Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement
- PMID: 25527170
- PMCID: PMC4573977
- DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu466
Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement
Abstract
Objectives: Outcome of aortic valve replacement may be influenced by the choice of bioprosthesis. Pericardial heart valves are described to have a favourable haemodynamic profile compared with porcine valves, although the clinical notability of this finding is still controversially debated. Herein, we compared the long-term results of two commonly implanted bioprosthesis at a single centre.
Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with either a Carpentier-Edwards Magna pericardial prosthesis or a Medtronic Mosaic porcine prosthesis between 2002 and 2008 were analysed regarding preoperative characteristics, short- and long-term survival, valve-related complications and echocardiographic findings.
Results: The Medtronic Mosaic was implanted in 163 patients and the Carpentier-Edwards Magna in 295 patients. The sizes of implanted valves were 22.4 ± 1.5 mm for the Mosaic and 21.8 ± 1.8 mm for the Magna (P = 0.001). The long-term survival rate was 76 and 56% after 5 and 10 years for the Medtronic Mosaic, which was comparable with the Carpentier-Edwards Magna (77 and 57%; P = 0.92). Overall long-term survival was comparable with an age- and sex-matched Austrian general population for both groups. Valve-related adverse events were similar between groups. The postoperative mean transvalvular gradient was significantly increased in the Mosaic group (24 ± 9 mmHg vs 17 ± 7 mmHg; P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Both types of aortic bioprostheses offer excellent results after isolated aortic valve replacement. Despite relevant differences in gradients, long-term survival was comparable with the expected normal survival for both bioprostheses. Patients with a porcine heart valve had a higher postoperative transvalvular gradient.
Keywords: Aortic valve replacement; Biological heart valves; Bioprosthesis; Survival analysis.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.
Figures


References
-
- Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Baron-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): the Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;42:S1–44. - PubMed
-
- Wiedemann D, Bernhard D, Laufer G, Kocher A. The elderly patient and cardiac surgery—a mini-review. Gerontology 2010;56:241–9. - PubMed
-
- Jamieson SW, Madani MM. The choice of valve prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:389–90. - PubMed
-
- Riess FC, Cramer E, Hansen L, Schiffelers S, Wahl G, Wallrath J, et al. Clinical results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis up to 13 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010;37:145–53. - PubMed
-
- Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM, III, Thomas JD, Blackstone EH, Rajeswaran J, Okies JE, et al. Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:1460–5. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources