Trifecta vs. Magna for Aortic Valve Replacement　― Differences in Clinical Outcome and Valve Hemodynamics

• Published in: Circulation Journal 2018/10/25, Vol.82(11), pp.2767-2775
• Main Authors: Tadokoro, Naoki, Fukushima, Satsuki, Shimahara, Yusuke, Matsumoto, Yorihiko, Yamashita, Kizuku, Kawamoto, Naonori, Minami, Kimito, Kobayashi, Junjiro, Fujita, Tomoyuki
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve - physiopathology; Aortic Valve - surgery; Aortic valve replacement; Asian People; Bioprosthetic valve; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Hemodynamics; Humans; Japan; Magna; Male; Middle Aged; Prosthesis Design; Retrospective Studies; Trifecta
• ISSN: 1346-9843; 1347-4820; 1347-4820
• DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-18-0744

Background: The number of surgical aortic valve replacements using bioprosthetic valves is increasing, and newer bioprosthetic valves may offer clinical advantages in Japanese patients, who generally require smaller replacement valves than Western patients. In this study we retrospectively evaluated the Trifecta and Magna valves to compare clinical outcomes and hemodynamics in a group of Japanese patients. Methods and Results: Data were retrospectively collected for 103 patients receiving a Trifecta valve and 356 patients receiving a Magna valve between June 2008 and 2017. Adverse events, outcomes, and valve hemodynamics were evaluated. There were no significant differences in early or late outcomes between the Trifecta and Magna groups. In the early postoperative period, mean (±SD) pressure gradient (9.0±3.1 vs. 13.8±4.8 mmHg; P