{"title":"主动脉瓣置换术后血流动力学表现和中期临床结果：一项日本单中心研究。","authors":"Yujiro Miura, Nao Ichihara, Shinji Kawaguchi, Ryota Nomura, Masanao Nakai, Fumio Yamazaki, Tomoya Onodera, Hiroaki Kitaoka","doi":"10.1186/s13019-025-03565-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valves have become popular because of their improved durability; however, with the rise of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, bioprosthetic valves that offer superior hemodynamics are needed. This single-center observational study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta and Magna valve bioprostheses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, or aortic annulus ectasia who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement, aortic valve-preserving surgery, or the modified Bentall procedure at the Shizuoka City Shizuoka Hospital between 2013 and 2019 were recruited. Patients who received Trifecta (Trifecta group) and Magna valves (Magna group) were retrospectively analyzed. All-cause mortality rates and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 500 patients were included; 131 and 369 patients in the Trifecta and Magna groups, respectively. Both groups had a low in-hospital mortality rate (1.5%). Survival rates at 5 and 8 years were similar, with lower rates in the Trifecta group (p = 0.346). Both groups had similar major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates up to 2.7 years post-surgery, but the Trifecta group showed higher rates than did the Magna group thereafter. Over a mean period of 3.16 years, seven Trifecta patients were diagnosed with structural valve deterioration, while no patients from the Magna group were affected.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the Trifecta valve may offer better hemodynamics than those by the Magna valve, it may not necessarily improve the midterm prognosis of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement or modified Bentall procedures.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was retrospectively registered in IRB approval no., 21-85 on 21st. September. 2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":15201,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery","volume":"20 1","pages":"326"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12335085/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hemodynamic performance and midterm clinical outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement using trifecta and perimount magna valves: a Japanese single-center experience.\",\"authors\":\"Yujiro Miura, Nao Ichihara, Shinji Kawaguchi, Ryota Nomura, Masanao Nakai, Fumio Yamazaki, Tomoya Onodera, Hiroaki Kitaoka\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13019-025-03565-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valves have become popular because of their improved durability; however, with the rise of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, bioprosthetic valves that offer superior hemodynamics are needed. This single-center observational study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta and Magna valve bioprostheses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, or aortic annulus ectasia who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement, aortic valve-preserving surgery, or the modified Bentall procedure at the Shizuoka City Shizuoka Hospital between 2013 and 2019 were recruited. Patients who received Trifecta (Trifecta group) and Magna valves (Magna group) were retrospectively analyzed. All-cause mortality rates and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 500 patients were included; 131 and 369 patients in the Trifecta and Magna groups, respectively. Both groups had a low in-hospital mortality rate (1.5%). Survival rates at 5 and 8 years were similar, with lower rates in the Trifecta group (p = 0.346). Both groups had similar major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates up to 2.7 years post-surgery, but the Trifecta group showed higher rates than did the Magna group thereafter. Over a mean period of 3.16 years, seven Trifecta patients were diagnosed with structural valve deterioration, while no patients from the Magna group were affected.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the Trifecta valve may offer better hemodynamics than those by the Magna valve, it may not necessarily improve the midterm prognosis of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement or modified Bentall procedures.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was retrospectively registered in IRB approval no., 21-85 on 21st. September. 2021.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12335085/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-025-03565-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-025-03565-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Hemodynamic performance and midterm clinical outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement using trifecta and perimount magna valves: a Japanese single-center experience.
Background: Surgical bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valves have become popular because of their improved durability; however, with the rise of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, bioprosthetic valves that offer superior hemodynamics are needed. This single-center observational study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance of the Trifecta and Magna valve bioprostheses.
Methods: Patients with aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, or aortic annulus ectasia who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement, aortic valve-preserving surgery, or the modified Bentall procedure at the Shizuoka City Shizuoka Hospital between 2013 and 2019 were recruited. Patients who received Trifecta (Trifecta group) and Magna valves (Magna group) were retrospectively analyzed. All-cause mortality rates and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.
Results: A total of 500 patients were included; 131 and 369 patients in the Trifecta and Magna groups, respectively. Both groups had a low in-hospital mortality rate (1.5%). Survival rates at 5 and 8 years were similar, with lower rates in the Trifecta group (p = 0.346). Both groups had similar major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates up to 2.7 years post-surgery, but the Trifecta group showed higher rates than did the Magna group thereafter. Over a mean period of 3.16 years, seven Trifecta patients were diagnosed with structural valve deterioration, while no patients from the Magna group were affected.
Conclusion: While the Trifecta valve may offer better hemodynamics than those by the Magna valve, it may not necessarily improve the midterm prognosis of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement or modified Bentall procedures.
Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered in IRB approval no., 21-85 on 21st. September. 2021.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of research in the field of Cardiology, and Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. The journal publishes original scientific research documenting clinical and experimental advances in cardiac, vascular and thoracic surgery, and related fields.
Topics of interest include surgical techniques, survival rates, surgical complications and their outcomes; along with basic sciences, pediatric conditions, transplantations and clinical trials.
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery is of interest to cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons, cardiothoracic anaesthesiologists, cardiologists, chest physicians, and allied health professionals.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
