Trifecta vs. Magna for Aortic Valve Replacement - Differences in Clinical Outcome and Valve Hemodynamics.

BACKGROUND

The number of surgical aortic valve replacements using bioprosthetic valves is increasing, and newer bioprosthetic valves may offer clinical advantages in Japanese patients, who generally require smaller replacement valves than Western patients. In this study we retrospectively evaluated the Trifecta and Magna valves to compare clinical outcomes and hemodynamics in a group of Japanese patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were retrospectively collected for 103 patients receiving a Trifecta valve and 356 patients receiving a Magna valve between June 2008 and 2017. Adverse events, outcomes, and valve hemodynamics were evaluated. There were no significant differences in early or late outcomes between the Trifecta and Magna groups. In the early postoperative period, mean (±SD) pressure gradient (9.0±3.1 vs. 13.8±4.8 mmHg; P<0.01) and effective orifice area (1.68±0.46 vs. 1.46±0.40 m; P<0.01) were significantly better for Trifecta, but the differences decreased over time. In particular, the interaction between time and valve type (Trifecta or Magna) was significantly different for mean pressure gradient between the 2 groups (P<0.01). Left ventricular mass regressed substantially in both groups, with no significant difference between them. There were no significant differences for severe patient-prosthesis mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative outcomes were similar for both valves. An early hemodynamic advantage for the Trifecta valve lasted to approximately 1 year postoperatively but did not persist.