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

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.

Hemodynamic Comparison between the Avalus and the Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis up to 5 Years

BACKGROUND

 We aimed to compare hemodynamic performance of the Avalus (Medtronic) and the Perimount Magna Ease (PME, Edwards Lifesciences) bioprosthesis up to 5 years by serial echocardiographic examinations.

METHODS

 In patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, 58 received PME prostheses between October 2007 and October 2008, and another 60 received Avalus prostheses between October 2014 and November 2015. To ensure similar baseline characteristics, we performed a propensity score matching based on left ventricular ejection fraction, age, body surface area, and aortic annulus diameter measured by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. Thereafter, 48 patients remained in each group. Mean age at operation was 67 ± 6 years and mean EuroSCORE-II was 1.7 ± 1.1. Both values did not differ significantly between the two groups.

RESULTS

 At 1 year the mean pressure gradient (MPG) was 15.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.32). The effective orifice area (EOA) was 1.65 ± 0.45 cm2 in the PME group and 1.62 ± 0.45 cm2 in the Avalus group (p = 0.79). At 5 years the MPG was 16.6 ± 5.1 mm Hg in the PME group and 14.7 ± 7.1 mm Hg in the Avalus group (p = 0.20). The EOA was 1.60 ± 0.49 cm2 in the PME group and 1.51 ± 0.40 cm2 in the Avalus group (p = 0.38). Five-year survival was 88% in the PME group and 91% in the Avalus group (p = 0.5). In the PME group, there were no reoperations on the aortic valve, whereas in the Avalus group three patients required a reoperation due to endocarditis.

CONCLUSION

 Both bioprostheses exhibit similar hemodynamic performance during a 5-year follow-up.

Bioprosthetic Valves for Lifetime Management of Aortic Stenosis: Pearls and Pitfalls

This review explores the use of bioprosthetic valves for the lifetime management of patients with aortic stenosis, considering recent advancements in surgical (SAV) and transcatheter bioprostheses (TAV). We examine the strengths and challenges of each approach and their long-term implications. We highlight differences among surgical bioprostheses regarding durability and consider novel surgical valves such as the Inspiris Resilia, Intuity rapid deployment, and Perceval sutureless bioprostheses. The impact of hemodynamics on the performance and durability of these prostheses is discussed, as well as the benefits and considerations of aortic root enlargement during Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR). Alternative surgical methods like the Ross procedure and the Ozaki technique are also considered. Addressing bioprosthesis failure, we compare TAV-in-SAV with redo SAVR. Challenges with TAVR, such as TAV explantation and considerations for coronary circulation, are outlined. Finally, we explore the potential challenges and limitations of several clinical strategies, including the TAVR-first approach, in the context of aortic stenosis lifetime management. This concise review provides a snapshot of the current landscape in aortic bioprostheses for physicians and surgeons.

Case Series of Early Structural Valve Deterioration of Trifecta Bioprosthesis - New Zealand Experience

PURPOSE

Structural valve deterioration (SVD) remains a limitation on the use of bioprosthetic valves, with patient and valve-related factors contributing to early SVD. The Trifecta valve has been reported to have excellent hemodynamics but studies have highlighted early failure. We present a review and case series at a New Zealand tertiary hospital defining early SVD as failure within 3 years of implant.

METHODS

A retrospective review from January 2015 to July 2019 included 525 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement with 263 patients receiving an Abbott Trifecta or Trifecta Glide Technology (GT) valve. Our review found an acceptable safety profile for the valve with excellent hemodynamics, with a low mortality, stroke, and permanent pacemaker rate.

RESULTS

Three patients out of 263 were identified from the study period as having early SVD requiring reintervention within 3 years of valve implantation leading to a 1.14% failure rate. One of the valves that had early SVD was a new generation Trifecta GT. An additional four patients were identified to have valves implanted prior to the study period and had valve failure at greater than 3 years post implantation. Five cases had cusp tears as their mechanism of failure, raising concerns about durability.

