-year follow-up visits, unrelated to the valve. There were no valve reinterventions, explants, or device deficiencies through 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The PERIGON Japan Trial met its primary endpoint. Surgical implantation of the 17-mm Avalus aortic bioprosthesis can be performed with an acceptable incidence of device-related adverse events, and the valve performs effectively based on echocardiographic findings.

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.

Successful transcatheter aortic valve in valve implantation for degenerated trifecta bioprosthesis in a patient with a coronary anomaly

We report a case of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a 79-year-old woman with a coronary anomaly who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with a 23-mm Abbott Trifecta bioprosthesis. The procedure was performed in response to severe aortic stenosis caused by a bicuspid aortic valve. Computed tomography showed an anomalous origin of the right coronary artery from the left coronary sinus, with an interarterial course. Although the virtual transcatheter valve to coronary ostium distance-right coronary artery was short, the right coronary artery ostium was just behind the stent post. The externally mounted leaflet was unable to reach the coronary orifice beyond the stent post. This case highlights a successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation for stented bioprostheses with externally mounted leaflets when the virtual transcatheter valve to coronary ostium distance is shortened by a coronary anomaly.

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.

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.

Reintervention After Aortic Valve Replacement: Comparison of 3 Aortic Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND

The decision to implant a biological valve prosthesis is influenced by the issue of durability. We investigated the rate and the cause of reintervention in 3 different aortic valve bioprostheses.

METHODS

The study included all patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a biological valve prosthesis between October 2009 and December 2018. Three different bioprostheses were compared: Carpentier-Edwards (CE) Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), Trifecta (St. Jude Medical, St Paul, MN), and Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom). The primary end point was the rate of explantation. The degree of event-free survival and possible predictors for reintervention were also analyzed using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 2004 biological aortic valves were implanted, including 923 CE, 719 Trifecta, and 362 Mitroflow bioprostheses. The CE group had a significantly higher degree of event-free survival (917 [99.3%]) compared with the Trifecta (685 [95.3%]) and Mitroflow (340 [93.9%]) groups (P < .0001). The only cause of reintervention in the CE group was prosthetic valve endocarditis (6 [100%]), whereas structural valve deterioration was the most common cause of reintervention in the Trifecta (14 [41.2%]) and Mitroflow (14 [63.6%]) groups. Cox regression analysis revealed that age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-0.9; P < .0001) and type of prosthesis (Trifecta: HR, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.6-15.2; P < .0001; Mitroflow: HR, 6.0, 95% CI, 2.4-15.1; P < .0001) were associated with lower event-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The freedom from reintervention after implantation of the CE bioprosthesis is significantly greater than that of the Trifecta and Mitroflow bioprostheses. Further investigations with larger patient populations and long-term follow-up are required to establish their durability and long-term efficacy.

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.

Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Small Aortic Annulus: Results With Three Different Bioprostheses

Objectives

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with small aortic annulus (diameter ≤21 mm) is considered a challenging scenario because of technical aspects and the high risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). The choice of the appropriate prosthesis is crucial, and at the moment, an ideal device has yet to be identified. We compare clinical and hemodynamic results after AVR with three bioprostheses with different design and characteristics.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 76 consecutive patients from two cardiac surgery centers who underwent AVR (Trifecta = 24; Edwards INTUITY Elite valve system = 26, and Perceval = 26) for severe aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2017. Patients selected were older than 75 years and with an annulus diameter ≤21 mm at preoperative echocardiogram. Reinterventions and combined procedures were excluded. Minimally invasive AVR was performed in 44 (57.8%) patients. Telephonic interview was obtained at 2.9 ± 0.5 years and echocardiographic follow-up at 2.2 ± 0.8 years.

Results

Clinical outcome was similar in the three groups. At follow-up, Trifecta patients presented significantly higher peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients ( P = 0.04 and 0.01). Effective orifice area and left ventricular mass regression were comparable, although an advantage was observed in Perceval patients without reaching the statistical significance. Incidence of moderate ( P = 0.2) and severe PPM ( P = 0.7) was comparable.

Conclusions

Despite higher postoperative pressure gradients observed with the Trifecta valve, all three prostheses (Trifecta, Edwards INTUITY Elite, and Perceval) have proven to be reliable when implanted in small aortic annuli, with good clinical outcome and favorable left ventricular mass regression.

Limitations in the Assessment of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

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

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

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

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

Aortic valve replacement in small patients

OBJECTIVES

Asians are smaller than Europeans and North Americans, but aortic valve replacement (AVR) in small patients has not been examined. We aimed to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of AVR between small and non-small patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively divided 173 patients who underwent AVR into small (S, n = 95) and non-small (NS, n = 78) groups according to body surface area (≤1.6 in men, ≤1.5 in women) and analyzed differences in baseline characteristics, procedural and post-procedural variables, and survival.

RESULTS

Mean age differed significantly between the S and NS groups (71.9 ± 11.2 vs. 66.2 ± 9.8 years), as did the proportion of women (60.0% vs. 24.4%). Implanted valves (19.6 ± 1.6 mm vs. 20.7 ± 1.7 mm) were significantly smaller and more bioprosthetic valves (57.9% vs. 41.0%) were used in the S group. Effective orifice area index and the rate of moderate and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch were not significantly different. No significant intergroup differences were found in hospitalization duration, 30-day mortality, survival rates, or valve related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Small patients were older and the proportion of women was higher. The implanted aortic valves were smaller and more were biological prostheses. However, mortality rate did not differ and short- and mid-term outcomes were safe and favorable.