Key result
Magna Ease yields a lower ~12 mmHg 5-year mean aortic gradient vs Crown and Trifecta valves.
Why the study?
The Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease, Crown PRT, and Trifecta bovine pericardial valves are widely used worldwide, but comparative data on their in vivo haemodynamic performance were needed.
Does the CP Magna Ease bioprosthesis improve haemodynamic performance compared to Crown PRT and Trifecta bioprostheses in patients requiring aortic valve replacement?
RCT (n=154)
randomized
No
Does the CP Magna Ease bioprosthesis improve haemodynamic performance compared to Crown PRT and Trifecta bioprostheses in patients requiring aortic valve replacement?
p-value: p=<0.001
The CP Magna Ease bioprosthesis demonstrated superior haemodynamic performance at 5 years compared to Crown PRT and Trifecta valves.
OBJECTIVES: The Carpentier Perimount (CP) Magna Ease, the Crown Phospholipid Reduction Treatment (PRT) and the Trifecta bovine pericardial valves have been widely used worldwide. The primary end point of this study was to compare the haemodynamic performance quantified by in vivo echocardiograms of these 3 aortic prostheses. METHODS: The "BEST-VALVE" (comparison of 3 contemporary cardiac bioprostheses: mid-term valve haemodynamic performance) was a single-centre randomized clinical trial to compare the haemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned bioprostheses. The 5-year results are assessed in this manuscript. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients were included. The CP Magna Ease (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRT (n = 51, 32.1%) and Trifecta (n = 55, 35.7%) valves were compared. Significant differences were observed among the 3 bioprostheses 5 years after the procedure. The following haemodynamic differences were found between the CP Magna Ease and the Crown PRT bioprostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (interquartile range {IQR} 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 15 mmHg (IQR 10.8-31.9) for the Crown PRT, P < 0.001] and between the CP Magna Ease and the Trifecta prostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (IQR 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 14.7 mmHg (IQR 8.2-55) for the Trifecta, P < 0.001], with a better haemodynamic performance of the CP Magna Ease. The cumulative incidence of severe structural valve degeneration was 9.5% in the Trifecta group at 6 years of follow-up. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from all-cause mortality was 91.5%, 83.5% and 74.8%, respectively (log rank P = 0.440). Survival from the composite event at the 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up was 92.8%, 74.6% and 59%, respectively (log rank P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: We detected significant differences between the 3 bioprostheses; the CP Magna Ease had the best haemodynamic performance at the 5-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montero-Cruces et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Aortic valve disease requiring bioprosthesis (n=154). Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis vs. Crown PRT and Trifecta bioprostheses was evaluated on haemodynamic performance quantified by in vivo echocardiograms (p=<0.001). The Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis had a lower 5-year mean aortic gradient (12.3 mmHg) compared to the Crown PRT (15 mmHg, P<0.001) and Trifecta (14.7 mmHg, P<0.001) valves.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: