Background To compare mid-term clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of the stented pericardial Trifecta bioprosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a technically comparable commonly used surgical bioprosthesis. Methods Data from consecutive patients implanted with the TF or the Carpentier Edwards Magna Ease valve were retrospectively analyzed. Primary analysis was performed on a propensity score–matched cohort. Primary endpoints included the composite of death or reoperation and structural valve deterioration. The comparison also included echocardiographic assessments at one-week post-AVR and at the last documented follow-up. Results Two propensity score–matched groups of 170 patients each were identified from the overall population ( n = 486). Incidence of postoperative mortality (2.9% vs. 7.1%, respectively, p = 0.08), and patient prosthesis mismatch (1.2% and 2.4%, p = 0.41) were similar. At mean follow-up of 5.84 (Trifecta) and 6.1 (Carpentier Edwards) years, the incidence of all-cause death/reoperation (15.3% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.88 for Trifecta and Carpentier Edwards, respectively) and structural valve disease (1.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.47) were similar. Overall, postoperative mean transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly lower in the Trifecta group than in the Carpentier Edwards group (7.7 ± 3.3 vs. 11.3 ± 3.6 mmHg, p < 0.01). Mean transvalvular gradient remained significantly lower through the last follow-up for small-sized Trifecta valves (19/21 mm; 10.5 ± 4.2 vs. 13.8 ± 5.9 mmHg, p = 0.039) but not for larger valves (10.3 ± 4.8 vs. 9.4 ± 3.5 mmHg, p = 0.31). Conclusion The Trifecta valve is a valuable alternative to the Carpentier Edwards valve in terms of safety, hemodynamic performance, and mid-term durability. Smaller-sized valves provide additional clinical benefits, given their persistent hemodynamic advantages through mid-term follow-up.
Summary: Background: Catheter-based thrombus removal (CBTR) reduces the risk of moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IF-DVT). However, the impact of concomitant popliteal DVT on clinical and duplex sonographic outcomes is unknown. Patients and methods: In this post-hoc analysis including the entire cohort of the randomized controlled BERNUTIFUL trial (48 patients), we compared clinical (incidence/severity of PTS assessed by Villalta score and revised venous clinical severity scores, rVCSS), disease-specific quality-of-life (QOL, CIVIQ-20 survey) and duplex sonographic outcomes (patency, reflux, post-thrombotic lesions) at 12 months follow-up between patients with IF-DVT with and without concomitant popliteal DVT treated by CBTR. Results: Overall, 48 IF-DVT patients were included (48% men, median age of 50 years), of whom 17 (35%) presented with popliteal DVT. At baseline, patients with popliteal DVT were older, had a higher body mass index and more important leg swelling. At 12 months, freedom from PTS (93% vs 87%, P=0.17), median total Villalta score (1 vs 1.5; P=0.46), rVCSS (2 vs 1.5, P=0.5) and disease-specific QOL (24 points vs 24 points, P=0.72) were similar between patient with and without popliteal DVT, respectively. Duplex sonographic outcomes were similar, except for more frequent popliteal post-thrombotic lesions and reflux (P=0.02) in patients with popliteal DVT. Conclusions: Relevant clinical outcomes 1 year after successful CBTR were favorable, regardless of the presence or absence of concomitant popliteal DVT. However, post-thrombotic popliteal vein lesions and reflux are more frequent in IF-DVT patients with popliteal involvement. Their impact on long-term outcomes remains to be investigated.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.