Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 5, 2025

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
Early Midterm Results After Valve Replacement With Contemporary Pericardial Prostheses for Severe Aortic Stenosis
Fraser D Rubens1, Janet Ngu1, Anahita Malvea1
1Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Background:
Clinical studies have demonstrated improved gradients after aortic valve replacement with the Trifecta (TR) valve (Abbott Cardiovascular, St Paul, MN) as compared with the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease (ME) valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Clinical benefits of this strategy have not been demonstrated.
Methods:
Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis with either valve were included. Patients were excluded if they underwent concomitant procedures other than coronary artery bypass grafting. Inverse proportion treatment weighting was used in the analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac mortality, need for reintervention, and freedom from first congestive heart failure (CHF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the composite components, and cumulative CHF admission. Follow-up echocardiograms were assessed in a cohort of patients to assess structural valve degeneration.
Results:
There were 331 patients in the TR group and 360 patients in the ME group. The TR group had more women (48% vs 32%, P < .001) with smaller roots (left ventricular outflow tract diameter: TR, 2.11 cm; ME, 2.17 cm; P < .001). After weighting there was no significant difference in the composite measure between groups (P > .05). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.59; P = .56), and 5-year survival was 91.9% in the ME group and 93.4% in the TR group. There was no difference in cardiac death, reintervention, or first onset of CHF or incidence of structural valve degeneration between groups. There was no difference in the rate of admissions for CHF per 100 patients between the 2 valve types (P = .19).
Conclusions:
Early hemodynamic benefits have not translated into differences in medium-term clinical outcomes between these 2 valves. Long-term follow-up is necessary.
More Related Videos
14:14Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
05:31Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement from Autologous Pericardium with a Self-Expandable Nitinol Stent in an Adult Sheep Model
Published on: June 8, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis I: Introduction
Mitral Stenosis II: Clinical features and Diagnostic Tests