Trifecta Versus Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Valve Prostheses.

BACKGROUND

Recent surgical bovine pericardial prostheses are widely used despite limited data on their long-term durability.

METHODS

This is a comparative analysis of the outcome of the Trifecta (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) and Perimount Magna Ease (Edwards, Lifesciences Corp, Irvine, CA) bioprostheses from the FinnValve registry, a Finnish nationwide database including patients with aortic stenosis who underwent transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis between 2008 and 2017.

RESULTS

Overall 2216 patients (mean age, 74.1 ± 6.7 years; age <65 years, 8.9%; mean follow-up, 3.8 ± 2.1 years) received the Trifecta (851 patients) or the Perimount Magna Ease (1365 patients) bioprostheses. The rates of late mortality and prosthetic valve endocarditis were comparable in the study cohorts. At 7 years the Trifecta cohort had a significantly higher risk of repeat aortic valve replacement for structural valve failure (3.3% vs 0%; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.224; 95% confidence interval, 1.044-4.737), repeat aortic valve replacement for any cause (3.6% vs 0.4%; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 3.210; 95% confidence interval, 1.286-8.013), and repeat aortic valve replacement and/or prosthetic valve endocarditis (4.1% vs 0.9%; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 3.210; 95% confidence interval, 1.286-8.013) compared with the Perimount Magna Ease cohort. Among 772 propensity score-matched pairs, at 7 years the Trifecta cohort had a higher risk of repeat aortic valve replacement for structural valve failure (5.7% vs 0%, P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

The Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis is associated with a higher occurrence of repeat aortic valve replacement for structural valve failure compared with the Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis. Further comparative studies with echocardiographic data on structural valve deterioration and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.