RESUMEN
On July 31, 2023, the Trifecta valve was withdrawn from the market after concerns regarding early (≤5 years) structural valve deterioration (SVD), mainly as aortic regurgitation (AR). Our aim was to determine the timing, mechanism, and impact of bioprosthetic SVD in patients who underwent redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) with either redo-SAVR or valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Trifecta versus other bioprosthetic valves. Patients who underwent redo-AVR for SVD at our institution were categorized into 2 groups based on the valve type: Trifecta versus non-Trifecta. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare mortality. A total of 171 patients were included; 58 (34%) had previous SAVR with a Trifecta valve and 113 (66%) with non-Trifecta valve. A total of 103 patients (60%) underwent valve-in-valve TAVR and 68 redo-SAVR (40%). The age, gender, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were similar between Trifecta and non-Trifecta groups. In patients with bioprosthetic valves requiring redo-AVR, Trifecta valves had an earlier onset of greater than moderate AR (4.5 vs 11.9 years, p <0.001) and earlier time to redo-AVR (5.5 vs 12 years, p <0.001). AR was more common as the mechanism of SVD in Trifecta versus non-Trifecta valves (55.2% vs 30.1%, p = 0.006). All-cause adjusted mortality from index SAVR was higher in the Trifecta than in non-Trifecta group (hazard ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 11.5, p = 0.007). In conclusion, compared with non-Trifecta valves, Trifecta valves exhibit early SVD primarily as AR and progress rapidly to significant SVD requiring redo-AVR. Mortality is significantly higher with Trifecta than in non-Trifecta valves, potentially impacting the results of SAVR versus TAVR studies.