Key result
SJM Trifecta associated with lower pressure gradients and higher orifice areas versus CEPM Ease.
Why the study?
Does the SJM Trifecta bioprosthesis improve hemodynamic performance compared to the CEPM Ease bioprosthesis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=102)
Does the SJM Trifecta bioprosthesis improve hemodynamic performance compared to the CEPM Ease bioprosthesis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
The SJM Trifecta bioprosthesis provides superior early and 1-year hemodynamics (lower gradients and larger effective orifice areas) compared to the CEPM Ease valve, with similar rates of left ventricular mass regression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May favor Trifecta selection for hemodynamics in AVR; leaves open randomized confirmation of clinical impact.
Deutsch et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=102). St. Jude Medical Trifecta bioprosthesis vs. Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis was evaluated on Hemodynamic performance (mean pressure gradients and effective orifice areas). The SJM Trifecta bioprosthesis demonstrated lower mean pressure gradients and higher effective orifice areas early postoperatively and at 1 year compared to the CEPM Ease valve.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: