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

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.

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.

The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on early and long-term survival after aortic replacement with the Edwards Perimount valve: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

To investigate the impact of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) related to the Edwards Lifesciences Perimount (EP) bioprosthesis in the aortic position on early in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival.

METHODS

A total of 5964 consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement at the Bristol Heart Institute between 1998 and 2014, 2667 representing the cohort of this study received EP. PPM was defined severe as EOAi < 0.65 cm² /m² . To minimize bias, propensity score matching was conducted and two groups A and B (without and with severe PPM) of 320 patients with similar preoperative characteristics were matched. We assessed early in-hospital outcomes including CVA, re-exploration for bleeding, low cardiac output, wound infection, acute renal injury, length of hospital stay, and long-term survival for both groups in unmatched and matched populations.

RESULTS

In the unmatched analysis, 18.3% of patients had severe PPM. Severe PPM was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (4.5% vs. 2.9%, respectively, p = .09) or any other early adverse outcomes except increased length of hospital stay (10.57 ± 8.2 vs. 11.7 ± 9.4, respectively, p = .01). Long-term survival differed significantly between groups at 2 and 8 years (91.8% vs. 91.4% and 60.5% vs. 55.7%, respectively, p = .02). Matched analysis showed no differences between the groups in early health outcomes and overall survival at 2 and 8 years was also similar (89.7% vs. 91% and 57.3% vs. 58%, group A vs. B, respectively p = .9).

CONCLUSION

Presence of PPM does not seem to affect early in-hospital outcomes or late survival when using EP in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

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.