Trifecta GT

Lowest Mean Gradients
in Comparative Data

Single-Digit Gradients with the Trifecta Valve

The following visual illustrates that compared with the latest pericardial valves, the Trifecta valve consistently demonstrates the lowest (most favorable) gradients. Most Trifecta valve sizes achieved single-digit gradients, similar to TAVI valves.

Average Mean Pressure Gradient by Valve Size at One Year5-10,*


*For References 5-10, data are from IFU, not from a head-to-head comparison. Information provided for educational purposes only.

Why Gradients Are Critical: Higher Gradients Increase Heart Failure Risk

For each 1 mmHg increase in mean pressure gradient after aortic valve replacement, there is a 6% increased risk of congestive heart failure (CHF) or CHF-related death.11

Effective Orifice Areas (EOA)

The Trifecta valve also offers exceptional EOAs,5-10,* and positive performance was sustained during exercise.

Average Effective Orifice Area (EOA) AT ONE YEAR5-10,*


*For References 5-10, data are from IFU, not from a head-to-head comparison. Information provided for educational purposes only.

  • EOA Index Increased with Exercise
    Thorsten Hanke, et al.12

    “During exercise, the EOAI in the [Trifecta] group increased significantly until maximum exercise [p = 0.02]. . . . In contrast, there was no change in EOAI in the [Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis] group.”
     

  • Consistently Low Rates of PPM

    A retrospective review found no severe PPM with the Trifecta valve (p = 0.01).14

    Retrospective Review: 351 Patients with Small Aortic Annulus14

    Retrospective Review: 351 Patients with Small Aortic Annulus14

    Other studies have also revealed very low rates of severe PPM with the Trifecta valve.

    Retrospective Review: 791 Patients15

    Retrospective Review: 791 Patients15

     

     

    In addition, a large meta-analysis of 13 studies, with more than 2,500 patients, revealed an extremely low 2.7% rate of severe PPM with the Trifecta valve. As noted by Phan et al., this rate “is considerably lower than the 9.8% incidence in the general population undergoing aortic valve replacement.”16

Greater Left Ventricular (LV) Mass Regression with Trifecta

LV Mass Index After Aortic Valve Replacement18

An independent, propensity-matched study examined patients receiving either a Magna Ease valve (n = 141) or a Trifecta valve (n = 117). The Trifecta valve demonstrated:

  • Greater total LV mass regression
  • Greater mass regression over time
LV Mass Index After Aortic Valve Replacement18

An independent, propensity-matched study examined patients receiving either a Magna Ease valve (n = 141) or a Trifecta valve (n = 117). The Trifecta valve demonstrated:

  • Greater total LV mass regression
  • Greater mass regression over time

Lower Relative Risk Reduction with Trifecta Valve

The same comparative study described above reported these risk reduction benefits with the Trifecta valve (compared to the Magna Ease valve):18

Trifecta Valve’s High Mid-Term Durability

A number of trials established mid-term durability of the Trifecta valve.19-21

 

Trifecta Valve’s High Mid-Term Durability

A number of trials established mid-term durability of the Trifecta valve.19-21

 

Hemodynamics Determines Valve Durability

The data presented above are not unexpected given the findings of a Cleveland Clinic study that revealed the following: 13

  • To maximize durability, it’s important to optimize hemodynamics
  • Increased PPM and higher gradients at implantation are linked to valve deterioration and  explantation, especially in younger patients

AP2947045-WBO Rev. A

References
  1. Hahn RT, et al. Comparison of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis: a longitudinalstudy of echocardiography parameters in cohort A of the PARTNER trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(25):2514-2521.
  2. Reardon MJ, et al. 2-year outcomes in patients undergoing surgical or self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(2):113-121.
  3. Pibarot P, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort-A analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(13):1323-1334.
  4. Zorn GL, et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a randomized trial of a self-expanding prosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(4):1014-1023.e.3.
  5. Avalus bioprosthesis [package insert]. Minneapolis, MN: Medtronic; table 8.
  6. Intuity Elite valve system [package insert]. Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences; table 13.6.
  7. Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Manga Ease aortic heart valve [package insert]. Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences; table 7.
  8. Perceval sutureless heart valve [package insert]. London, UK: LivaNova; table 12.
  9. Edwards pericardial aortic bioprosthesis [package insert for Resilia valve]. Irvine, CA: Edwards Lifesciences; table 9.
  10. Trifecta valve [package insert]. Chicago, IL: Abbott; table 9.
  11. Ruel M, et al. Late incidence and predictors of persistent or recurrent heart failure in patients with aortic prosthetic valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:149-159. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.043.
  12. Hanke T, et al. Haemodynamic performance of a new pericardial aortic bioprosthesis during exercise and recovery: comparison with pulmonary autograft, stentless aortic bioprosthesis and healthy control groups. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;44(4):e295-e301.
  13. Johnston DR, et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:1239–1247. doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.10.070.
  14. Ghoneim A, et al. Management of small aortic annulus in the era of sutureless valves: a comparative study among different biological options. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(4):1019-1028.
  15. Colli A, et al. The TRIBECA study: (TRI)fecta (B)ioprosthesis (E)valuation versus (C)arpentier Magna-Ease in (A)ortic position. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:478–485.
  16. Phan K, et al. Early hemodynamic performance of the third generation St Jude Trifecta aortic prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(6):1567-1575.
  17. Kilic A, et al. Gone fishing: looking to catch some answers for differing mortality in the CoreValve High-Risk Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(6):1302.
  18. Rubens FD, et al. Effect of aortic pericardial valve choice on outcomes and left ventricular mass regression in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(5):1291-1298.
  19. Goldman S, et al. Midterm, multicenter clinical and hemodynamic results for the Trifecta aortic pericardial valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(3):561-569.e2.
  20. Lehmann S, et al. Midterm durability and hemodynamic performance of a third-generation bovine pericardial prosthetic aortic valve: the Leipzig experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(6):1933-1940.
  21. Anselmi A, et al. Mid-term durability of the Trifecta bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(1):21-28.
     

This site uses cookies to improve your experience.

To find out more please read our Privacy and Cookies policy.

Ok

YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER AN ABBOTT COUNTRY OR REGION SPECIFIC WEBSITE.

Please be aware that the website you have requested is intended for the residents of a particular country or countries, as noted on that site. As a result, the site may contain information on pharmaceuticals, medical devices and other products or uses of the product that are not approved in other countries or regions.