Different Rates of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Failure With Perimount (TM) and Trifecta (TM) Bioprostheses

ObjectivesThe use of bioprostheses in surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has increased in younger patients. Comparative analysis of different types of bioprostheses is lacking. We aimed to compare two proprietary bioprostheses with different designs, i.e., internally and externally mounted leaflets, focusing on the long-term durability and survival. MethodsWe conducted a large single-center retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent SAVR with either Perimount (TM) or Trifecta (TM) bioprostheses between 2001 and 2019. The patient groups were further subdivided by age 65. Endpoints of the study were all-cause mortality and reoperation due to bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). ResultsSelection criteria resulted in a total sample of 5,053 patients; 2,630 received a Perimount prosthesis (internally mounted leaflets) and 2,423 received a Trifecta prosthesis (externally mounted leaflets). The mean age at surgery was similar (69 +/- 11 y, PM, and 68 +/- 10 y, TF, p = 0.9), as was estimated survival at 8 years (76.1 +/- 1.3%, PM, and 63.7 +/- 1.9% TF; p=0.133). Patients in the Trifecta group had a significantly higher cumulative reoperation rate at 8 years compared to those in the Perimount group (16.9 +/- 1.9% vs. 3.8 +/- 0.4%; p < 0.01). This difference persisted across age groups (<65 y, 13.3% TF vs. 8.6% PM; >65 y, 12% TF vs. 7% PM). ConclusionBioprostheses for SAVR with externally mounted leaflets (Trifecta) showed significantly higher long-term reoperation rates compared to those with internally mounted leaflets (Perimount), regardless of the patient's age at SAVR. Survival was similar with both bioprostheses.