The TRIBECA study: (TRI)fecta (B)ioprosthesis (E)valuation versus (C)arpentier Magna-Ease in (A)ortic position

Andrea Colli, Giovanni Marchetto, Stefano Salizzoni, Mauro Rinaldi, Luca Di Marco, Davide Pacini, Roberto Di Bartolomeo, Francesco Nicolini, Tiziano Gherli, Marco Agrifoglio, Valentino Borghetti, Georgette Khoury, Marcella De Paolis, Giampaolo Zoffoli, Domenico Mangino, Mario Jorge Amorim, Erica Manzan, Fabio Zucchetta, Sara Balduzzi, Gino Gerosa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Trifecta bioprosthetic aortic valve produces postoperative haemodynamic results comparable with or better than those of the Magna Ease aortic valve bioprosthesis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who had undergone aortic valve replacement with Trifecta or Magna Ease prostheses at eight European institutions between January 2011 and May 2013, and analysed early postoperative haemodynamic performance by means of echocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 791 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (469 Magna Ease, 322 Trifecta). Haemodynamic variables were evaluated on discharge and during the follow-up (minimum 6 months, maximum 12 months). The mean gradient and the indexed effective orifice area (IEOA) were as follows: 10 mmHg [interquartile range (IQR): 8-13] and 1.10 cm2/m2 (IQR: 0.95-1.27) for Trifecta; 16 mmHg (IQR: 11-22) and 0.96 cm2/m2 (IQR: 0.77-1.13) for Magna Ease (P <0.001). These significant differences were maintained across all valve sizes. Similar statistically significant differences were found when patients were matched and/or stratified for preoperative characteristics: Body-surface area, ejection fraction, mean gradients and valve size. Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (IEOA: 2/m2) was detected in 2 patients (0.6%) with Trifecta and 40 patients (8.5%) with Magna Ease (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The haemodynamic performance of the Trifecta bioprosthesis was superior to that of the Magna Ease valve across all conventional prosthesis sizes, with almost no incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. The long-term follow-up is needed to determine whether these significant haemodynamic differences will persist, and influence clinical outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberezv070
Pages (from-to)478-485
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery
Volume49
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 1 2016

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Aortic valve replacement
  • Bioprosthesis
  • Magna Ease
  • Patient-prosthesis mismatch
  • Tissue valve
  • Trifecta

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Colli, A., Marchetto, G., Salizzoni, S., Rinaldi, M., Di Marco, L., Pacini, D., Di Bartolomeo, R., Nicolini, F., Gherli, T., Agrifoglio, M., Borghetti, V., Khoury, G., De Paolis, M., Zoffoli, G., Mangino, D., Amorim, M. J., Manzan, E., Zucchetta, F., Balduzzi, S., & Gerosa, G. (2016). The TRIBECA study: (TRI)fecta (B)ioprosthesis (E)valuation versus (C)arpentier Magna-Ease in (A)ortic position. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 49(2), 478-485. [ezv070]. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv070