Department of Cardiac Surgery, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Department of Cardiology, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2021 Nov;112(5):1424-1431. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.11.026. Epub 2020 Dec 16.
A cluster of aortic bioprosthetic valve failures, most of which were Trifecta bioprostheses, was observed in Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. This study was performed to assess whether the cluster represents a significant failure of this valve model or whether there is a selection bias that can explain the failure of these valves.
This retrospective study evaluated all bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement operations performed between 2011 and 2016 inclusive in our center. The study compared the performance of the Trifecta valve (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) with that of Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), Perimount Magna Ease, and Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) bioprostheses. In addition, the study analyzed patient-related and valve-related risk factors for early failure in the failed valves.
A total of 2807 bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements were performed. Of these, 836 were Trifecta valves, 1031 were Perimount, 449 were Perimount Magna Ease, and 351 were Mitroflow valves. A total of 24 Trifecta valves had premature structural failure, a number significantly higher than seen with Perimount or Perimount Magna Ease (no failure, P < .001 and P < .005, respectively) valves and the Mitroflow valve (1 failure, P < .05). There was no difference in the incidence of endocarditis or death. At the time of valve failure, 17 (71%) of the failed Trifecta valves had moderate or severe regurgitation, and the average peak gradient was 61 ± 29 mm Hg. The median failed prosthetic size was 23 mm. One failed valve had severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. The mean time to failure was 4.5 ± 1.7 years.
The Trifecta bioprosthesis has an increased incidence of early structural valve failure, which is significantly higher than that of Perimount, Perimount Magna Ease, or Mitroflow. No patient-related or valve-related cause for the failure could be identified.
在英国南安普顿综合医院发现了一批主动脉生物瓣假体失效的病例,其中大部分为 Trifecta 生物瓣。本研究旨在评估该群集是否代表该瓣膜模型的重大失效,还是存在可以解释这些瓣膜失效的选择偏倚。
本回顾性研究评估了我们中心在 2011 年至 2016 年期间进行的所有主动脉瓣生物瓣置换手术。该研究比较了 Trifecta 瓣膜(雅培,雅培公园,IL)与 Perimount(爱德华兹生命科学公司,欧文,CA)、Perimount Magna Ease 和 Mitroflow(利瓦诺瓦,伦敦,英国)生物瓣的性能。此外,该研究还分析了失败瓣膜中早期失效的与患者相关和瓣膜相关的危险因素。
共进行了 2807 例主动脉瓣生物瓣置换术。其中,836 例为 Trifecta 瓣膜,1031 例为 Perimount,449 例为 Perimount Magna Ease,351 例为 Mitroflow 瓣膜。共有 24 个 Trifecta 瓣膜发生了早期结构性失效,这一数字明显高于 Perimount 或 Perimount Magna Ease(无失效,P<0.001 和 P<0.005)瓣膜和 Mitroflow 瓣膜(1 例失效,P<0.05)。感染性心内膜炎或死亡的发生率无差异。在瓣膜失效时,17 例(71%)失效的 Trifecta 瓣膜有中度或重度反流,平均峰值梯度为 61±29mmHg。中位失效假体尺寸为 23mm。1 个失效瓣膜存在严重的患者-假体不匹配。平均失效时间为 4.5±1.7 年。
Trifecta 生物瓣早期结构性失效的发生率增加,明显高于 Perimount、Perimount Magna Ease 或 Mitroflow。未能确定失效的任何患者相关或瓣膜相关原因。