Literature DB >> 16214510

Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: clinical performance over 20 years.

W R Eric Jamieson1, Lawrence H Burr, Robert T Miyagishima, Eva Germann, Joan S Macnab, Elizabeth Stanford, Florence Chan, Michael T Janusz, Hilton Ling.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Experience with the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine bioprosthesis (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif) has been evaluated longitudinally over 20 years. Clinical performance was evaluated by actuarial and actual analysis. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated by echocardiographic/Doppler assessment. Morphology of structural failure was evaluated from pathologic examinations.
METHODS: From 1981 through 1999, 1823 patients (mean age, 68.9 +/- 10.9 years; range, 19-89 years) underwent 1847 procedures. Concomitant coronary artery bypass was performed in 788 (42.7%) patients. Previous valve procedures were performed in 107 (5.8%) patients, and other cardiac procedures were performed in 87 (4.7%) patients.
RESULTS: The overall valve-related complication rate was 4.36% per patient-year (630 patients), with a fatality rate of 0.96% per patient-year (139 patients). Patient survival at 18 years was 15.8% +/- 1.6%. Overall late mortality rate was 6.3% per patient-year. Overall actual cumulative freedom at 18 years from reoperation was 85.0% +/- 1.2%, valve-related mortality was 88.7% +/- 1.1%, and valve-related residual morbidity was 96.3% +/- 5.0%. Actual freedom from structural valve deterioration at 18 years was 86.4% +/- 1.2% overall, 90.5% +/- 1.8% for age 61 to 70 years, and 98.2% +/- 0.6% for age greater than 70 years. Structural valve deterioration presented with pathologic evidence consistent with stenosis in 27.6% and insufficiency in 72.4%. Hemodynamic performance at 1 year revealed normal effective orifice area indexes for sizes 23 to 27 mm and mild-to-moderate reduction for size 21 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis continues to provide excellent freedom from structural valve deterioration and overall freedom from valve-related residual morbidity, mortality, and reoperation up to 18 years. Hemodynamic performance is satisfactory. The prosthesis remains recommended for patients older than 70 years and for patients 61 to 70 years of age, especially when comorbid risk factors are not anticipated to provide extended survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16214510     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.03.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  15 in total

1.  Influence of pressure load on durability of pulmonic xenobioprostheses in young adults.

Authors:  Nobuyuki Takagi; Kazutoshi Tachibana; Yasuko Miyagi; Akihiko Yamauchi; Satoshi Muraki; Tetsuya Higami
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2011-07-07       Impact factor: 1.731

2.  Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: a telltale from the young.

Authors:  Athanasios Antoniou; Amer Harky; John Yap; Kulvinder Lall; Mohamad Bashir
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-05

Review 3.  A look at recent improvements in the durability of tissue valves.

Authors:  Takahiro Nishida; Ryuji Tominaga
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-01-24

4.  Aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Surgical therapy.

Authors:  T Walther; M Arsalan; J Blumenstein; A van Linden; J Kempfert
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 5.  Why I choose to repair and not to replace the aortic valve?

Authors:  Athanasios Antoniou; Amer Harky; Mohamad Bashir; Gebrine El Khoury
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-04-05

Review 6.  Surgical treatment of aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Tirone E David
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 32.419

7.  Durability of bioprosthetic cardiac valves.

Authors:  Grischa Hoffmann; Georg Lutter; Jochen Cremer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-02-22       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 8.  Heart valve replacement: which valve for which patient?

Authors:  Joseph Huh; Faisal Bakaeen
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.931

9.  Stented bioprostheses in aortic position.

Authors:  J Cremer; J Schöttler; R Petzina; G Hoffmann
Journal:  HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth       Date:  2012

10.  Prosthetic heart valve selection in women of childbearing age with acquired heart disease: a case report.

Authors:  Leonid Barbarash; Natalya Rutkovskaya; Olga Barbarash; Yuri Odarenko; Alexander Stasev; Evgenya Uchasova
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2016-03-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.