CONCLUSION

The Trifecta valve has an acceptable safety profile and offers good hemodynamics due to the externally mounted leaflets. However, our experience of early SVD and failure is concerning for valve durability. Further comparison to other bioprosthetic valves and longer term follow-up are required to characterize the mechanism of failures.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Review of bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration: Patient or valve?

BACKGROUND

With guidelines progressively recommending bioprosthetic aortic valves in younger patients, a greater emphasis is placed on structural valve deterioration (SVD) as an important clinical endpoint for both transcatheter and surgically implanted valves. However, SVD of bioprosthetic valves is a complex entity with varying definitions in the literature and a multifaceted pathogenesis.

AIM

This review first aims to establish the most updated definitions of SVD as per the literature. We then explore the patient- and valve-related factors that play the greatest roles in facilitating early SVD.

METHODS

A PubMed literature review was conducted to identify the relevant research in this field within the past two decades.

CONCLUSION

Increasing rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome pose a significant risk to the longevity of bioprosthetic valves. Additionally, externally mounted valves have proven to sacrifice durability for superior haemodynamics. Bioprosthetic SVD continues to be a multifactorial issue that will require various patient- and valve-related factors to be addressed.

Structural valve deterioration of the Labcor Dokimos aortic prosthesis: a single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to assess the performance and incidence of the deterioration of the Labcor Dokimos bioprosthetic aortic valve.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective medical chart review of 116 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with the Labcor Dokimos aortic valve between 2010 and 2018. Abstracted data included patient demographic and echocardiographic data. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with structural valve deterioration (SVD) and patients without SVD.

RESULTS

Among the patients with complete follow-up (n = 95), 10 patients were excluded because they died within a year; 85 patients were included in the final analysis. Of the 85 patients, 32 (38%) developed SVD; 22 (26%) had severe SVD, 15 (18%) of whom underwent reintervention. The most common aetiology of SVD was severe central aortic regurgitation, which was detected in 91% of the patients who had severe SVD. The average time from operation to severe SVD was 4.7 years with a minimum of 1.5 years and a maximum of 7.9 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Bioprosthetic aortic valve deterioration due to severe aortic regurgitation is common and occurs early with the Labcor Dokimos valve. This occurrence needs to be furthered investigated in larger registries.

Trifecta versus Perimount Magna Ease aortic valves: Failure mechanisms

Background

There are increasing reports of early externally mounted pericardial Trifecta bioprosthesis failure. We compared the hemodynamic performance of Trifecta and Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valves to determine the failure mechanism.

Methods

We retrospectively included 270 consecutive patients (age: 73.4 ± 8.2 years; 57.5% male; mean follow-up: 48.0 ± 20.3 months) who underwent aortic valve replacement from 2014 to 2021 at a single center and compared the Trifecta (N = 137) and Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valve (N = 133) patients.

Results

The prosthetic valve major aortic regurgitation incidence was higher for the Trifecta than that for the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valve (6.3% vs. 0%, P < 0.009). Among the Trifecta failures, 33% developed structural valve deterioration, but all requiring redo aortic valve replacement developed major prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation. Freedom at 5 years from redo aortic valve replacement due to structural valve deterioration was significantly lower for Trifecta (89.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.003). The reoperation hazards were determined for Trifecta (vs. Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease): 11.6 (1.47–90.9; P = 0.02), prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation: 2.38 (1.70–3.32; P < 0.01), structural valve deterioration: 20.82 (4.08–106.2; P < 0.01), 5-year mean transprosthetic pressure gradient: 1.14 per 1-point increase (1.03–1.24; P = 0.007), and urgent surgery: 10.1 (2.59–39.0; P = 0.001). The Cox regression analysis identified that prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation solely contributed to redo aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio: 2.38; confidence intervals: 1.70–3.32).

Conclusions

Significantly, more early failures occurred with the Trifecta valve than the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount Magna Ease valve but the Trifecta showed reasonable mean transprosthetic pressure gradient over time. Prosthetic valve aortic regurgitation and calcific structural valve deterioration synergistically contributed to Trifecta valve failure alternatively.

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.

