Literature DB >> 22440366

Do pericardial bioprostheses improve outcome of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?

Sameh M Said1, Elena Ashikhmina, Kevin L Greason, Rakesh M Suri, Soon J Park, Richard C Daly, Harold M Burkhart, Joseph A Dearani, Thoralf M Sundt, Hartzell V Schaff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pericardial bioprostheses have favorable echocardiographic hemodynamics in the aortic position compared with porcine valves; however, there are few data comparing clinical outcomes. Our objective was to assess the late results of the two valve types.
METHODS: We reviewed 2,979 patients aged 65 years or older undergoing aortic valve replacement with pericardial (n=1,976) or porcine (n=1,003) prostheses between January 1993 and December 2007. The most common pericardial prostheses were Carpentier-Edwards Perimount and Mitroflow, and the most common porcine valves were Medtronic Mosaic, Carpentier-Edwards, Hancock modified orifice, and St. Jude Biocor. Follow-up extended to a maximum of 16 years (mean, 5.2±3.5 years).
RESULTS: Survival at 5, 10 and 12 years was, respectively, 68%, 33%, and 21% overall, was 68%, 30%, and 16% for patients with pericardial bioprosthesis, and was 69%, 38% and 27% for the porcine group. In a multivariate model, long-term survival was reduced in patients with diabetes, renal failure, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and older age, but late survival was not higher in the pericardial valve group. Overall freedom from reoperation was 96%, 92%, and 90% at 5, 10, and 12 years, and freedom from explant was 98%, 96%, and 94% during the same period. The reason for explant was structural valve deterioration in 50 patients (2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the better hemodynamic performance documented in prior investigations, pericardial valves do not confer any survival advantage over porcine valves in patients aged 65 years or older undergoing aortic valve replacement.
Copyright © 2012 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22440366     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.01.061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  6 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Martin Andreas; Stephanie Wallner; Kurt Ruetzler; Dominik Wiedemann; Marek Ehrlich; Georg Heinze; Thomas Binder; Anton Moritz; Michael J Hiesmayr; Alfred Kocher; Guenther Laufer
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 4.191

3.  Mechanical versus Tissue Aortic Prosthesis in Sexagenarians: Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Jongbae Son; Yang Hyun Cho; Dong Seop Jeong; Kiick Sung; Wook Sung Kim; Young Tak Lee; Pyo Won Park
Journal:  Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-04-05

4.  Glutaraldehyde and 2,3-butanediol treatment of bovine pericardium for aortic valve bioprosthesis in sheep: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Kai Ren; Weixun Duan; Zhuowen Liang; Bo Yu; Buying Li; Zhengxiao Jin; Yimin Zhao; Chao Xue; Shiqiang Yu; Jincheng Liu; Xufeng Wei
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-12

Review 5.  Contemporary outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses and allografts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Simone A Huygens; Mostafa M Mokhles; Milad Hanif; Jos A Bekkers; Ad J J C Bogers; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Johanna J M Takkenberg
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 4.191

6.  Pericardial Versus Porcine Valves for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Hong Ju Shin; Wan Kee Kim; Jin Kyoung Kim; Joon Bum Kim; Sung-Ho Jung; Suk Jung Choo; Cheol Hyun Chung; Jae Won Lee
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 3.243

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.