Freedom Solo (R) versus Trifecta (R) bioprostheses: clinical and haemodynamic evaluation after propensity score matching

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2018

Authors

Cerqueira, RJ (Author) FMUP; Raimundo, R (Author) Other; Moreira, S (Author) Other; Saraiva, FA (Author) Other; Andrade, M (Author) Other; Salgueiro, E (Author) Other; Almeida, J (Author) FMUP; Amorim MJ (Author) FMUP; Pinho, P (Author) Other; Andre P Lourenco (Author) FMUP; Leite-Moreira AF (Author) FMUP

Journal

Title: European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery

Vol. 53

Pages: 1264-1271

ISSN: 1010-7940

Publisher: Elsevier

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 7 Citations

Scopus - 7 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00R-AAQ

DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx472

Abstract (EN): OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the stentless Freedom Solo (R) (FS) and the stented Trifecta (R) (TF) aortic bioprostheses with regard to haemodynamic profile, left ventricular mass regression and early and late postoperative outcomes and survival. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (2009-16) with either the FS or TF at 1 centre was performed. Local databases and national records were queried. Prosthesis haemodynamics and left ventricular dimensions were obtained from postoperative echocardiograms. After propensity score matching (21 covariates), the Kaplan-Meier and competing risk analyses were performed for survival and the combined outcome of structural valve deterioration and endocarditis, respectively. Haemodynamics and mass regression were assessed by a mixed-effects model including propensity score as a covariate. RESULTS: From a total sample of 397 patients with the FS and 525 TF bioprostheses with a median follow-up time of 4.0 (2.2-6.0) and 2.4 (1.4-3.7) years, respectively, a matched sample of 329 pairs was obtained. Matched groups showed no differences in survival (hazard ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval = 0.69-1.56) or cumulative hazards of combined outcome (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval = 0.21-1.39). Although the TF showed an improved haemodynamic profile, no difference was found in mass regression. Patients with TF bioprostheses had higher rates of prolonged mechanical ventilation, whereas patients with the FS bioprosthesis showed higher rates of thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: The TF showed an improved haemodynamic profile compared to the FS, but this did not translate into further reverse remodelling. Postoperative outcomes and survival rates were comparable for both bioprostheses. Long-term follow-up is needed for comparisons with classical bioprosthesis models.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 8