Two cases of catastrophic deterioration and multiple leaflet detachment in Trifecta valves

Reports of early and catastrophic acute structural valve deterioration (SVD) in Trifecta valve (Abbott, St Paul, MN, USA) with multiple leaflet detachment are rare. We encountered two cases of early SVD in Trifecta valve with tears on two leaflets. Both cases presented with acute heart failure because of aortic insufficiency, and underwent redo aortic valve replacement; one patient died due to multiple organ failure caused by cardiogenic shock. Durability issues with the Trifecta valves; thus, necessitates long-term vigilance in aortic replacement patients.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, with Present-Day Innovations and Up-to-Date Techniques

Approximately 51,000 to 65,000 surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) cases are performed in the United States anually. Bioprosthetic degeneration commonly occurs within 10 to 15 years, and nearly 800 redo SAVR cases occur each year. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative, as the Food and Drug Administration approved ViV TAVR with self-expanding transcatheter heart valve in 2015 and balloon-expandable valve in 2017 for failed surgical valves cases at high risk of reoperation. We review ViV TAVR, with specific attention to procedural planning, technical challenges, associated complications, and long-term follow-up.

Late leaflet dehiscence in a bovine bioprosthesis-mimicked COVID-19 infection

Symptoms mimicking COVID-19 infection, pulmonary emboli, or septicemia delayed diagnosis of aortic bioprosthesis failure. A 71-year-old man was admitted emergently with shortness of breath, fever, cough, and chest pain. Echocardiography performed after 2 days showed diastolic regurgitation in an aortic perimount pericardial bioprosthesis implanted 12 years previously. An urgent reoperation disclosed that one pericardial cusp was torn from the stent of the valve. We have not previously encountered sudden pericardial leaflet dehiscence of an internally mounted pericardial valve that caused heart failure and found no literature report like our finding.

Anticalcification Potential of POSS-PEG Hybrid Hydrogel as a Scaffold Material for the Development of Synthetic Heart Valve Leaflets

Calcification of bioprosthetics is a primary challenge in the field of artificial heart valves and a main reason for biological heart valve prostheses failure. Recent advances in nanomaterial science have promoted the development of polymers with advantageous properties that are likely suitable for artificial heart valves. In this work, we developed a nanocomposite polymeric biomaterial POSS-PEG (polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-polyethylene glycol) hybrid hydrogel, which not only has improved mechanical and surface properties but also excellent biocompatibility. The results of atomic force microscopy and in vivo animal experiments indicated that the content of POSS in the PEG matrix plays an important role on the surface and contributes to its biological properties, compared to the decellularized porcine aortic valve scaffold. Additionally, this modification leads to enhanced protection of the hydrogel from thrombosis. Furthermore, the introduction of POSS nanoparticles also gives the hydrogel a better calcification resistance efficacy, which was confirmed through in vitro tests and animal experiments. These findings indicate that POSS-PEG hybrid hydrogel is a potential material for functional heart valve prosthetics, and the use of POSS nanocomposites in artificial valves may offer potential long-term performance and durability advantages.

Aortic root widening: “pro et contra”

In patients with a small aortic annulus, the clinical benefits of aortic valve replacement depend on avoidance of patient-prosthesis mismatch as it is associated with reduced overall survival. Aortic root widening or enlargement is a useful technique to implant larger valve prosthesis to prevent patient-prosthesis mismatch. Posterior annular enlargement is the commonest technique used for aortic root enlargement. Consistent enlargement of the aortic root requires more extensive procedures like Manouguian or Konno-Rastan techniques. The patients commonly selected are younger patients with good life expectancy. However, caution is advised in applying this procedure in elderly patients, patients with heavily calcified annulus and when performing concomitant procedures. There is no definitive conclusion on the best material to use for the reconstruction of aortic annulus and aorta in aortic root enlargement procedures.

Early surgical aortic bioprosthesis failure caused by cusp tear: A word of caution

Cusp tear is an increasingly described mode of failure of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis. Acute aortic regurgitation after implantation of a Trifecta in absence of endocarditis should suggest a cusp tear and be promptly treated with redo surgery.