Current cohort studies comparing the Trifecta valve to alternative pericardial bioprostheses are limited by selection bias. The study aim was to determine if hemodynamics are improved after the aortic valve implantation of a Trifecta valve as compared to a standard pericardial valve, when evaluated using strict paired matching for specific key relevant confounders.Valve hemodynamics were compared in patients undergoing implantation with a Trifecta or Perimount valve matched for left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter, gender, age, body size, and days since surgery, using a 1:1 matched-paired cohort analysis (n = 20 per group).Patients receiving a Trifecta valve had a larger increase in indexed stroke volume (SVi) relative to baseline compared to the Perimount patients (p = 0.013), in whom SVi was decreased. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was lower in Trifecta patients despite the larger SVi (p = 0.02). The effective orifice area (EOA) and indexed EOA (EOAi) were significantly larger in Trifecta patients compared to Perimount patients (2.04 +/- 0.46 versus 1.77 +/- 0.45 cm2, p = 0.049; 1.10 +/- 0.22 versus 0.95 +/- 0.06 cm2/m2, p = 0.027, respectively), and there was a greater increase in EOA and EOAi from baseline (p = 0.010 for both). Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (EOAi < or = 0.65 cm2/m2) was seen in two (10%) of the Perimount cases, but in none of the patients with the Trifecta valve (p = 0.072).Trifecta valve implantation is associated with a significant improvement in EOA and a decreased incidence of PPM as compared to the Perimount valve. The superior hemodynamic outcomes observed support consideration of this valve for aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients with a small LVOT at risk for PPM.