Abstract 15322: Trifecta vs. Mitroflow: Superior Hemodynamics Despite Similar Design
Purpose: Hemodynamic results of stented tissue valves are influenced by both valve design and sizing strategy. The Mitroflow and the Trifecta have an innovative design where the pericardium is wrapped around the stent. The goal of this study was to compare both valves giving special consideration to the suggested sizing strategies.
Methods: We obtained pressure gradients from discharge echocardiograms from all patients having received an isolated Trifecta (n=104) or Mitroflow (n=246) between 01/2007 and 01/2014. We compared the results by size label and by the most likely selected size according to the suggested sizing strategy. This is important because the prostheses, despite having a similar design, have different diameters for the same size label and different sizing strategies.
Results: The majority of implanted valves were size labels 21 and 23 (82.7% of the Trifecta and 74.8% of the Mitroflow). Mean pressure radients were lowest with Trifecta (Trifecta vs. Mitroflow, label-21: 11.4±4.65 vs 13.6±5.23 mmHg, label-23: 9.23±3.38 vs. 11.8±4.42 mmHg, p< 0.05, and label-25: 11.2±4.97 vs 12.0±4.46 mmHg, n.s.). The sizers for the Trifecta are metric, while those for the Mitroflow are 2-3 mm larger than the corresponding size label. It is therefore likely that for a patient with a 23 mm aortic annulus, a 23 Trifecta but often only a 21 Mitroflow is selected. Thus, comparing the Trifecta to the Mitroflow not by size label but by selected valve (e.g., 23 vs. 21) would therefore only increase the difference.
Conclusion: The Trifecta shows a hemodynamic advantage over the Mitroflow which is not likely associated with the applied
Author Disclosures: M. Diab: None. G. Faerber: None. I. Tsanava: None. M. Breuer: None. M. Walther: None. P.A. Amorim: None. T. Doenst: None.
- © 2014 by American Heart Association, Inc.