This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gao, G. Articles by Starr, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gao, G. Articles by Starr, A.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: ANTI-INFLAMMATORY THERAPY IN CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves

^* Providence Health System, Portland, Oregon, USA

Manuscript received August 22, 2003; revised manuscript received December 30, 2003, accepted January 27, 2004.

^* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. YingXing Wu, 9205 SW Barnes Road, #33LL, Portland, Oregon 97225, USA.
YingXing.Wu{at}providence.org

OBJECTIVES: This study compares the long-term performance of the Carpentier-Edwards (CE) porcine bioprosthesis and the CE pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR).

BACKGROUND: With new bioprostheses on the horizon, there is renewed interest in how the long-term durability of current pericardial bioprostheses compares with the traditional porcine bioprosthesis.

METHODS: We reviewed 518 AVR with CE porcine valves from 1974 to 1996 and 1,021 AVR with CE pericardial valves from 1991 to 2002. The age distribution and clinical profiles were similar for both groups. The total (mean) follow-up was 3,322 (6.4) years for porcine and 2,556 (2.5) years for pericardial.

RESULTS: Long-term mortality was similar (p = 0.29) for porcine and pericardial, with 10-year survival rates of 34 ± 2% and 38 ± 6%, respectively. Ten-year freedom from major adverse cardiac events was also similar for both (respectively): thromboembolism (80 ± 2% and 87 ± 2%; p = 0.24); endocarditis (98 ± 1% and 99 ± 1%; p = 0.30). However, 10-year freedom from explant was lower for porcine (90 ± 2%) than for pericardial (97 ± 1%, p = 0.04). Reasons for explant for porcine were structural valve deterioration (SVD) (n = 25), endocarditis (n = 4), and periprosthetic leak (n = 2). The reasons for explant for pericardial were SVD (n = 4), endocarditis (n = 4) and periprosthetic leak (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS: The current CE pericardial valve offers better midterm durability than the traditional CE porcine valve. Its freedom from SVD and reoperation makes it our current bioprosthesis of choice for AVR in appropriately selected patients.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   AVR = aortic valve replacement   CE = Carpentier-Edwards   FDA = Food and Drug Administration   KM = Kaplan-Meier   SVD = structural valve deterioration

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. W.A. van Geldorp, W.R. Eric Jamieson, A. P. Kappetein, J. Ye, G. J. Fradet, M. J.C. Eijkemans, G. L. Grunkemeier, A. J.J.C. Bogers, and J. J.M. Takkenberg Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: Weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2009; 137(4): 881 - 886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Bakhtiary, O. Dzemali, U. Steinseiffer, C. Schmitz, B. Glasmacher, A. Moritz, and P. Kleine Hydrodynamic comparison of biological prostheses during progressive valve calcification in a simulated exercise situation. An in vitro study Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2008; 34(5): 960 - 963. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W.A. van Geldorp, W.R. E. Jamieson, A. P. Kappetein, J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, M. J.C. Eijkemans, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. J.M. Takkenberg, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Usefulness of microsimulation to translate valve performance into patient outcome: Patient prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier Edwards supra-annular valve J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2007; 134(3): 702 - 709. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D'Onofrio, S. Auriemma, P. Magagna, A. Favaro, A. Cannarella, C. Piccin, M. Bilotta, N. Abbiate, N. Lamascese, and A. Fabbri Aortic valve replacement with the Sorin Pericarbon Freedom stentless prosthesis: 7 years' experience in 130 patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2007; 134(2): 491 - 495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H.L. Tang, M. Maganti, T. E. David, C. M. Feindel, H. E. Scully, and M. A. Borger Effect of Prior Valve Type on Mortality in Reoperative Valve Surgery Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2007; 83(3): 938 - 945. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Rizzoli, S. Mirone, P. Ius, E. Polesel, T. Bottio, L. Salvador, C. Zussa, G. Gerosa, and C. Valfre Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: A multicenter experience. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2006; 132(3): 602 - 609.e4. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Flameng, B. Meuris, J. Yperman, G. De Visscher, P. Herijgers, and E. Verbeken Factors influencing calcification of cardiac bioprostheses in adolescent sheep J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., July 1, 2006; 132(1): 89 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Elkayam and F. Bitar Valvular Heart Disease and Pregnancy: Part II: Prosthetic Valves J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 2, 2005; 46(3): 403 - 410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S. Bach, N. D. Kon, J. G. Dumesnil, C. F. Sintek, and D. B. Doty Ten-Year Outcome After Aortic Valve Replacement with the Freestyle Stentless Bioprosthesis Ann. Thorac. Surg., August 1, 2005; 80(2): 480 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Rahimtoola The year in valvular heart disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 4, 2005; 45(1): 111 - 122. [Full Text] [PDF]