Less invasive aortic valve replacement using the trifecta bioprosthesis

Abstract

Abstract Objectives. The safety and effectiveness of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis (introduced in 2016) in less invasive aortic valve replacement are scarcely investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the immediate and initial follow-up results of this device in the context of less invasive surgery. We discuss patient-specific strategies for the selection of the surgical approach. Methods. A retrospective review of 133 patients undergoing AVR with the Trifecta GT through three less invasive accesses (UMS, Upper ministernotomy; RMS, Reversed ministernotomy; RAMT, Right anterior minithoracotomy) was performed. In-hospital, follow-up and hemodynamic performance (PPM, Patient-prosthesis mismatch) data were collected. Results. Among patients, 79% received UMS, 11% RMS and 10% RAMT. Selection of approach was based on preoperative anatomical analysis (CT-scan) and planned concomitant procedures. There was no operative mortality, no valve-related adverse events. There were 36 concomitant procedures. No significant intergroup differences occurred in cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamp, mechanical ventilation time, ICU stay and average bleeding. There were two cases of moderate PPM (1.5%) and no instances of severe PPM; there were no significant (≥2/4) perivalvular leaks. Average mean gradient at discharge was 8 ± 3 mmHg. At follow-up (average: 2.5 ± 0.9 years, 100% complete, 315 patient years) there was no mortality and no valve-related adverse event. Hemodynamic performance was maintained at follow-up. Conclusions. The optimal device for less invasive AVR needs to be individualized, as well as the selection of the surgical approach. The use of the Trifecta GT bioprosthesis appears to be reproductible whatever less invasive approach is employed, with confirmed excellent hemodynamic performance.