Trifecta and Carpentier Edwards aortic bioprostheses: Comparison of six years follow-up outcomes

Background To compare mid-term clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance of the stented pericardial Trifecta bioprosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a technically comparable commonly used surgical bioprosthesis. Methods Data from consecutive patients implanted with the TF or the Carpentier Edwards Magna Ease valve were retrospectively analyzed. Primary analysis was performed on a propensity score–matched cohort. Primary endpoints included the composite of death or reoperation and structural valve deterioration. The comparison also included echocardiographic assessments at one-week post-AVR and at the last documented follow-up. Results Two propensity score–matched groups of 170 patients each were identified from the overall population ( n = 486). Incidence of postoperative mortality (2.9% vs. 7.1%, respectively, p = 0.08), and patient prosthesis mismatch (1.2% and 2.4%, p = 0.41) were similar. At mean follow-up of 5.84 (Trifecta) and 6.1 (Carpentier Edwards) years, the incidence of all-cause death/reoperation (15.3% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.88 for Trifecta and Carpentier Edwards, respectively) and structural valve disease (1.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.47) were similar. Overall, postoperative mean transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly lower in the Trifecta group than in the Carpentier Edwards group (7.7 ± 3.3 vs. 11.3 ± 3.6 mmHg, p < 0.01). Mean transvalvular gradient remained significantly lower through the last follow-up for small-sized Trifecta valves (19/21 mm; 10.5 ± 4.2 vs. 13.8 ± 5.9 mmHg, p = 0.039) but not for larger valves (10.3 ± 4.8 vs. 9.4 ± 3.5 mmHg, p = 0.31). Conclusion The Trifecta valve is a valuable alternative to the Carpentier Edwards valve in terms of safety, hemodynamic performance, and mid-term durability. Smaller-sized valves provide additional clinical benefits, given their persistent hemodynamic advantages through mid-term follow-up.