Impact of postoperative patient-prosthesis mismatch as a risk factor for early structural valve deterioration after aortic valve replacement with Trifecta bioprosthesis

Table 3 Clinical details of patients with Trifecta valve structural valve deterioration

No.	Age (years), sex	Valve size (mm)	Postoperative EOAI (cm²/m²)	Durability (month)	mPG at last follow-up TTE (mmHg)	AR at last follow-up TTE	Redo Indication	Redo Surgery	Details
1	72, F	19	0.82	4	14	3	AR	SAVR	Cusp tear and pannus
2	76, F	19	0.78	19	29	4	AR	SAVR	Cusp tear
3	76, M	21	0.94	24	26	4	AR	SAVR	Cusp tear and pannus
4	79, F	19	0.64	34	18	4	AR	SAVR	Cusp tear
5	77, M	21	0.52	49	15	3	AR	SAVR	Cusp tear and attachment to Valsalva sinus
6	65, F	19	0.57	67	28	3	AsR	TAVR
7	79, F	19	1.1	86	54	2	AS	TAVR

F, female; M, male; mPG, mean pressure gradient; AR, aortic regurgitation; TTE, transthoracic echo; AsR, aortic stenosis and regurgitation; AS, aortic stenosis; SAVR, surgical aortic valve replacement; TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ISSN: 1749-8090