A Retrospective Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes between Two Differently Designed Aortic Bioprostheses for Small Aortic Annuli

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Survival and freedom from valve-related events in the unmatched cohort: (A) The Kaplan–Meier estimate of survival for the Carpentier-Edwards (C-E, blue line) and Trifecta (red line) valves; (B) The same Kaplan–Meier estimate of freedom from valve-related events.

• 

  Figure 2. Changes in echocardiographic measurements over time for the Carpentier-Edwards (C-E) and Trifecta valves: (A) Peak gradient from baseline to discharge (Time A) and from immediately after surgery to 3 years postoperatively (Time B); (B) Mean gradients following the same timeline; (C) Left ventricle mass index (LVMI). No significant time-valve effects on gradients or LVMI were found. p-values shown for analyses from baseline to discharge (Time A) and the interaction of the mixed model.

• 

  Figure 3. Distribution of echocardiographic values for each prosthetic size: (A) The distribution of the peak gradient; (B) Mean gradient distribution; (C) Indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) distribution; and (D) Left ventricular mass index (LVMI) distribution, for both prosthetic sizes (19 mm and 21 mm) in the matched patients; p-values of the peak and mean transvalvular pressure gradients from baseline to discharge alone were statistically significant in patients that received the 21 mm diameter valve (p-value < 0.05).

• 

  Figure 4. Two different valve designs: (A) Carpentier-Edwards (C-E) valve with internally mounted leaflets; (B) Trifecta valve with externally mounted leaflets. The Trifecta valves are associated with a larger effective orifice area than the C-E valves.