ALERT!

This site is not optimized for Internet Explorer 8 (or older).

Please upgrade to a newer version of Internet Explorer or use an alternate browser such as Chrome or Firefox.

Trifecta Versus Perimount Magna Ease Aortic Valve Prostheses

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Submitted by

Source

Source Name: The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Author(s)

Fausto Biancari., MD, PhD; Antti Valtola, MD; Tatu Juvonen, MD, PhD; Annastiina Husso, MD, PhD; Sebastian Dahlbacka, MD, PhD; Teemu Laakso, MD; Maina P. Jalava, MD; Tuomas Tauriainen, MD, PhD; Tuomas Ahvenvaara, MD; Eeva-Maija Kinnunen, MD, PhD; Matti Niemelä, MD, PhD; Timo Mäkikallio, MD, PhD; Markku Eskola, MD, PhD; Marko P.O. Virtanen, MD; Pasi Maaranen, MD; Stefano Rosato, MSc; Vesa Anttila, MD, PhD; Antti Vento, MD, PhD; Juhani Airaksinen, MD, PhD; Peter Raivio, MD, PhD

The authors comducted a comparative analysis of the Trifecta and Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthetic valves, using data from a national Finnish database between 2008 and 2017.

They included 2216 patients, with a mean follow-up 3.8±2.1 years. 851 patients received the Trifecta valve and 1365 received the Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis. The rates of late mortality and prosthetic valve endocarditis were comparable in the study cohorts. At 7-year, the Trifecta cohort had significantly higher risk of repeat aortic valve replacement for structural valve failure (3.3% vs. 0%), repeat aortic valve replacement for any cause (3.6% vs. 0.4%) and repeat aortic valve replacement and/or prosthetic valve endocarditis (4.1% vs. 0.9%) compared to the Perimount Magna Ease cohort.
Among 772 propensity score matched pairs, at 7-year, the Trifecta cohort had a higher risk of repeat aortic valve replacement for structural valve failure (5.7% vs. 0%).

The authors report that the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis is associated with a higher occurrence of repeat aortic valve replacement for structural valve failure compared to the Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis.

Add comment

Log in or register to post comments