Dataset Information

Modes of failure of Trifecta aortic valve prosthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Several concerns have been recently raised regarding the durability of Trifecta prostheses. Different mechanisms of early failure were reported. Our aim was to study in a large population the modes of failure of Trifecta valves.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with a Trifecta prosthesis during the period 2010-2018. Details regarding the mode of failure and haemodynamic dysfunction were collected for patients who underwent reintervention for structural valve failure. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival. Competing risk analysis was performed to calculate the cumulative risk of reintervention for structural valve failure.

Results

The overall population comprises 1228 patients (1084 TF model and 144 TFGT model). Forty-four patients-mean patients' age at the time of the first implant 69 (standard deviation: 12) years and 61% female-underwent reintervention for structural valve failure after a median time of 63 [44-74] months. The cumulative incidence of reintervention for structural valve failure was 0.16% (SE 0.11%), 1.77% (SE 0.38%) and 5.11% (SE 0.98%) at 1, 5 and 9 years, respectively. In 24/44 patients (55%), a leaflet tear with dehiscence at the commissure level was found intraoperatively or described by imaging assessment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention for failure due to leaflet(s) tear was 0.16% (SE 0.11%), 1.08% (SE 0.29%) and 3.03% (SE 0.88%) at 1, 5 and 9 years, respectively.

Conclusions

Leaflet(s) tear with dehiscence along the stent post was the main mode of early failure, up to 5 years, after Trifecta valves' implantation.

SUBMITTER: Malvindi PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9297516 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.MethodsWe performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.ResultsRelative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.ConclusionsIn a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.StandardsWith expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).